THROWING GAMES TO REST STARTERS--AGREE or DISAGREE

[Bretsky]

Thoughts ?

Just watched the Colts game; I've enjoyed watching a strong % of their games all season and it has added to my appreciation for the brilliance of Payton Manning

I know the subject title was too strong........but as it turned out.....the decision by the Colts coaches to pull their best players essentially gift wrapped the game to the Jets.

The number of players/teams/fans that decision effects is enormous.

1. The Colts players clearly wanted to go undefeated. Some came out and said it and some went by the book in their interviews. The last two times, I think, the Colts did this they did not win the Super Bowl. They get a bye week one of the playoffs.

2. It's be amazing as a fan to witness history being made. It would be awesome to watch a team make a run like that......but think how much it'd have sucked to sit on those stands as a Colt fan while you watch the decisions gift wrap the game for the Jets

3. Thinks off all the potential playoff teams the Colts effected today. The Jets were trailing by 6 when the developmental squads started going in and they ended up winning by 14. If the Jets lose they are probably done thinking of the playoffs. Most of their competitors lost today to squads giving it their all. The Jets pulled ahead of a team playing with part of their B team and then pounded them into the ground. They went from being done to being in the drivers seat. If they win next week they make the playoffs over several teams who were upset this week by teams giving it their all. Perhaps Rex Ryan is getting rewarded for not showing any interest in Brett Favre :lol: j/k

[Rastak]

Makes perfect sense to me to do what is best to prepare for the playoffs. I have no issue at all with how the Colts did things.

[pbmax]

The Colts have more trouble with the Chargers than with the rest. They have done this every year they have clinched early. I am not a big believer in momentum in football. I think health and talent play a far bigger part. As for the Colts struggles in the playoffs, they have as much to do with the defense as with offensive continuity.

As for integrity, they have earned the right to play the games for their own purposes, not anyone else's. Just like a baseball team adjusting its rotation before the playoffs.

[Bretsky]

Makes perfect sense to me to do what is best to prepare for the playoffs. I have no issue at all with how the Colts did things.


History; I know if I was playing I'd want to run the table

[Bretsky]

The Colts have more trouble with the Chargers than with the rest. They have done this every year they have clinched early. I am not a big believer in momentum in football. I think health and talent play a far bigger part. As for the Colts struggles in the playoffs, they have as much to do with the defense as with offensive continuity.

As for integrity, they have earned the right to play the games for their own purposes, not anyone else's. Just like a baseball team adjusting its rotation before the playoffs.


Won't argue with the premise.....but then again........how'd it work for them the last two times ?

[Rastak]

I think if you give the guys a half you will keep them sharp enough.....

[Badgerinmaine]

If Peyton Manning had broken his leg in the fourth quarter against the Jets, people would be screaming the other way. Plus, in the event key players do get hurt later this season, you want to have some experience for your backup guys.

The biggest argument against pulling the starters against the Jets, in my opinion, is that the game had a large impact on the playoffs by helping the Jets win. In baseball, you'll often see a team that has clinched its spot or is out of the running go out of their way to play their best personnel in games that have an impact on the playoff race. Fans of the Texans, Steelers, Broncos, Ravens, etc. are probably pretty grumpy about what happened; as I read the playoff scenarios, given the Broncos loss to the Eagles, the Jets are in with a win over Cincinnati next week.

[The Leaper]

If you have to rely on other teams to beat someone for you to make the playoffs, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I have no problem with teams resting players...but a team like the Colts should probably play everyone who is healthy in the full game week 17. With the bye, too much rust develops when you start limiting playing time over 2-3 weeks.

[mmmdk]

In week 17 Packers must play to avoid going to Philly for wild card PO game.

[mmmdk]

In week 17 Packers must play to avoid going to Philly for wild card PO game.

...so I believe Packers must play to win in week 17 vs Cards. Btw I'm OK with Colts did today. Hence avoiding playing in Philly. Playing in Dallas doesn't bring good memories either so Arizona it is. :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

What if Dallas at home beats Philly?

[no hope in new hope]

RE: Colts

It seems to me that this has happened a lot in the Manning era. They win their division early, and then sit around for a couple of weeks and lose their edge. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but this seems like their strategy every year, and it really hasn't panned out too well, except for the 1 SB.

[The Leaper]

In week 17 Packers must play to avoid going to Philly for wild card PO game.

Why? Philly looked quite beatable in the 2nd half against Denver with Kyle Orton at QB. And McNabb tweaked his hammy.

I'm not scared of Philly or Dallas. I'm scared of Arizona.

[gbgary]

i don't like it. it backfires on teams all the time.

WWLD

[Badgerinmaine]

What if Dallas at home beats Philly?
With the Cowboys' win last night, they've set up a pretty dramatic game for next week: The winner wins the division, and the loser gets one of the wild card spots. Either a Packers win over the Cardinals or the Eagles beating Dallas puts the Packers in the #5 seed and the 2nd place NFC East team (the Cowboys-Eagles loser) in the #6 seed.

[MOBB DEEP]

I think if you give the guys a half you will keep them sharp enough.....

its about MINDSET too though; Colts dont play another meaningful game til Jan 17. so you're talkn a long time to be on cruise control...no feeling of invinceability; which a 16-0 record may have given them since they had SO many near-losses this year

as a player i would vote to put proverbial foot on opponents' neck. as a coach i dont want players who dont feel the same. As worrisome fans some ppl display unfounded fear. maybe the stance that ppl take in this matter directly correlates with the way they view life in general...

i dont want no whimpy, cautious, buzz-killing philosophies that GUARANTEE nothing!

Wifey and her fam (staunch Colts fans b/c their RB coach coached her brother at Nebraska and 49ers) were LIVID!

since ALL the players wanted to go for it, is it possible a schzism has been created b/w coachn staff and squad?

Now we gota listen to mercury morris...DAYUM...!!!

[sharpe1027]

IMO, it was the correct decision, but it was handled poorly. Keep the pulled players involved in the game and don't let them pout on the bench like little grade schoolers. Those guys could have been encouraging their backups to win the game and in doing so stayed involved and pumped up.

[sheepshead]

Clearly the best decision. The objective of any team is to win in the post season. Its how everyone is measured. I applaud the guy. I understand it was part of his game plan and he stuck to it. Somebody gets dinged up or worse in every game. If Manning was lost for the season what would the talking heads be saying?

[mngolf19]

I think the basic premise here is that the NFL is ENTERTAINMENT!!! This is all for the fans. If your team hasn't won the SB or been there in awhile, fine rest the guys and "protect" them. But if you've won recently, then it's BS. I as a fan want my team to set new and bigger goals now. Go for undefeated, etc, etc, until you can't anymore. I'd be pissed. My relatives that live in Indy and are Colts fans are pissed. Take a poll of their fans and they are all PISSED. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" and you play to please your fans ultimately.

As for what if, in the situation above I'd be understanding of the injury if it happened trying to get the new goal set. And I don't really care what the idiot talking heads think. They too forget this is entertainment and done for the fans sake.

[Smidgeon]

I think the basic premise here is that the NFL is ENTERTAINMENT!!! This is all for the fans. If your team hasn't won the SB or been there in awhile, fine rest the guys and "protect" them. But if you've won recently, then it's BS. I as a fan want my team to set new and bigger goals now. Go for undefeated, etc, etc, until you can't anymore. I'd be pissed. My relatives that live in Indy and are Colts fans are pissed. Take a poll of their fans and they are all PISSED. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" and you play to please your fans ultimately.

As for what if, in the situation above I'd be understanding of the injury if it happened trying to get the new goal set. And I don't really care what the idiot talking heads think. They too forget this is entertainment and done for the fans sake.

It's more than just playing to please the fans. This isn't the WWE. This is the NFL. The players' primary concern isn't to put on a good show. It's to cement their own legacy within a team and on special occasion rise even above that. They want to cement their legacy by being a part of a Super Bowl winning team. If they can't do that, then by personal achievement (sometimes the reverse). But to say the NFL is solely for entertainment is short-sighted. For the fans it's entertainment. For the players, it's an attempt to do something they love and, if they succeed, become immortalized after a fashion.

[sharpe1027]

I think the basic premise here is that the NFL is ENTERTAINMENT!!! This is all for the fans. If your team hasn't won the SB or been there in awhile, fine rest the guys and "protect" them. But if you've won recently, then it's BS. I as a fan want my team to set new and bigger goals now. Go for undefeated, etc, etc, until you can't anymore. I'd be pissed. My relatives that live in Indy and are Colts fans are pissed. Take a poll of their fans and they are all PISSED. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" and you play to please your fans ultimately.

The NFL is a business. A fan's only voice is with their wallet. Some fans might be pissed, but I doubt it affects the Colts bottom line much, if at all.

[mngolf19]

I think the basic premise here is that the NFL is ENTERTAINMENT!!! This is all for the fans. If your team hasn't won the SB or been there in awhile, fine rest the guys and "protect" them. But if you've won recently, then it's BS. I as a fan want my team to set new and bigger goals now. Go for undefeated, etc, etc, until you can't anymore. I'd be pissed. My relatives that live in Indy and are Colts fans are pissed. Take a poll of their fans and they are all PISSED. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" and you play to please your fans ultimately.

As for what if, in the situation above I'd be understanding of the injury if it happened trying to get the new goal set. And I don't really care what the idiot talking heads think. They too forget this is entertainment and done for the fans sake.

It's more than just playing to please the fans. This isn't the WWE. This is the NFL. The players' primary concern isn't to put on a good show. It's to cement their own legacy within a team and on special occasion rise even above that. They want to cement their legacy by being a part of a Super Bowl winning team. If they can't do that, then by personal achievement (sometimes the reverse). But to say the NFL is solely for entertainment is short-sighted. For the fans it's entertainment. For the players, it's an attempt to do something they love and, if they succeed, become immortalized after a fashion.

Which to me is also why you play for the bigger goal of undefeated. That's also how it is not the WWE. Your not asking someone to take it easy, your asking them to play hard every game and do their best. That would help what your saying above as well.

And if they want to do it the way you stated, then they shouldn't have a problem with all their fans being pissed either should they. And the Colts are getting lambasted in Indy this morning on all media. Not every decision they make should be based on what the fans want, but if the fans just want you to win...

[Smidgeon]

I think the basic premise here is that the NFL is ENTERTAINMENT!!! This is all for the fans. If your team hasn't won the SB or been there in awhile, fine rest the guys and "protect" them. But if you've won recently, then it's BS. I as a fan want my team to set new and bigger goals now. Go for undefeated, etc, etc, until you can't anymore. I'd be pissed. My relatives that live in Indy and are Colts fans are pissed. Take a poll of their fans and they are all PISSED. "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" and you play to please your fans ultimately.

As for what if, in the situation above I'd be understanding of the injury if it happened trying to get the new goal set. And I don't really care what the idiot talking heads think. They too forget this is entertainment and done for the fans sake.

It's more than just playing to please the fans. This isn't the WWE. This is the NFL. The players' primary concern isn't to put on a good show. It's to cement their own legacy within a team and on special occasion rise even above that. They want to cement their legacy by being a part of a Super Bowl winning team. If they can't do that, then by personal achievement (sometimes the reverse). But to say the NFL is solely for entertainment is short-sighted. For the fans it's entertainment. For the players, it's an attempt to do something they love and, if they succeed, become immortalized after a fashion.

Which to me is also why you play for the bigger goal of undefeated. That's also how it is not the WWE. Your not asking someone to take it easy, your asking them to play hard every game and do their best. That would help what your saying above as well.

And if they want to do it the way you stated, then they shouldn't have a problem with all their fans being pissed either should they. And the Colts are getting lambasted in Indy this morning on all media. Not every decision they make should be based on what the fans want, but if the fans just want you to win...

Well, they don't give out trophies for going undefeated and losing the Super Bowl. You get a ring for winning the Super Bowl and your team gets a trophy. So far all you get for going undefeated in the regular season and winning the Super Bowl is a bunch of champagne...

Seriously though, the Patriots who lost the Super Bowl after winning every regular season game aren't considered the "team of destiny". That was the Giants who beat them. Legacy isn't just about winning every game. It's about winning the right game. The Super Bowl. It's about cementing long-term legacy. I would easily trade a perfect season for a Super Bowl. Especially when you consider how few teams have more than two or three Super Bowl trophies. That's a legacy: a dynasty. One or two Super Bowls over the course of several decades isn't a legacy. Doing it again and again is a legacy.

[sharpe1027]

Which to me is also why you play for the bigger goal of undefeated. That's also how it is not the WWE. Your not asking someone to take it easy, your asking them to play hard every game and do their best. That would help what your saying above as well.

And if they want to do it the way you stated, then they shouldn't have a problem with all their fans being pissed either should they. And the Colts are getting lambasted in Indy this morning on all media. Not every decision they make should be based on what the fans want, but if the fans just want you to win...

WWE? Poor analogy. Substitution of one player for another is not asking anyone to take it easy on the field. Everyone is still be expected to play hard.

You're arguing that a single game is all that matters, and fail to account for the big picture. Teams make decisions that sacrifice short term chances for long term benefits all the time.

I am reasonably certain that the Colts organization is not very worried about fans being pissed. What they are worried about is losing in the playoffs.

[mngolf19]

Which to me is also why you play for the bigger goal of undefeated. That's also how it is not the WWE. Your not asking someone to take it easy, your asking them to play hard every game and do their best. That would help what your saying above as well.

And if they want to do it the way you stated, then they shouldn't have a problem with all their fans being pissed either should they. And the Colts are getting lambasted in Indy this morning on all media. Not every decision they make should be based on what the fans want, but if the fans just want you to win...

WWE? Poor analogy. Substitution of one player for another is not asking anyone to take it easy on the field. Everyone is still be expected to play hard.

You're arguing that a single game is all that matters, and fail to account for the big picture. Teams make decisions that sacrifice short term chances for long term benefits all the time.

I am reasonably certain that the Colts organization is not very worried about fans being pissed. What they are worried about is losing in the playoffs.

Not a single game, every single game. And yes if you are not playing your best available every game, then you are laying down. Nothing says they are now going to win the SB either. I guess I have a different expectation out of my team than some of you. That's fine. This isn't a "I'm sitting so and so because he's hurt", it's pulling your best players when they aren't hurt.

[sharpe1027]

Not a single game, every single game. And yes if you are not playing your best available every game, then you are laying down. Nothing says they are now going to win the SB either. I guess I have a different expectation out of my team than some of you. That's fine. This isn't a "I'm sitting so and so because he's hurt", it's pulling your best players when they aren't hurt.

Then you must really be pissed about the preseason games. Those games count just as much as the Colts last two games. :lol:

[wist43]

There should be another option in your poll...

Momentum and psychological downside.

The Saints have had things wrapped up for a while now... but psychologically, they're not in good place.

The Colts... maybe they're in a little different position b/c so much of who the Colts are is Peyton Manning. If he's okay, they're okay...

But when a team shuts it down... players body language changes, you see your team out on the field getting kicked around, you're losing games... none of that bodes well.

[Jimx29]

Pulling Manning and the rest of the starters showed more class than brady and belacheat will ever have.

[sharpe1027]

There should be another option in your poll...

Momentum and psychological downside.

The Saints have had things wrapped up for a while now... but psychologically, they're not in good place.

The Colts... maybe they're in a little different position b/c so much of who the Colts are is Peyton Manning. If he's okay, they're okay...

But when a team shuts it down... players body language changes, you see your team out on the field getting kicked around, you're losing games... none of that bodes well.

Interesting point. Is playing your starters and still getting kicked around better or worse than pulling your starters and getting kicked around? Perhaps the other benefit of pulling your starters is that they won't be responsible for a possible loss.

Here's another thing. Are the Colts going to show some of their best plays in games that don't count? Do they want other teams to have more film on them? If not, then why play your starters if you're not going to go full-bore on game planning anyway?

There's more than just injuries that go into the decision.

