if you were an indy fan how would you have felt about what they did yesterday? undefeated season down the tubes. they have gotten rusty from layoff time in the past. tickets dont cost a little bit of money and the product sure wasnt much better than preseason yesterday. i honestly dont blame them for booing. sure the goal is the superbowl but you never give up. that game didnt cost any less for a fan to go to than the others.
Well...hindsight is 20/20...however, what would be the story if this happened to Indy in a meaningless game...?
I'd probably be heated for the rest of the season, Until the playoffs started. What good does it do you going 16-0? You think the Pat fans would trade in 1 or 2 losses for another SB ring? I think so.
They tanked the game. They also played an equally meaningless game last week and instead played full-tilt. By doing that, they've completely skewed the AFC playoff seeding. Plus, would the reaction be the same if the Rams and/or Lions pulled their starters to guarantee draft position? You really think the league would allow that to happen? What's the difference?
I would do anything to be 14-0 and have the right to pull our players, jets had never had that right.
Absolutely. Why would the league care? It's the fanbase you have to worry about, not the league. The league already knows the Rams and Lions are irrelevant.
Mike Francesa was just ranting about this, were you the guy who just called? If so, you're the dumbest person I have ever heard on his radio show.
If Peyton or Wayne or Freeney had been injured in a meaningless game the fans would be crying out far more than they are about sitting their starters. That said, if I were a Colts fan I'd be bummed that the undefeated season is done.
I guess there's an argument that maybe he should have stayed in one more series to try to get a bigger lead, maybe sit the 4th. Its one of those shitty situations, you catch hell as the coach no matter which decision you make.
This happens every single season. Teams with nothing to gain by winning sit players to keep them healthy for the playoffs. It's common sense. I don't understand why all of the sudden people are supposed to be outraged by the Colts doing it.
Are you really saying you can't see the difference between resting starters, protecting them from injury, and healing up for a playoff run; and purposely tanking games for draft position? Really? The Colts didn't do this to try to lose. They did this to try to win a championship.
That was the reason. I never agreed with them doing it though. The only SB title they won was the season where they had to play all 16 games. every time they rest their starters, they are way too rusty when they finally see time in the playoffs, especially when they had to play the Patriots and be at the top of their game. They should have kept all of them in until at least until the end of the third.
I agree. I just found his analogy ridiculous. As I told someone yesterday, I get te injury argument, but the rest argument (especially the one I've seen from others regarding the 2007 Patriots) is overrated. The Pats didn't lose to the Giants because they were tired. They lost because they had to face their Week 17 opponent in the SB with no reason to adjust their gameplan. The Giants gained confidence and insight in the regular season finale. Hardly applies to us or the Bills in this situation.
Yea, it was a stupid analogy. Any situation where it looks like a coach is tanking a game there are always rumors of that coach's demise which typically turn out to be true. I cannot possibly remember one team with a losing record pulling his players at the end of the season. I doubt any coach actually listens to the "experts" on ESPN when they ask why the starters are still in despite being out of the playoff hunt. Not to mention the fact that no team really wants the #1 pick. Set aside the pride problems of it meaning that you were worst team that year, it's a huge financial investment for the team in a crap-shoot system that is the draft. The Texans were shopping the #1 heavily in 2006. I remember a story about Charley Casserly calling up Tannenbaum about trading the #1 to the Jets in 2006 with Tannenbaum's exact response being, "What else are you going to give us?" The #1 pick is much more of an undesirable asset than most fans think it is.
what happened to "you play to win the game" i actually dont think the analogy of a team tanking a game to improve draft position is that bad. either way they are tanking an NFL game.
Teams who rest their players are dumb. Not playing for a long time is a horrible way to go into the playoffs. However, I think the Colts did it the proper way. Allow players to get into over half the game. Then take them out.
What's funny though is that they have a Bye week. That's 2 whole weeks w/ no NFL football for them. Add to that only getting in a few Quarters the previous 2 weeks and that's 4 weeks with a few quarters of football. IMO, that's alotta nuthin. Maybe the last game of the season but IMO it was unecessary this week....I guarantee if they come out flat and lose because of it it will be the biggest NFL cry.
