"16-0"

[Talking Poker]

What are your thoughts on teams getting to 14-0 or so and then not going for the perfect season? ie, yesterday, when the Colts were up 5 points and decided to bench Manning early and put in their backup scrub QB who very easily cost them the game and the perfect season?

I understand it's a matter of priorities, and obviously the Colts priority is being well rested for the playoffs and trying to win another Super Bowl. I personally just disagree with that logic. I think an undefeated season is something to be very proud of, and ranks your team right up there with the best of the best of all time. I think pulling your starters early in the final couple of games, and basically not trying your hardest and not caring if you win or lose is lame. It's quitting. Not only that, but it can certainly affect other teams playoff chances too. If Manning stays in and the Jets lose, that opens up a playoff spot for another team. How do you think they (and their fans) feel about the Colts half assing it?

This is something that has always bothered me about the NFL.

Final point: I saw an interview the other day with someone from the 72 Dolphins and they asked him if he could only choose one: The perfect season, his Super Bowl ring, or getting into the HOF, which would he choose. He said they all mean a lot to him, obv, but the perfect season is the most special to him.

That says a lot.

[Reel Deal]

The Colts track record when they rest starters at the end of the regular season speaks for itself. That said, if Manning gets hurt in a meaningless regular season game, the coach would be crucified. It's a tough decision, but I think looking at how poorly they played in past playoffs when they rested guys for the last few reg season games, I think I'm playing the starters as much as possible.

[Wes]

When a team doesn't have much to play for at the end of the regular season, they seem to get complacent and that seems to bleed into the postseason. So perhaps playing to stay undefeated should be that motivator, instead of trying to stay healthy for the postseason.

But, as RD pointed out, the coach would get hammered if people get hurt.

[Kurn]

In '07, the Pats played the final 2 games to win, not to rest the starters. As a fan, I said throughout that season that I'd rather have them win the Super Bowl than go 16-0 in the regular season and lose.

OTOH, one risk of resting key players is getting stale, and in football, there are almost as many injuries in practice (though not to QBs) as there are in games.

A few weeks ago, I thought despite W-L records, the Vikings were the best team, but right now I think that's the Chargers. I'm not convinced the Saints or the Colts are big favorites. The Colts could've lost 3 games before this weekend, and the Saints have dominated exactly one team in the last 6 weeks

As for me, I almost didn't care if some other team went 16-0 this year and won the Super Bowl just to shut up Mercury Morris.

In the Colts' case - now they have to win it all or their fans will crucify them.

[GTDawg]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If they lose in the second week of the playoffs or the AFC championship game, they could get destroyed for not resting their starters or for sitting them too long and causing Manning to lose his timing with receivers.

If anyone in the starting line-up gets injured, the THEY HAD THINGS LOCKED UP AND GOT GREEDY WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MATTER crowd goes nuts.

who cares

Given the Colts record in years where they locked things up early, I would think that playing the starters would be a reasonable answer. However, one injury and Caldwell never hears the end of it.

The only thing that works is winning that final game in February. People will argue until they are blue in the face about the right strategy. If you don't have a ring at the end of it, then they were both bad strategies.

Also, someone should punch Mercury Morris in the face.

[lightfungus]

I hate it. I was thinking about being a fan of a team that had the chance to go for the perfect season, and then going to game 15 and having that happen? If health is such an issue, I would rather shorten the season by 2 games because what is the point of 4 preseason games that cause 2 more of them at the end of the season. It's dumb. I want real football. Coaches and GMs need to figure out how to get their players all the through the season without this crap at the end of the year.

I might change my mind after a couple of days, but right now I think it is ridiculous.

[Talking Poker]

If I had paid for tickets to that game, I'd be livid. I think I'd be justified in asking for a refund of the difference between what I paid, and the cost of a preseason game, since that's what I got to see.

At least when you buy preseason tickets, you know what you are paying for.

And I'd be pissed if I was a Steelers fan too.

[Wes]

I would be more angry that this is the team that lost to the Chiefs, Raiders, and Browns.

[Zybomb]

Unless it differs for other teams, preseason games and regular season games are the same price for season ticket holders

Oh yea... and my input for this topic... obvious rest the starters and don't fuck up the Jets postseason hopes -- thanx

Oh yea we're 9 pt favorites to do what has a "0% chance of happening give or take 0%"

[Talking Poker]

I forgot the Colts were sissy quitters when I posted that.

[Zybomb]

Oh I fully mentioned that I thought that the Colt's starters would only play a half hence why I thought we'd win...

