I bet it cost less than a playoff game, and that's what the Colts were thinking of when they pulled their starters. (In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not referring to the cost of the tickets... just the playoffs in general.) Peyton & co. got their reps. The idea that they would have something to gain by playing an additional 20 minutes of football is crazy to me.
Peyton's only ring came after he played every snap of all 16 games in a season. Every time they pull their starters in the last few games, they wind up getting knocked out. That's the connection everyone else is seeing.
leon i agree that they at least let them play a good portion of the game, but then again what did they play 1 or 2 possessions in the 3rd quarter... tee you make it sound like... well you make it sound as bad as it is. that is an awful lot of time off. they talk about baseball and football teams being out of it because they 4 or 5 days off. this is 4 or 5 weeks. the dolts have had issues with this in the past and still stay with the same old thought process.
the colts didn't purposely lose. they still tried to win without the risk of their star players getting hurt.tanking for draft position is trying to lose.
I personally disagree with the philosophy, the Colts always do it though and I don't think it is any coincidence that the one year they were still fighting for playoffs through the last game they went on to win the SB. I also believe that the Colts earned the right by starting 14-0 to play any way they want. These guys are still NFL players and the other team still has to beat them. How about the Steelers a couple years ago, resting all their starters against the Bills and still beat them keeping them out of the playoffs. If I was a Colts fan right now I would be weary that they will lose in the first round, if they don't then this decision would be meaningless. I don't care about an undefeated season as a fan I'd rather my team go into the playoffs without the unnessasary pressure of being undefeated. I think the Colts felt that way as well.
I don't think the Colts really stood to gain anything by going 16-0. I mean sure it would have been nice, but should their fans really be upset with a team that has had 12 or more wins since 2003?
I have a different spin on this. I may be wrong, but I think Peyton was the only starter to come out, at first. I think that Bill Polian really did think that he had assembled a team that was strong enough to beat the Jets with Painter under center. The whole plan was blown apart when he was almost immediately sacked, fumbled, and the Jets scored. But, by that time, he was all in. If he told Caldwell to put Peyton back in he was sending a pretty demoralizing message to his team: without Manning, you suck. Pretty bad message going in the playoffs. Better to say you just don't care about 16-0. After that score, he started taking other starters out. It's just a theory, though. I also heard Bob Kravitz on the radio yesterday saying that he thought this goes back to 1999, when the Colts lost Cornelius Bennett on the cusp of the playoffs. Who knows.
That's pretty much the truth right there. I'm sure the Colts would like the level of competition weaker in the playoff seeding.
Pulling starters != tanking a game You can still win the game with back-ups. Didn't Pitt do that to Buffalo a few years ago? (I see Vision already mentioned it.)
No one has mentioned that the back up never took a snap all season. What happens if Manning gets injured in the playoff game? At least the back up however bad he was got some snaps under his belt.
That's not the point. Games in either scenario wouldn't be on the level. It used to be the just the last game and now it's reaching into the last 2-3 games. If they do indeed go to 18 games, then it will only get worse. All you're really saying by allowing this to reach deeper into the season is that it's okay to tank games if you're a good team, just not if you're a bad one.
How can you say that's not the point? You asked what the difference was. The entire motivation is different! Teams pulling starters to get higher draft position are doing so to purposely try to lose. The backups they send in know that the objective is defeat. That affects the integrity of the game by eliminating the aspect of competition. Teams pulling starters to protect them for the postseason are doing so with an intent to help themselves win in the postseason. The backups they send in know that the objective is still victory. While you can argue the team puts itself in an adverse position, you can't argue that the teams no longer try to compete. I don't agree with either strategy, but they're not even fucking close to being equivalent. Of course, you can't seem to understand that tanking games means intentionally losing, not pulling 4 players and continuing to compete like the Colts did.
To me, it's a tank. If you want to call it being indifferent to winning or losing, then go right ahead. Not fielding your best team on purpose is certainly not on the level, though. A team does it to protect their players and in the big picture, their franchise. Obviously, a majority of teams don't make the postseason. Why aren't they allowed to sit their players to make sure their are rested and healthy for next season? If the Bears had pulled Cutler at halftime last night, then would they get the same pass? After all, since their season is already lost, why should they risk injuring their franchise QB and seriously hurting their chances next year? Meaningless games aren't just for playoff teams, are they? Both the good team and the bad team would be protecting their franchises for a better chance to win in the future, right? Just because the future for a playoff team happens to come a lot quicker doesn't take away from the fact that it would be the same thing. The only thing different is the perception involved.
Pittsburgh did the same thing to Buffalo a few years back, and we lost to their back-ups. I'm sure Indy's back-ups tried to win and it's a good time to get them some game time reps. Wouldn't it be ironic if those snaps for Painter ended up in a Super Bowl run because Manning goes down in the playoffs?
What other teams will be sitting starters this week? obviously indy but id like to see what teams go to there bench or continue playing there starters.
I personally don't think it's a good idea just from a football point of view. You build all year from camp, through pre-season, through the year and get all this momentum built up and rolling, then just shut it down. You're already going to get the bye week you've earned, that's plenty. Now you're going to get guys out of that zone they worked all year to get into, another off week now, then the bye, and you're going to try and crank it up again for one day next month. Especially a team like the Colts that runs their offense through mostly feel, timing and communication. Resting a guy for a quarter now I don't think helps you at all a month from now anyway. I mean if guys are hurt it's one thing but just to sit people down for that long to me doesn't make any sense. The off season is eight months long. I don't have an issue with teams trying it, like Rex said they earned the luxury to do it any way they want. They don't owe the other teams in the race anything, they need to worry about themselves and make their decisions for their own good. I don't think it's the one I'd make but I don't have a problem with them making it.
