Unfair to other AFC teams what the colts did.

[BillsOwnAll]

I know its not bills related but i want to get everyone's opinion on this. With the AFC playoff race tight as it is. I think its unfair to the other teams that the colts were winning then seemingly didn't try to win. Just think if the bills were one of the teams that needed the jets to lose. It would piss everyone off. I don't know what kinda rules you could make for this but in shear respect for the game you should never not try in a meaningful game.


Thoughts?

[justasportsfan]

this is why it's important that you control your own destiny instead of needing help from other teams. If the bills needed a colts win to back up into the playoffs, then we don't deserve to be in it to begin with.

What is important to other teams is no importance to the colts. Their goal is to win the sb and everyone else can watch them win it.

[mikemac2001]

the point is

You play to win the game if they were worried about peyton getting hurt don't even play him

[BillsOwnAll]

this is why it's important that you control your own future instead of needing help from other teams. If the bills needed a colts win to back up into the playoffs, then we don't deserve to be in it to begin with.


That is a good point but it still would piss people off to see a team not trying out there agaisnt a team you need to lose.

[justasportsfan]

the point is

You play to win the game if they were worried about peyton getting hurt don't even play him
whose to say they weren't trying to win the game with their back ups?

[MikeInRoch]

Disagree. The team's first priority is to the team, not to everyone else. The Colts should do what they think is in the best interest of the Colts trying to win a Super Bowl. Whether or not what they did actually accomplished that is another question...

[Coach Sal]

The Bills were in the same position a couple times and once Marv Levy was told the same thing by someone.

His response (paraphrasing):
"We have no obligation to any team but ourselves. We earned the right to play it however we want. We can't worry about what any other team wants or needs."

I agree 100%. Imagine of Jim Kelly got hurt and Marv said, "yeah, we played him because we wanted to make sure it was fair for the rest of the teams fighting for playoff spots."

[Dozerdog]

the point is

You play to win the game if they were worried about peyton getting hurt don't even play him


The game they are playing to win is the Super Bowl. Can't do that if Peyton blows out a knee.


It's a less than 1% chance, but why risk it? The on ly reason I would have played starters longer is to placate my paying audience. Those in the Dome at Indy are the only ones I feel bad for- paying top dollar to see an exhibition game. If it was a road game, Id sit them myself.

[mikemac2001]

whose to say they weren't trying to win the game with their back ups?


colts had a better chance to win with me at qb

[RockStar36]

To the main point of the thread, the Colts did this a few years back (if I remember correctly) and hosed the Browns out of a playoff spot.

[Dozerdog]

The Bills were in the same position a couple times and once Marv Levy was told the same thing by someone.

His response (paraphrasing):
"We have no obligation to any team but ourselves. We earned the right to play it however we want. We can't worry about what any other team wants or needs."

I agree 100%. Imagine of Jim Kelly got hurt and Marv said, "yeah, we played him because we wanted to make sure it was fair for the rest of the teams fighting for playoff spots."


Remember the final game of 1992? Kelly got knocked out of that one and he sat for a couple of playoff games. Indy doesn't have a Frank Reich to rely on

[Dozerdog]

To the main point of the thread, the Colts did this a few years back (if I remember correctly) and hosed the Browns out of a playoff spot.

I'm sure the Browns hosed themselves. Win 11 games and you don't have to worry about someone hosing you out of the playoffs

[RockStar36]

I'm sure the Browns hosed themselves. Win 11 games and you don't have to worry about someone hosing you out of the playoffs

True. Just making the point that this has happened before.

I would normally slightly agree with the Colts resting, but not this time. They pulled a real chicken **** move on Sunday.

[Mr. Pink]

If the Browns won in week 16 against the Bengals that year they wouldn't have needed a Titans loss to the Colts in week 17.

It also would have rendered their week 17 matchup, that they won, vs the Niners meaningless.

The Browns lost on an tiebreaker, conference record i believe, to the Titans.

[Dozerdog]

It goes the other way too. A team eliminated from the playoffs playing backups and getting smoked impacts playoff races too.

Lots of people on this board, regardless if Fitz or Edwards were healthy or not were clamoring to put in Brian Brohm.

Or when your team stinks, and you want them to sandbag for a higher draft pick. That stinks even more than what people claim Indy did

[Mr. Pink]

No other team should ***** about what the Colts did.

If you take care of your own business then you don't have to rely on help from someone else.

[mikemac2001]

the problem i have is

*He played 3 qtrs
*The Offense was not in sync
* Manning was missing plays he normally Hits
* Chance they face the jets who now have confidence againist them
* You play to win everyone knew once painter was in the game was over
* You could see the players wanted it its not like this happens every year
* i hate the dolphins

[EricStratton]

The Jets ended up getting the lucky break here. They needed two wins and got the Colts with back-up players for 25+ minutes and they get the Bengals with nothing to gain and in the mode of running a vanilla O and D because they may face the Jets the following week.

The NFL is almost as much about when you play as who you play.

[RockStar36]

Another reason this was a bad move is the fact that the Jets are still clearly in it. I could almost see the Colts doing it against the Bills since they are out of it, but what if this move by Indy pushed the Jets into the playoffs and they face each other again?

[justasportsfan]

True. Just making the point that this has happened before.

I would normally slightly agree with the Colts resting, but not this time. They pulled a real chicken **** move on Sunday.

going 16-0 is winning a battle at the risk of losing the war.

[justasportsfan]

colts had a better chance to win with me at qb


Where were you when the bills needed a qb? Sheez.

[EricStratton]

I know it's hard to compare sports but Joe Torre once said even after clinching he would play his top lineup in games that had playoff implications for other teams to maintain the integrity of the season.

I know the risk of injury is different but it was still there to some extent.

[RockStar36]

going 16-0 is winning a battle at the risk of losing the war.

Go ahead and check the Colts recent history.

How have they done when resting starters?

How did they do when they played the season out without pulling the starters?

[mikemac2001]

Go ahead and check the Colts recent history.

How have they done when resting starters?

How did they do when they played the season out without pulling the starters?


there all about being in sync and manning was not in that game......

[trapezeus]

if the jets play the colts in the playoffs what are the chances that they get a 106 yard kickoff return and a fumble recovery for a TD. Those were the only reasons they were remotely close to being in the game.

In the playoffs, i totally expect Matt Sanchez to throw 12 INTs in one game and take away their running game themselves. i also see Peyton destroying the jets in the playoffs.

[RockStar36]

if the jets play the colts in the playoffs what are the chances that they get a 106 yard kickoff return and a fumble recovery for a TD. Those were the only reasons they were remotely close to being in the game.

In the playoffs, i totally expect Matt Sanchez to throw 12 INTs in one game and take away their running game themselves. i also see Peyton destroying the jets in the playoffs.

The Sanchise should be fine in the playoffs as long as the game is in a dome. It's the weather that ****s his game up.

[justasportsfan]

Go ahead and check the Colts recent history.

How have they done when resting starters?

How did they do when they played the season out without pulling the starters?


It doesn't matter. They are preping their team to face strong teams in the playoffs. THeir goal is to get through these teams and win the sb. The best way is to keep their starters healthy. It's their starters that put them in a position to do what they did to begin with.

Should Manning or the other starters go down in the playoffs to injury, it's also important that thier back ups have had experience in the regular season.

[RockStar36]

It doesn't matter. They are preping their team to face strong teams in the playoffs. THeir goal is to get through these teams and win the sb. The best way is to keep their starters healthy. It's their starters that put them in a position to do what they did to begin with.

Should Manning or the other starters go down in the playoffs to injury, it's also important that thier back ups have had experience in the regular season.

It doesn't matter? Um, apparently it does.

[Homegrown]

Was it "unfair" to the other AFC teams ? ....probably

Did the Colts have the perogative to do it ? ....absolutely

The decision would concern me if I was a Colts fan ...makes me think the Colts are a soft team, and when the going gets tough, they'll be heading for the Bus.

If it was the Pats ...Billichick & Brady would be trying to crush the throat of the Jets.

Karma is ***** ...what goes around, comes around.

[justasportsfan]

It doesn't matter? Um, apparently it does.


They have a better chance of winning the sb with their starters intact and their back ups ready (by having experience) in case they have to come in.

[RockStar36]

They have a better chance of winning the sb with their starters intact and their back ups ready (by having experience) in case they have to come in.

So basically what you're saying is that you won't go and look it up.

[Mahdi]

Remember the final game of 1992? Kelly got knocked out of that one and he sat for a couple of playoff games. Indy doesn't have a Frank Reich to rely on
Polian remembers that clearly and probably was the reason he made that decision.

[justasportsfan]

So basically what you're saying is that you won't go and look it up.


whats there to look up? I don't have to, you already stated it and I believe you.

Doesn't mean that what happened in the past is still the best thing for the team.

Dungy even said , it was the right decision.

[trapezeus]

i still stand by the fact that after seeing Painter play so poorly, the fans should have seen that the team is based on Manning and his ability to disect plays. Without him, they are not a very good team. they need his health.

And it's not like they are a team that hasn't been to the playoffs a ton and have like 80% of their team as first time playoff players. Most have been there and know what's expected of them.

When they get back on the field, they are going to absolutely destroy whoever they see in that first round. Sandiego may be more difficult, but i think they did the right thing. They aren't a deep team, the coach is a rookie and needs the on field leadership of Manning. Without that, they are dead.

[mikemac2001]

i still stand by the fact that after seeing Painter play so poorly, the fans should have seen that the team is based on Manning and his ability to disect plays. Without him, they are not a very good team. they need his health.

And it's not like they are a team that hasn't been to the playoffs a ton and have like 80% of their team as first time playoff players. Most have been there and know what's expected of them.

When they get back on the field, they are going to absolutely destroy whoever they see in that first round. Sandiego may be more difficult, but i think they did the right thing. They aren't a deep team, the coach is a rookie and needs the on field leadership of Manning. Without that, they are dead.

then don't play him 3 qtrs and you can't say they thought he was in sync with the offense because that he wasn't

if your so worried about injuries why play him that long

[RockStar36]

whats there to look up? I don't have to, you already stated it and I believe you.

Doesn't mean that what happened in the past is still the best thing for the team.

Dungy even said , it was the right decision.

Of course Dungy said it, Caldwell is Tony Dungy Jr.

[BillsOwnAll]

At the end of the game im not sure who said it but someone asked.

"would you rather go 16-0. or win the super bowl?" Well why not both. Peyton has his ring. He doesn't have a 19-0 ring. You play to win the game. You set your goals at the beginning of the season to win every game. I dont believe in not field the best team. You say manning wasnt on that night? So now he cant fix it till the playoffs? I dont think his last memory of playing should be a lackluster performance. You have some more mojo when your undefeated.

[RockStar36]

There is a reason people still talk about the 1972 Dolphins. Do you think people would even care about them anymore if they simply just won the Super Bowl? When you have a chance at cementing your team in history, you take that chance.

[HHURRICANE]

I think it's the Colt's perrogative to do whatever they feel like doing. That's what a 14 game winning streak gets you.

I would have probably tried to get the 16 wins but if I get Peyton Manning injured than I'm the most hated FO in history.

[RockStar36]

I think it's the Colt's perrogative to do whatever they feel like doing. That's what a 14 game winning streak gets you.

I would have probably tried to get the 16 wins but if I get Peyton Manning injured than I'm the most hated FO in history.

What are the odds of him getting hurt? You know, considering he never has been hurt in his career. I like those odds.

[justasportsfan]

Of course Dungy said it, Caldwell is Tony Dungy Jr.
It's still right .

If you think going into the playoffs with your starters intact and your back ups having had a chance to play is not the best thing for any team then you can agree to disagree with these guys especially Polian.

[RockStar36]

It's still right .

If you think going into the playoffs with your starters intact and your back ups having had a chance to play is not the best thing for any team then you can agree to disagree with these guys especially Polian.

Ok, I will.

Tons of Colts fans are upset about this and they have every right to be.

I would be just as upset if the Bills pulled a stunt like this.

[THE END OF ALL DAYS]

I have NO problem with what the colts did. Id make the same decision and ef everyone else.

[justasportsfan]

Ok, I will.

Tons of Colts fans are upset about this and they have every right to be.

I would be just as upset if the Bills pulled a stunt like this.
and if Peyton went down to injury , Colts fans would be pissed anyways. Damned if they do damned if they don't. If the fans were in charge of running the team, they wouldn't have a successful team to cheer for all these years. Let Polians record as a GM speak for itself.


I wouldn't be upset if the bills did this.

[RockStar36]

and if Peyton went down to injury , Colts fans would be pissed anyways. Damned if they do damned if they don't. If the fans were in charge of running the team, they wouldn't have a successful team to cheer for all these years.


I wouldn't be upset if the bills did this.

For the 193290404094 time in this thread...how many times has Manning been hurt in his career?

[Mr. Pink]

Ok, I will.

Tons of Colts fans are upset about this and they have every right to be.

I would be just as upset if the Bills pulled a stunt like this.


As a Browns fan, I wasn't upset when the Colts did it a few years ago to allow the Titans to basically get a free ride into the playoffs.

I was a huge Jim Sorgi fan for a day though :rofl:

If you take care of your own business you shouldn't have to worry about what other teams do.

And if your team is doing, well, you should be happy that your team is that much above everyone else that they are able to do it. I understand it's about entertainment and it does water down the product a little but for the Colts it was really a meaningless game just like the preseason contests.

