LongLiveRalph Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hopefully the talking heads will leave this issue alone in the future, and let coaches determine the best course of action for their team. The Saints and Colts clinched early, tanked a few games at the end of the season, and rested some key starters and other banged-up players. Meanwhile, the Patriots enter the playoffs without their best player, who was injured on a meaningless play in a meaningless game. This season, it worked out for the two best teams, who rested their players. Two years ago, it worked out for the Giants and Patriots, who played hard right thru week 17 and all the way to the Super Bowl. Can we simply determine that it's the organization's discretion, there is no "right answer", and we can all stop with the nonsense? Winning makes you smart. Losing makes you dumb. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I think this would have only come up if the Jets won yesterday. The we'd be hearing about karma for the next 40 years. I disagreed with the Colts' decision to sit the starters, but it worked out. I also disagreed with the Patriots* playing everyone through the entire Houston game. You're right - it's up to the organization's coaches & front office, but everyone will have an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 the people who should STFU are the FANS. They are the ones bitching and whining about perfect seasons. !@#$ that. BOTH Teams that rested starters are now in the superbowl. Coaches don't coach for perfect regular seasons, they coach for superbowls. I hope Bill Polian sticks it in their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthtobrint Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 You're correct. There is no right answer. Resting the players or playing them does not guarantee a super bowl championship. Both methods have worked. Therefore, they could've easily had both the record and the super bowl while losing nothing. The inevitable Wes Welker argument becomes moot when you notice how early in the game that injury occurred. He played less time in that game than Peyton Manning played in Buffalo through a snowstorm no less. There was a better chance of Manning getting injured than Welker. If you're going to rest the players, rest the players. Why bother play Manning at all? The answer is that they do care about records, but selectively. They made sure to continue Manning's start streak, and marched Wayne and Clark onto a slick, snowy field until they got their 100th receptions. Polian spoke with pride about their record of most wins in the decade. For no apparent reason they've decided the decade wins record matters, 100 receptions matters, Manning's streak matters, yet a perfect season does not matter. Whether they win a super bowl this season or not, it will not be because they did or did not rest their starters (with a bye week already in place to rest) and will not change my opinion they mismanaged their chance at history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Whether they win a super bowl this season or not, it will not be because they did or did not rest their starters (with a bye week already in place to rest) and will not change my opinion they mismanaged their chance at history. Or they decided that the team would perform better in the playoffs and Superbowl without the additional pressure of thinking about the perfect season. Not only resting the starters physically but also mentally - allowing them to focus on one game rather than their chance at history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthtobrint Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Or they decided that the team would perform better in the playoffs and Superbowl without the additional pressure of thinking about the perfect season. Not only resting the starters physically but also mentally - allowing them to focus on one game rather than their chance at history. One could argue that they put just as much pressure on themselves to prove their actions right. Nothing short of a super bowl victory would do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 And resting the starters, giving the Jets the game almost cost the Colts because they came back to face them in the playoffs, just like it bit the Bengals. Like the saying goes "You don't put off tomorrow what you can take care of today". Either of those teams take the game seriously and beat the jets, they don't face them in the playoffs. Luckily for the Colts, it worked out for them in the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted January 26, 2010 Author Share Posted January 26, 2010 And resting the starters, giving the Jets the game almost cost the Colts because they came back to face them in the playoffs, just like it bit the Bengals. Like the saying goes "You don't put off tomorrow what you can take care of today". Either of those teams take the game seriously and beat the jets, they don't face them in the playoffs. Luckily for the Colts, it worked out for them in the end But don't you think, that if you asked the Colts in week 16, they would rather play the Jets at home in the AFC Championship for chance to go to the Super Bowl? At that point, the Chargers looked like one of the best teams in the league, the Ravens were always dangerous, the Patriots still had Wes Welker, and Houston was fighting with the Jets to be the last team into the mix, and were clicking on both sides of the ball and on a serious winning streak. The Jets had a rookie QB who they were trying to hide, and were without their dynamic all-purpose back Leon Washington. I'd have to say, anybody would've rather played the Jets at that point. Even in week 17, Cincinnatti had to like their chance of getting Sanchez on the road in his first playoff game, rather than beating them to keep them out of the playoffs and then having to face a dangerous Houston team that had won 5 in row. I can appreciate what you're saying about knocking them out when you have the chance...But I think most teams would've preferred to play the Jets and their unsteady rookie QB at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Hopefully the talking heads will leave this issue alone in the future, and let coaches determine the best course of action for their team. The Saints and Colts clinched early, tanked a few games at the end of the season, and rested some key starters and other banged-up players. Meanwhile, the Patriots enter the playoffs without their best player, who was injured on a meaningless play in a meaningless game. This season, it worked out for the two best teams, who rested their players. Two years ago, it worked out for the Giants and Patriots, who played hard right thru week 17 and all the way to the Super Bowl. Can we simply determine that it's the organization's discretion, there is no "right answer", and we can all stop with the nonsense? Winning makes you smart. Losing makes you dumb. The end. Absolutely not, I wanted both teams to be undefeated and then I would never have to watch Shula and company root to preserve the only undefeated regular and post season... the people who should STFU are the FANS. They are the ones bitching and whining about perfect seasons. !@#$ that. Lol, coming from one of the most opinionated posters on this board....Classic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 If Manning goes down in a meaningless game against the Jets or Bills, their season is done. All the criticism comes from Monday morning quarterbacking journalists who just want to write about a perfect season. Easy to make decisions when YOUR job is not on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted January 26, 2010 Author Share Posted January 26, 2010 If Manning goes down in a meaningless game against the Jets or Bills, their season is done. All the criticism comes from Monday morning quarterbacking journalists who just want to write about a perfect season. Easy to make decisions when YOUR job is not on the line. Exactly. Somebody asked me at the end of the regular season who I thought the NFL MVP should be. I said Curtis Painter made a better case for Peyton Manning than anybody possibly could have!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 One could argue that they put just as much pressure on themselves to prove their actions right. Nothing short of a super bowl victory would do so. Maybe, but that pressure is on the coaches/management, not on the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthtobrint Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 If Manning goes down in a meaningless game against the Jets or Bills, their season is done. All the criticism comes from Monday morning quarterbacking journalists who just want to write about a perfect season. Easy to make decisions when YOUR job is not on the line. And yet they still played Manning multiple series in both games. He also played the entire game against the Jaguars despite clinching home field advantage throughout the playoffs the previous week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts