So... 2 ways NOT to go for undefeated season

[LittleBoyBlue]

1. Don't try and win all your games you might lose the last one

2. Don't not try and win all your games you might lose that last one anyway

 

[burmafrd]

yeah you will hear more about the Colts and that game now. I happen to think that resting injured players is a good idea. But resting players just to rest them-no.

 

[baj1dallas]

yeah you will hear more about the Colts and that game now. I happen to think that resting injured players is a good idea. But resting players just to rest them-no.

didn't the Saints half *** their game against Tampa? Didn't hurt them any.

 

[burmafrd]

but they only did it for part of one game- a little different.

 

[baj1dallas]

but they only did it for part of one game- a little different.

So the reason the Colts lost the Superbowl is because they sat their starters for the second half of the week 15 game?

 

[burmafrd]

No but their rationale that doing so would win them a SB kind of died.

 

[Nightman]

No but their rationale that doing so would win them a SB kind of died.

I felt like the Colts played tight because they felt the SB was their's to lose and the Saints played like it was there to win. It goes back to Week 15 and taking out key players to "rest" them for the SB because that was all that mattered. I still think the Pats did it right. Play for 60 minutes and go for the throat.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I felt like the Colts played tight because they felt the SB was their's to lose and the Saints played like it was there to win. It goes back to Week 15 and taking out key players to "rest" them for the SB because that was all that mattered. I still think the Pats did it right. Play for 60 minutes and go for the throat.

I never thought about this angle.

Not going for perfect season and resting players... there is an arrogance to that in it is saying we will make it to SB and we just want to be ready to win it.

Good post!!

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

1. Don't try and win all your games you might lose the last one

2. Don't not try and win all your games you might lose that last one anyway

So in summary, play for the tie!

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I felt like the Colts played tight because they felt the SB was their's to lose and the Saints played like it was there to win. It goes back to Week 15 and taking out key players to "rest" them for the SB because that was all that mattered. I still think the Pats did it right. Play for 60 minutes and go for the throat.

18-1. They almost did it right. They may have burned themselves out going 16-0. They were somewhat tentative in that Super Bowl.

 

[CF74]

You play to win the game..
That's why we take the field...
Crown their ***!!!

 

[ryanbabs]

I felt like the Colts played tight because they felt the SB was their's to lose and the Saints played like it was there to win. It goes back to Week 15 and taking out key players to "rest" them for the SB because that was all that mattered. I still think the Pats did it right. Play for 60 minutes and go for the throat.

I agree. Keep your team's eye on the prize and the fire burning. Momentum is so HUGE in football.

 

[jterrell]

I felt like the Colts played tight because they felt the SB was their's to lose and the Saints played like it was there to win. It goes back to Week 15 and taking out key players to "rest" them for the SB because that was all that mattered. I still think the Pats did it right. Play for 60 minutes and go for the throat.

Sorry but that's goofy.

Jimmy Johnson used to engineer losses. He'd have weak game plans and want us to lose because he felt he could hammer home points after a loss.

A team that has not lost all year may have a swagger but they've never felt they need to step it up a notch either.

Going undefeated is stupid and meaningless. I could care less about that idiot Dolphin team. Were the 92 and 93 Cowboys better? YES!

Coaches who play to go undefeated in the regular season at the expense of the post-season are daft.

The Pats in 07 were insanely good but they never faced adversity and the Giants had. That's a huge advantage.

In this game both teams had lost playoff games and both teams had 4th quarter come backs. The difference was one play and had zero to do with resting anyone. If anything the Colts were wishing they could have gotten Freeney a little more rest coming into the game.

You could easily argue that the Colts did themselves a HUGE favor by allowing the Jets into the playoffs. The Jets knocked off the 2 seed Chargers and then mustered no offense versus the Colts in the AFCC.

 

[jterrell]

I agree. Keep your team's eye on the prize and the fire burning. Momentum is so HUGE in football.

Again, goofy point.

You get to the Super Bowl by winning multiple playoff games so there is ZERO way to get there without momentum.

 

[5Stars]

Sorry but that's goofy.

Jimmy Johnson used to engineer losses. He'd have weak game plans and want us to lose because he felt he could hammer home points after a loss.

A team that has not lost all year may have a swagger but they've never felt they need to step it up a notch either.

Going undefeated is stupid and meaningless. I could care less about that idiot Dolphin team. Were the 92 and 93 Cowboys better? YES!

Coaches who play to go undefeated in the regular season at the expense of the post-season are daft.

The Pats in 07 were insanely good but they never faced adversity and the Giants had. That's a huge advantage.

In this game both teams had lost playoff games and both teams had 4th quarter come backs. The difference was one play and had zero to do with resting anyone. If anything the Colts were wishing they could have gotten Freeney a little more rest coming into the game.

You could easily argue that the Colts did themselves a HUGE favor by allowing the Jets into the playoffs. The Jets knocked off the 2 seed Chargers and then mustered no offense versus the Colts in the AFCC.

Would you please point out the games that Jimmy did this in? I have never, ever, heard that Jimmy engineered losses. From what I know, Jimmy hated to lose!!

 

[Nightman]

Sorry but that's goofy.

Jimmy Johnson used to engineer losses. He'd have weak game plans and want us to lose because he felt he could hammer home points after a loss.

A team that has not lost all year may have a swagger but they've never felt they need to step it up a notch either.

Going undefeated is stupid and meaningless. I could care less about that idiot Dolphin team. Were the 92 and 93 Cowboys better? YES!

Coaches who play to go undefeated in the regular season at the expense of the post-season are daft.

The Pats in 07 were insanely good but they never faced adversity and the Giants had. That's a huge advantage.

In this game both teams had lost playoff games and both teams had 4th quarter come backs. The difference was one play and had zero to do with resting anyone. If anything the Colts were wishing they could have gotten Freeney a little more rest coming into the game.

You could easily argue that the Colts did themselves a HUGE favor by allowing the Jets into the playoffs. The Jets knocked off the 2 seed Chargers and then mustered no offense versus the Colts in the AFCC.

Everything you said is goofy. I said the Colts played like they were entitled to the Super Bowl and tried not to lose it and played conservative. They played a simple 4-3 and their LBs got abused. They didn't blitz or use many nickkel or dime packages.

Trying to lose games by design is goofy. Losing games on purpose does not improve a team's chances.

 

[burmafrd]

The Pats were tight in the SB and I also think they were mentally worn down after all the hype during the season and working towards being undefeated.

 

[FLcowboy]

1. Don't try and win all your games you might lose the last one

2. Don't not try and win all your games you might lose that last one anyway

I rooted for NO primarily because of the way Indy treated the fans in game #15