[pbmax]

i don't like it. it backfires on teams all the time.

WWLD
But does it backfire more often than playing out the string and then losing in the first round? Half the teams lose in each round of the playoffs (slight adjustment needed for Wild Card Round).

[pbmax]

There is nothing more comical than fans watching on TV making judgments about how "fired up" a team is (of course, the fired up team surprisingly is winning) or claiming body language is affecting the rest of the team.

Then to claim that fans know where players are "psychologically" just takes it to a whole new level of ridiculousness.

None of you would claim to know the exact medical nature of a players injury from just watching on the field. Then to take a far more complex organ (the brain) and make judgments about both the individual AND the collective group is breathtakingly naive.

I'll bet no one appreciates that fans long ago developed "virtual" medicine. Well before the Internet too! :)

Read the Game Day threads (including the Seahawks thread) and watch as the twitchy, nervous nellies proclaim that McCarthy is clearly an inferior coach because the other coach has the opposition "prepared" and "fired up". These comments follow whenever two events or plays fail to go the Packers way, or heaven forfend, they are behind.

I can't wait for the companion thread to this in the Romper Room that tells me its lightning outside because God is throwing lightning bolts of fury at the earth.

Now try on this for size: One of the best predictors of records can be found in a team's Points For and Against totals. This makes sense as the net difference should tell you how badly they are beating teams. If you compare how you EXPECT a team to perform based on its point totals (called a Pythagorean Win Projection) to how they are actually doing, you can often ferret out overachieving/underachieving teams. Guess what happens to overachieving teams in the playoff? If the numbers are bad enough, they lose quite often.

Consider:
2004 Steelers (15-1, luck: .220) lost in the AFC Championship to the defending champion Patriots
1976 Raiders (13-1, luck: .213) won the Super Bowl
1999 Titans (13-3, luck: .201) lost in the Super Bowl to the dominating 1999 Rams
1999 Colts (13-3, luck: .174) lost to that same Titans team in the divisional round
1991 Lions (12-4, luck: .168) lost in the NFC Championship to the 1991 Redskins, one of the best teams of all-time
1985 Raiders (12-4, luck: .168) lost to New England in the divisional round
2003 Patriots (14-2, luck: .164) won the Super Bowl
1990 49ers (14-2, luck: .159) won the Super Bowl
2006 Colts (12-4, luck: .150) won the Super Bowl

The luck factor here is the difference between the expected Win and Loss percentage (calculated by the point totals) and actual W/L percentage. For Pythagorean "Luck" over .164, no one has won a Super Bowl except the 1976 Oakland Raiders.

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

[Smidgeon]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?

[imscott72]

In week 17 Packers must play to avoid going to Philly for wild card PO game.

Why be afraid to go to Philly? I'd rather play the Eagles and atone for 4th and 26 versus going to Zona.

[mngolf19]

Not a single game, every single game. And yes if you are not playing your best available every game, then you are laying down. Nothing says they are now going to win the SB either. I guess I have a different expectation out of my team than some of you. That's fine. This isn't a "I'm sitting so and so because he's hurt", it's pulling your best players when they aren't hurt.

Then you must really be pissed about the preseason games. Those games count just as much as the Colts last two games. :lol:

Well you already know how fans feel about paying for those games.

[pbmax]

In both these posts of mine, I am relying on material and context taken from Football Outsiders (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/). Here is another reason to be nervous if you are a Colts fan and it has nothing to do with the ethics of withholding starters from games that have no effect on the post-season.


The Colts have now tied an NFL record by winning seven games by four points or less in one season. The other teams that went to the playoffs based on so many close wins eventually discovered that clutch wins are a cruel mistress. It's sort of ironic how many of them eventually lost by a close score.

The 2003 Panthers got hot in the playoffs and made it to the Super Bowl, which they lost by three points.

The 1993 Raiders lost in the playoffs by six points.

The 1990 49ers are probably the closest comparison to the Colts, because they were an excellent team even when they weren't winning close, and finished the regular season 14-2. They lost the NFC Championship game to New York by two points.