[justasportsfan]

For the 193290404094 time in this thread...how many times has Manning been hurt in his career?


there's always a first time and you don't take risks especially now that you're that close to the sb. If you like playing russian roulette, go ahead. Some of us don't.

[RockStar36]

there's always a first time and you don't take risks especially now that you're that close to the sb. If you like playing russian roulette, go ahead. Some of us don't.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.

With all that said, Manning will play at least the first series against Buffalo to keep his precious streak alive. I'd hate to see something happen to him by playing him in a meaningless game.

[RockStar36]

As a Browns fan, I wasn't upset when the Colts did it a few years ago to allow the Titans to basically get a free ride into the playoffs.

I was a huge Jim Sorgi fan for a day though :rofl:

If you take care of your own business you shouldn't have to worry about what other teams do.

And if your team is doing, well, you should be happy that your team is that much above everyone else that they are able to do it. I understand it's about entertainment and it does water down the product a little but for the Colts it was really a meaningless game just like the preseason contests.

Yeah, I agree that if you take care of business you can't blame anybody else. I'm more irritated with the Colts for pissing away a chance at history just to be a bunch of pussies. I'm sure multiple weeks is just what they need. I think history has proven that it's the hot teams that do well in the playoffs. How hot will the Colts be after sitting for multiple weeks?

[BillsOwnAll]

There is a reason people still talk about the 1972 Dolphins. Do you think people would even care about them anymore if they simply just won the Super Bowl? When you have a chance at cementing your team in history, you take that chance.



EXACTLY!. Especially since most of the core starters already have a ring too. Why not try to do something special.

[justasportsfan]

they already hold the winning streak record ,don't they?

[Cleve]

Remember the final game of 1992? Kelly got knocked out of that one and he sat for a couple of playoff games. Indy doesn't have a Frank Reich to rely on

My god - those great days seem like a lifetime ago, and it's only 17 years.

[yordad]

BUT the Colts are failing to built a winning culture since they just told all their players losing is acceptable! I bet they suck next year now!

[Historian]

Remember the final game of 1992? Kelly got knocked out of that one and he sat for a couple of playoff games. Indy doesn't have a Frank Reich to rely on

I'm with you in principle Doz, but that situation was a little bit different.

The Bills went into Houston 11-4 and were still trying to win the East to avoid the Wild Card round. That's when Kelly's knee took a shot from the side. We lost in the Astrodome, then lost the division on a tiebreaker to the fish.

Ironically, had Houston laid down that day, they would have hosted a first round game, (against KC I think) as opposed to traveling to Buffalo where they lost in the Comeback game.

But I agree. I would have sat Peyton. The Bills did that routinely in the glory days, not just to avoid injury, but to give the bumps and bruises time to heal.

Here is a brief history of that decision:

They sat players in the 1990 finale against Washington, and lost 29-14.

They sat players in the 1991 finale and lost to the Lions at home, 17-14.

In 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1993 they were still playing for the division or home field.

In 1995 Levy sat Kelly against the Oilers in the finale and lost 28-17. He allowed Thurman to play until he broke the 1000 yard barrier (for the seventh consecutive time) then sat him in favor of Darrick Holmes.

In 1996, the Bills needed to defeat the Chiefs at home to clinch a wild card, and the regulars beat KC 20-9.

[Philagape]

Do you think people would even care about them anymore if they simply just won the Super Bowl?

Um, yeah! :insane:

Simply just won the Super Bowl??

Simply just won the Super Bowl?????

[Night Train]

Top teams that have clinched home field early have benched players many times. The Bills did it during the early 90's.

[Jeff1220]

The thing is though, there is actually more pressure on the Colts to win the Super Bowl now that they sat there guys. If they don't win, they'll be second guessed into eternity.

[Dozerdog]

I'm with you in principle Doz, but that situation was a little bit different.

The Bills went into Houston 11-4 and were still trying to win the East to avoid the Wild Card round. That's when Kelly's knee took a shot from the side. We lost in the Astrodome, then lost the division on a tiebreaker to the fish.

Ironically, had Houston laid down that day, they would have hosted a first round game, (against KC I think) as opposed to traveling to Buffalo where they lost in the Comeback game.

But I agree. I would have sat Peyton. The Bills did that routinely in the glory days, not just to avoid injury, but to give the bumps and bruises time to heal.

Here is a brief history of that decision:

They sat players in the 1990 finale against Washington, and lost 29-14.

They sat players in the 1991 finale and lost to the Lions at home, 17-14.