That said they wound up playing more than a half, they played halfway thought he 3rd quarter.... and the game was tight 15-10 when they left. Not saying we would've won the game anyway had they stayed in , but just that they weren't running away with anything, it was a close 1 score game when the were pulled

[Talking Poker]

[Gordogg]

Let's not forget that the undefeated season wasn't the only record the Colts had going for them, they had a 23 game winning streak dating back to last season. That's fucking insane to dominate NFL football like they have. Why go into the playoffs with a possiblilty of an 0 and 2 losing streak looming overhead when you could go roaring in as an undefeated machine of a football team? Let alone, create history along the way?

I also agree with the fan aspect of it. I don't want to pay full price for a ticket to watch a second rate football team. Either offer some kind of refund deal when that happens or play your starters and give the fans what they paid to see.

[Zybomb]

Like has been said this is damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

If Manning had been left in and gone down with a season ending injury, all the talk would be about how Caldwell is a fool for leaving in his starters and risking injuries to them for a meaningless game which can not affect them in the postseason.

[Gordogg]

These games are meaningless on paper, but I believe they are important to the mentality of your team. Of course injuries could happen, that risk is always there. But isn't the risk worth the reward of keeping your starters in and keeping the machine well oiled to roll all the way to a super bowl victory?

How many times have you seen a team dominate in the regular season, rest players last two games, then you add the bye week, and wallah they look rusty and perform under expectations? Marty Schottenheimer has coached many of those teams.

[Zybomb]

I believe "momentum" to be a figment of the imagination so....


but yea i believe in ppl being rusty though

[Kurn]

I've heard it said more than once that the Bengals won't "show the Jets anything" since they might play them next week in the playoffs."

Sounds dumb to me. If you might play the same team next week in the playoffs wouldn't you rather go into that game with them knowing you kicked their ass the week before?

[Talking Poker]

I don't like these dumb "What If" scenarios. How many times out of the last 14 (or 23, or forever) games has Manning gone down with a season ending injury? Yes, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely and a dumb argument.

How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?

Oh right, we don't talk about that... only the 50 times less likely (I believe that is accurate) scenario of Manning going down and ending his season.

[GTDawg]

"How about this "What If:" What if the Colts had left their starters in, gone on to win the game injury free, extended their 2 season win streak, and been one step closer to NFL history and having a truly perfect season?"

The mythical benefits of being closer to the NFL history related to a 2 season record or the perfect season aren't comparable to the very real risks related to injuring Peyton Manning.

In the end, it matters if you have a ring at the end of the year or not. How you go about accomplishing that doesn't really matter.

[Kurn]

The risk may be "real", but how real? No quarterback has been sacked as seldom as Manning, so the risk is purely theoretical. Not playing Manning because of this minute risk is like not calling a preflop all-in with QQ, knowing your opponent has 77 because of the risk of him flopping a set. (as Hellmuth once claimed he did)

[Zybomb]

See the difference is you believe this matters. I do not, nor does the Colts organization obviously. What matters is a ring. These last two games are meaningless in their pursuit of one, so taking unnecessary risks seems...well...unnecessary

The Pats had their perfect season 2 years ago. They didn't get the ring. The season was a failure. End of story

[Kurn]

I agree that the ring is the most important thing, but you can't convince me there is any correlation between not resting their main starters in week 17 and the result of a game a month later.

[Zybomb]

No not at all. My point was that the perfect season was easily trumped by the lack of a ring. A perfect season is irrelevant if you don't win the Super Bowl.

[GTDawg]

Manning HAS been sacked though. He's been hit. He's been knocked down. The same goes for every other starter.

The risk is not purely theoretical just because it hardly ever happens.

Players get hurt all the time. And, after 15 weeks, I would assume every player would gladly accept some time off to rest.

The RISK of getting injured is far more real than the BENEFIT received from playing players after their position in the playoffs is secured.

Also, Hellmuth is a dumbass.
**
To add, if we are looking at the poker side of things, I would think that the more valid comparison would be something like a satellite tournament where 9 identical seats are available for the Main Event. There are 10 people still in the satty and the 10th person has a handful of chips left while you have an above average stack and have a simple walk to the Main Event.

You have QQ and the person with 77 has more chips than you or an identical stack.

In that situation, there is no real tangible benefit to playing the hand. You won't be getting a BETTER position in the tournament if you win the hand, but if you lose the hand you'll be out or so crippled that your chances of winning a seat are dramatically diminished.

Of course, it isn't an ideal description since you wouldn't be starting the Main Event with 5000 chips if you lose the hand (akin to starting the Playoffs without Manning or Wayne etc).

It does make the idea of folding the hand seem more plausible considering the possible odds of any given scenario.

Maybe I play incredibly scared, but if there are 10 people left for 9 seats at the Main Event...I'm not putting my seat on the line to beat someone else when there is no realistic benefit for me doing so. Yes, I'll get to put my name on a trophy saying that I won a satty, but what does that get me?

[Kurn]

I agree 100%