The 1986 Browns lost in the playoffs by three points.

The 1998 Cardinals lost in the playoffs by a larger score, 20 points.

The 1989 Packers missed the playoffs by tiebreaker despite going 10-6.

[sheepshead]

So are the fans REALLY pissed off, or is the press workin' 'em into a tizzy?

[pbmax]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?
Here we go=

PF^2.37
---------------------- = Expected record
PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

PF=428, PA=290

Expected Win Percentage = .716

Actual Win Percentage = .667

[mngolf19]

So are the fans REALLY pissed off, or is the press workin' 'em into a tizzy?

They work hand in hand. Find some that are pissed, run with the story and create more pissed.

[Smidgeon]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?
Here we go=

PF^2.37
---------------------- = Expected record
PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

PF=428, PA=290

Expected Win Percentage = .716

Actual Win Percentage = .667

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

What this statistic is basically saying is that GB is underperforming. Did you find the statistical records for underperforming teams in the postseason?

[MadtownPacker]

I gotta agree with this guy...

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sports/edwards_herman0108.jpg

Bottom line, the Colts have been going 13-3 or better all the time it seems. The have ended several seasons with first round losses. Why not go for history if you have the chance. I dont blame Manning or the fans for being pissed. Even as someone who is not a Colts fan I felt cheated they woudl not have the chance to run the table. Worst part is they might have actually been able to do it this season with a less then mighty AFC.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.

[Bretsky]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.

IDK, talking about it seems perfectly normal. Assuming that the Colts past and the current Packers are identical and that none of use realize that fact is ridiculous... :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same :lol:

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18. :oops:

[Bretsky]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same :lol:

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18. :oops:

Actually you might want to take a look at the roster some time and than you can admit my above statement is true :idea:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same :lol:

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18. :oops:

Actually you might want to take a look at the roster some time and than you can admit my above statement is true :idea:

Yes. Some. Not a large percentage..excluding coaches. But, the point was that was ONE factor in many Ty listed. Ty listed different coach...meaning HC. That is a fact. Different strategies..fact. How caldwell pulled Manning is completely different than how Dungy did it. New DC. Fact. Different players. More different than the same. Fact. Different circumstances..ie, no suicides. Fact.

Nice of you to focus on one thing out of several listed. :oops:

[Bretsky]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same :lol:

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18. :oops:

Actually you might want to take a look at the roster some time and than you can admit my above statement is true :idea:

Yes. Some. Not a large percentage..excluding coaches. But, the point was that was ONE factor in many Ty listed. Ty listed different coach...meaning HC. That is a fact. Different strategies..fact. How caldwell pulled Manning is completely different than how Dungy did it. New DC. Fact. Different players. More different than the same. Fact. Different circumstances..ie, no suicides. Fact.

Nice of you to focus on one thing out of several listed. :oops:


Fact: Nothing I noted was inaccurate
Fact: I've only focused on what I noted
Fact: You are the one trying to interpret a simple point I made

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, then you actually believe you link these two teams 09 and 03 and compare them? :oops:

[Bretsky]

So, then you actually believe you link these two teams 09 and 03 and compare them? :oops:


My posts made a simple point; I didnt' say what you stated above

Honestly we have no idea of the mentaility of the players of this year as compared to 03

We have no idea of the difference in quality of coaching or difference in coaching between 03 and 09.

I think it would arrogant of me to have a strong opinion either way without a lot more knowledge than is possible for an outsider like me to have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, then you actually believe you link these two teams 09 and 03 and compare them? :oops:


My posts made a simple point; I didnt' say what you stated above

Honestly we have no idea of the mentaility of the players of this year as compared to 03

We have no idea of the difference in quality of coaching or difference in coaching between 03 and 09.

I think it would arrogant of me to have a strong opinion either way without a lot more knowledge than is possible for an outsider like me to have.

So, your original post is just you being an ass. Got it.

