Do you think Colts should have tried to go undefeated?

TwoCentPlain

Numbnuts
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
11,084
Great move by the Colts. It pretty much knocks out Pittsburgh. And Cincy can lay down this coming Sunday and allow the Jets into the playoffs. Which means the Jets will be in. And if Balt beats Oakland, the Steelers are out. And if either Balt or the Jets happen to lose, NE can lay down and let Houston win, knocking Pittsburgh out.:)

I hate the Stealers.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Danny White;3182397 said:
When you consider that the Manning-era Colts already have one Super Bowl, going for the 19-0 perfect season would have been the right call.

For the Saints, I'd say just try to win a Championship... that's plenty for an organization like that. But this was the Colt's chance to become legendary, and they blew it.

As hard as it is to get to the SB and win it I think that comes before all else. Colts did what was right for them. Every one has an opinion and entitled to that opinion but one fact still remains the colts can't win without a healthy Peyton Manning and the coach did what he felt was in the best interest of his team and what gives them the best chance of achiving the real goal which is the SB
 

jimmy40

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,866
Reaction score
1,888
Doomsday101;3182428 said:
As hard as it is to get to the SB and win it I think that comes before all else. Colts did what was right for them. Every one has an opinion and entitled to that opinion but one fact still remains the colts can't win without a healthy Peyton Manning and the coach did what he felt was in the best interest of his team and what gives them the best chance of achiving the real goal which is the SB
Does Peyton play this week?
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
Yes, I think they should have. By assuming it means nothing to the entire team they have created a tiny fracture in their core. Reggie Wayne has already said they should have. You could see Manning's demeanor on the sidelines. Their air of invincibility is gone. I think it was a very silly mistake.
 

Sarge

Red, White and Brew...
Staff member
Messages
33,773
Reaction score
31,540
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
jimmy40;3182190 said:
So what does the head coach do next week? He can't possibly explain playing Manning at all can he? Then your talking 3 weeks between games unless you take the chance on him getting hurt in a game that does actually mean nothing, no history no nothing. Dumb arse decision.

EXACTLY...
 

Sarge

Red, White and Brew...
Staff member
Messages
33,773
Reaction score
31,540
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
jimmy40;3182813 said:
Does Peyton play this week?

If I'm the coach - yes.

But if you follow the Colts logic, he won't play a minute in next weeks game, meaning he'll be stale as a crouton by the next time he plays and it matters.

They won't think it's too funny if they go on to win the rest of their games AND win the Super Bowl. They will then realize that they flushed history down the toilet for no good reason.
 

Dallas

Old bulletproof tiger
Messages
11,515
Reaction score
3
This was a GM decision. It didn't come from the coach. It was already agreed upon before the game that at some point certain players would be sat for precautionary reasons.

Pollian is getting HAMMERED by Colt fans.

I heard he cut his radio show short 15 minutes because every phone call, fans were screaming at him.


Bad-Bad-Bad

Should always leave that up to the players to decide.
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
I didn't realize a General Manager (who's not the owner) had final say in a situation like this.

I thought the GM was more Player Acquisition and the Head Coach was more Day to Day management of the football team.

Odd.

Also I disagree with those who say if they win the Super Bowl, it will make the decision look much more ridiculous, I think it is the other way around.

All those angry fans will forget about the possibility of an Undefeated Season if the Colts hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

Now if they don't win it all, as Jigsaw likes to say, "there will be blood".
 

jimmy40

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,866
Reaction score
1,888
Maikeru-sama;3182892 said:
I didn't realize a General Manager (who's not the owner) had final say in a situation like this.

I thought the GM was more Player Acquisition and the Head Coach was more Day to Day management of the football team.

Odd.

Also I disagree with those who say if they win the Super Bowl, it will make the decision look much more ridiculous, I think it is the other way around.

All those angry fans will forget about the possibility of an Undefeated Season if the Colts hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

Now if they don't win it all, as Jigsaw likes to say, "there will be blood".

If they win the Super Bowl they will regret this decision till they die.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
jimmy40;3182813 said:
Does Peyton play this week?

If he does it will only be for a series or 2 but I doubt he will play at all. Manning is a pros pro and will be ready to go for the playoffs. I would think the Colts will sit some other key vets as well in this game.
 

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,677
Reaction score
12,158
Looking at it from the perspective of it being The Cowboys instead of the Colts in that situation.....