In 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1993 they were still playing for the division or home field.

In 1995 Levy sat Kelly against the Oilers in the finale and lost 28-17. He allowed Thurman to play until he broke the 1000 yard barrier (for the seventh consecutive time) then sat him in favor of Darrick Holmes.

In 1996, the Bills needed to defeat the Chiefs at home to clinch a wild card, and the regulars beat KC 20-9.


I'm not arguing the Bills had to win that game. I'm just demonstrating that a franchise QB can go down any time. The Bills were lucky- Reich ain't no Painter.

Remember 1980? Bills were cruising and Fergy gets hurt late in the season - severe ankle sprain. He limped through the first playoff game and almost pulled off an upset over San Diego.

It was rumored the Pats lost the Superbowl in their near -perfect season because Brady was dinged up and less than 100%.


If you have nothing to gain but a Super Bowl to lose, I would protect my investment. Plus- if Manning ever did go down- you would like to know what your backup is capable of.

[RockStar36]

Um, yeah! :insane:

Simply just won the Super Bowl??

Simply just won the Super Bowl?????

Off the top of my head, I have NO IDEA who won the Super Bowl in 71, 73, 74, 75, etc.

I know who won it in 72 because I'm CONSTANTLY reminded of it.

[RockStar36]

I'm with you in principle Doz, but that situation was a little bit different.

The Bills went into Houston 11-4 and were still trying to win the East to avoid the Wild Card round. That's when Kelly's knee took a shot from the side. We lost in the Astrodome, then lost the division on a tiebreaker to the fish.

Ironically, had Houston laid down that day, they would have hosted a first round game, (against KC I think) as opposed to traveling to Buffalo where they lost in the Comeback game.

But I agree. I would have sat Peyton. The Bills did that routinely in the glory days, not just to avoid injury, but to give the bumps and bruises time to heal.

Here is a brief history of that decision:

They sat players in the 1990 finale against Washington, and lost 29-14.

They sat players in the 1991 finale and lost to the Lions at home, 17-14.

In 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1993 they were still playing for the division or home field.

In 1995 Levy sat Kelly against the Oilers in the finale and lost 28-17. He allowed Thurman to play until he broke the 1000 yard barrier (for the seventh consecutive time) then sat him in favor of Darrick Holmes.

In 1996, the Bills needed to defeat the Chiefs at home to clinch a wild card, and the regulars beat KC 20-9.

The issue isn't sitting their starters.

The issue is sitting their starters when they are two games away from an undefeated season.

Big difference.

[Historian]

An undefeated season means squat.

The issue is sitting the starters, so they're still standing at SB time.

Polian understands this.

Why don't you guys?

And BTW:

71-Dallas
73: fish
74 and 75 Steelers.

And I knew that off the top of my head.

[RockStar36]

An undefeated season means squat.

The issue is sitting the starters, so they're still standing at SB time.

Polian understands this.

Why don't you guys?

And BTW:

71-Dallas
73: fish
74 and 75 Steelers.

And I knew that off the top of my head.

Well, that is why you're called the Historian.

And it does mean squat. It's an opportunity to cement yourself in history forever.

[justasportsfan]

Well, that is why you're called the Historian.

And it does mean squat. It's an opportunity to cement yourself in history forever.
so would winning sb's.

No one goes into the season thinking thinking going undefeated is better than winning the sb. Winning the SB is the goal and the only goal.

[Philagape]

Off the top of my head, I have NO IDEA who won the Super Bowl in 71, 73, 74, 75, etc.

I know who won it in 72 because I'm CONSTANTLY reminded of it.

I can't recall the exact order off the top of my head, but Dallas, Miami again, Oakland and Pittsburgh won SBs around that time.

I doubt NFL teams' ambitions is based on what you remember.

[RockStar36]

Well hey, when you guys are right, you're right.

Now that the Colts rested Manning, they are winning the Super Bowl.

I'm gonna go make my bets with Vegas now.

[justasportsfan]

Well hey, when you guys are right, you're right.

Now that the Colts rested Manning, they are winning the Super Bowl.

I'm gonna go make my bets with Vegas now.


I'm not sure if the colts are going to win it all. It's no guarantee , but they sure increased their chances with what they did. Minimize risks and increase your chances to succeed.

[RockStar36]

I'm not sure if the colts are going to win it all. It's no guarantee , but they sure increased their chances with what they did. Minimize risks and increase your chances to succeed.

You're right.

They increased their chances like they did in every year this decade.

Minus that year they played it out until the end and won the Super Bowl.