[pbmax]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?
Here we go=

PF^2.37
---------------------- = Expected record
PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

PF=428, PA=290

Expected Win Percentage = .716

Actual Win Percentage = .667

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

What this statistic is basically saying is that GB is underperforming. Did you find the statistical records for underperforming teams in the postseason?
Not based on those numbers. Under performing your expected win total might indicate that something else is wrong with the team. Or that you have had some unusual luck. You might expect luck to even out over the course of the season (fumble recoveries seem to be random and could reverse themselves). But there could be underlying weaknesses that result in under performance.

Point totals don't differentiate for opponents, or factor how special teams have failed or how penalties cost you unless they result in points scored (or not scored). That is the strength of those numbers, its a very realistic macro view of a team. That lets all the factors on the team express themselves as they normally would. Bill James (for baseball) found that next year win predictions based on these numbers to be the most accurate he could find. But it is worth noting that he started with Pythagorean Win Pcts. and then modified them to account for changes on the team in the offseason.

Its weaknesses would be matchups and trends. Having bad special teams coverage is worse when you face a team that has a good return game. Point totals don't do much to pinpoint improving or declining teams either.

If I were the Colts and Saints, I'm not sure there is time to improve whatever weaknesses they have. But its a good time to stay healthy. The only downside I see is if you have a bye.

Then if you have not played meaningful minutes in two or three weeks, you might not be the same well oiled machine. And while you are knocking the rust off, you are facing one of the eight best teams in the league. It also may not be a good matchup for you either. If you rest the starters and play the first weekend, you get to knock less rust off and do it against an inferior opponent. But what I question is how much of the results are rust and how much are the quality of the opponent.

Health seems to be to be the primary concern. Currently injured players should get rest. Healthy players I can see an argument for playing at least until you get the lead or through the first half. But I would limit them as much as possible. McCarthy says he will game plan and play hard for Arizona. But I bet some of the older, injured players watch from the sidelines. Clifton, Pickett, Woodson.

[Bretsky]

So, then you actually believe you link these two teams 09 and 03 and compare them? :oops:


My posts made a simple point; I didnt' say what you stated above

Honestly we have no idea of the mentaility of the players of this year as compared to 03

We have no idea of the difference in quality of coaching or difference in coaching between 03 and 09.

I think it would arrogant of me to have a strong opinion either way without a lot more knowledge than is possible for an outsider like me to have.

So, your original post is just you being an ass. Got it.

yup, and it's about time :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, then you actually believe you link these two teams 09 and 03 and compare them? :oops:


My posts made a simple point; I didnt' say what you stated above

Honestly we have no idea of the mentaility of the players of this year as compared to 03

We have no idea of the difference in quality of coaching or difference in coaching between 03 and 09.

I think it would arrogant of me to have a strong opinion either way without a lot more knowledge than is possible for an outsider like me to have.

So, your original post is just you being an ass. Got it.

yup, and it's about time :lol:

Enjoy it!

[MadtownPacker]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.Wow, are you really this much of a fucking bitch? Is your opinion the FINAL word? Well in case it isnt (which it's not) my point was resting Manning etc has really done them no good. If you think that means shit thats fine but does it get you off to be such an ass on this forum? Does it please you that people get sick of your shit and leave here? Is that your mission? You sure seems to be excellent at making this place less fun for all.

So come back with a comment that make you feel intellectually superior. Really, what else you got anyways.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.Wow, are you really this much of a fucking bitch? Is your opinion the FINAL word? Well in case it isnt (which it's not) my point was resting Manning etc has really done them no good. If you think that means shit thats fine but does it get you off to be such an ass on this forum? Does it please you that people get sick of your shit and leave here? Is that your mission? You sure seems to be excellent at making this place less fun for all.

So come back with a comment that make you feel intellectually superior. Really, what else you got anyways.

:lol:

[sheepshead]

Wow, bitch slapped supreme and left him speechless. That's one for the archives.

[Scott Campbell]

I think getting healthy and rested is a big deal at this time of year.

[The Leaper]

I think playing the guys for 2 quarters is a smart move...as long as it is done just how the Colts did it without the players knowledge beforehand. It keeps the players mentally sharp because they are preparing as if they are playing 4 quarters, and keeps them physically healthy by sustaining fewer hits and allowing for more recovery.