I couldn't care less about a "perfect" season. Winning the Super Bowl is the only things that matters. This game meant exactly as much as a preseason game to the Colts.
 

zrinkill

Cowboy Fan
Messages
49,043
Reaction score
32,551
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Vtwin;3184186 said:
Looking at it from the perspective of it being The Cowboys instead of the Colts in that situation.....

I couldn't care less about a "perfect" season. Winning the Super Bowl is the only things that matters. This game meant exactly as much as a preseason game to the Colts.

While I agree with that I did hear a different perspective yesterday on The Lunch Break.

Someone wins a Superbowl every year ...... and only one team has ever gone undefeated.

In hindsight I think they should have tried but I understand the reasoning in resting the guys.
 

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
Doomsday101;3184069 said:
If he does it will only be for a series or 2 but I doubt he will play at all. Manning is a pros pro and will be ready to go for the playoffs. I would think the Colts will sit some other key vets as well in this game.
he will definitely get at least one series. I can only imagine the temper tantrum he would throw if he lost his precious "games started" streak. :D
 

jimmy40

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,866
Reaction score
1,888
Polian fails to make the case for not trying to win on Sunday
Posted by Mike Florio on December 30, 2009 8:07 AM ET
When it comes to the question of whether the Colts should have pulled Peyton Manning and other starters from Sunday's game against the Jets, the Colts have asked their fans to let it go.

Maybe the Colts should consider doing the same.

On Tuesday, Colts president Bill Polian appeared with Rich Eisen of NFL Network, and Polian spoke at length about one of the most controversial decisions ever made by a team in position to win a Super Bowl.

Since Polian said a lot in seven minutes on the air, we need to make several specific points in response to Polian's remarks.

1. The Colts have a warped sense of history.

Former Colts coach Tony Dungy said on Sunday night that the Colts have an obligation to win the Super Bowl, but no obligation to go undefeated. We assume that Coach Dungy would agree, then, that the Colts also have no obligation to set the record for consecutive regular-season wins, or to try to win the most games in the decade.

Polian feels differently.

"16-0 we did not feel was a historic achievement," Polian told Eisen. "What was important to us, and what we tried very hard to do on a short week against Jacksonville after we had wrapped up the home-field advantage was to set two records. One, for the most consecutive regular-season games won. We were tied with New England prior to that, and we now hold that record ourselves. And secondly, for the most games won in this decade. And I don't believe that anybody can catch us now, no matter what happens this week. We felt those were both extremely historical milestones that were worth going out there and risking everything for."

So Polian would have us believe that the Colts, who had locked up the top seed in the AFC only four days earlier, opted to go all out against the Jaguars (in a game televised by NFL Network) because the Colts thought that securing the record for consecutive regular-season wins and nailing down the most wins during the decade justified putting Peyton Manning and other starters at risk.

But who cares about a regular-season winning streak? And if the regular-season winning streak was so important, why didn't the Colts care about matching New England's actual 21-game winning streak from 2003-04, which takes into account the most important wins of all -- the ones that come in the postseason?

Then there's the incredibly meaningless notion of winning the most games in the decade. We can't recall the concept ever being mentioned to cap the '70s, '80s, or '90s.

Maybe Polian thinks that this distinction somehow makes the Colts the "team of the decade," even though the Colts won only one Super Bowl.

Then again, the Colts really haven't won the most games of the decade, if the postseason is included. Sure, they've won 115 regular-season games, three more than the Patriots. But with playoff games included, the Pats have won 126 games, and the Colts have won 122.

Ironically, the Colts had a chance to catch the Patriots for most total wins in the decade by winning the last two games of the regular season and three playoff games, assuming the Pats lose in Week 17 and make a one-game exit from the playoffs. But, apparently, winning the most regular-season games from 2000 through 2009 was sufficiently important to put Peyton Manning at risk, but securing the more accurate barometer of total wins in a ten-year period wasn't.


2. The Colts clinched both records the same day they secured home-field advantage.

The biggest flaw in Polian's logic regarding the two records that the franchise deemed to be sufficiently compelling to risk Peyton Manning's ACLs comes from the simple fact that, when they lined up to play the Jaguars on December 17, the Colts already had set both marks.

The record for consecutive regular-season wins was 21. With nine straight wins to end the 2008 season and 13 to launch 2009, the Colts set the mark on December 13, when they beat the Broncos.

Technically, they broke the record four days later, by pushing it from 22 to 23. But if the desire to break their own record had been a factor in going all out against the Jaguars, it should have compelled them to try to extend the string to 24 against the Jets.

The Colts also nailed down the record for the most regular-season wins in the decade on December 13, when they racked up their 114th regular-season victory for 2000 through 2009. That same day, the Patriots won their 110th regular-season game during that same stretch. So even if the Colts tanked the final three games -- starting with Jacksonville -- the Patriots couldn't have caught them.

3. The Colts weren't clear about their goals.

Polian also tried to blame the media and the fans for not realizing before Sunday's game that the Colts had planned in Week 16 to take the pedal off the metal.

"I thought we had made it clear that 16-0 was not a goal for us," Polian said.

On one hand, the Colts were clear that they didn't care about going undefeated. On the other hand, they never said a single thing about risking player health in order to set the all-time regular-season consecutive winning streak or to win the most games in the decade, excluding playoffs and Super Bowls (since those games apparently don't count).

Indeed, during a live appearance on the December 13 edition of NBC's Football Night in America, Polian told Dan Patrick that the goal is to "get players who are playing hurt as healthy as they can be for the playoffs."

"That's our number one priority," Polian said. "Be healthy in January when the money's on the line."

If that's the case, the Colts wouldn't have gone all out four nights later against the Jaguars.

And maybe they wouldn't have done so, if the game wasn't scheduled to be televised on the network owned by the NFL.

4. Why wouldn't going undefeated be a goal?

The Colts have consistently said that they didn't want to win every game.

Why? Because the '72 Dolphins already had done it.

"The Dolphins are known as the only undefeated team because they went -- I believe it was 17-0," Polian said. "Since it had been done before it wasn't as historic a milestone as that which I stated previously, which was the most games won in the decade and the consecutive victory mark."

Of course, 19-0 is better than 17-0. And we like how Polian pretended not to realize that the '72 Dolphins won 17 games, as if the total number isn't widely known and thus isn't significant.

But if we accept that it was important to the Colts to win 22 regular-season games in a row, then it surely should have been important to win 19 games in one season, especially since no one has ever done that.

Polian characterized the team's position in this regard as "an honest difference of opinion."

He's essentially saying, "Both views are reasonable, so please respect ours."

And that's a cop out. The Colts are being unreasonable, and their obsession with making their position seem reasonable is only making the unreasonableness of their beliefs more obvious.

5. The owner signed off on it.

Polian was careful to point out that the decision not to push for a 15th win (and thus, not to pursue perfection) came with the involvement, and presumably the blessing, of owner Jim Irsay.

In other words, to the extent that Polian is getting heat, he wants folks to realize that the guy who writes the checks approved of the approach.

So don't blame Polian. Blame Irsay.

6. The coach made the decision to pull the starters.

Polian also was careful to point out that, even though he was involved in the crafting of the plan to stop trying, coach Jim Caldwell was the one who made the specific decision to yank Peyton Manning and others with a five-point lead early in the third quarter.

"The timing was entirely up to [Caldwell]," Polian said. "It was his decision to make as to when we took the players out."

So don't blame Polian. Blame Caldwell.

7. Polian has misread the source of his team's frustration.

At one point, Eisen asked Polian if he is concerned about the psyche of the team, given body language suggesting that the players who had been removed from a winnable game weren't pleased with the move.

"Not at all," Polian said. "As a matter of fact, I'm very proud of them because what they're upset about is losing the game, not the ability to play in the game. They all wanted to win the game because we want to win every game we play."

Somewhere, there's a dog chasing his tail. And even he thinks that none of this makes a lick of sense.

8. The Colts might have been hiding injuries.

Lastly, Polian's attempt to justify pulling apparently healthy players has created possible evidence that the team has been hiding a couple of injuries.

Polian said that receiver Reggie Wayne had been battling a sore toe and a sore groin. The injury report for Week 16, however, makes no mention of a groin injury to Wayne.

Also, Polian said that tight end Dallas Clark had a thigh contusion. Though it's possible Clark suffered the thigh contusion during the portion of the game in which he played, he did not appear on a Week 16 injury report containing 25 names.

So, basically, Polian's effort to make the situation better only makes it worse. The far better move would have been to take the heat, and move on.
 
Top