KD in CA Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Polian was on Mike Francessa's show yesterday and strongly hinted that the Colts would lower the risk of injury to their starters by getting them out early and not making it a priority to win their last 3 since they've already locked up homefield advantage. Francessa is on a tirade today about this, insisting that the Colts should in no way turn their backs on a chance to make history. What say you? What if it was the Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Polian was on Mike Francessa's show yesterday and strongly hinted that the Colts would lower the risk of injury to their starters by getting them out early and not making it a priority to win their last 3 since they've already locked up homefield advantage. Francessa is on a tirade today about this, insisting that the Colts should in no way turn their backs on a chance to make history. What say you? What if it was the Bills? 534280[/snapback] Colts will get trashed in the playoffs if they essentially take the last 3 games off. They get paid to play 16 games, they should keep the pedal to the metal win out the string. Shut up those dam Dolphins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 If the Colts are too big of pansies to go for 19-0 and history, and dont care that much about it, then !@#$ 'em, i hope they dont win the SB either. In 10 years, no one will really care that the Colts won a Super Bowl. Hell, the team already has. But what people WILL remember is an undefeated season, and you cant take away history. when peyton kicks it, his SB ring will go to a family member or ebay. hat the NFL would remember tho, is Peytons perfect season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Polian was on Mike Francessa's show yesterday and strongly hinted that the Colts would lower the risk of injury to their starters by getting them out early and not making it a priority to win their last 3 since they've already locked up homefield advantage. Francessa is on a tirade today about this, insisting that the Colts should in no way turn their backs on a chance to make history. What say you? What if it was the Bills? 534280[/snapback] I'd go for it. I mean, it is a risk but it's also a shot at something even more memorable than a Super Bowl. And I really think it is underrated the damage it could do to the team if the players wanted to go for it and Dungy sat them and they ended up losing. These guys have such a competitive drive...it's not really something you can turn on and off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 there is virtually no competition to the 19-0 season this year i think Indy can do both and still maintain health. Has Peyton ever been injured, it's not like it's Vick or McNabb, Peyton can handle it, no way you rest them. Rest them once you have a big lead in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Absolutely- every year a team wins the Superbowl- going undefeated is rare, and much more valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 there is virtually no competition to the 19-0 season this yeari think Indy can do both and still maintain health. Has Peyton ever been injured, it's not like it's Vick or McNabb, Peyton can handle it, no way you rest them. Rest them once you have a big lead in the game. 534312[/snapback] Exactly. Peyton gets sacked, ohhhh, about once every 3 years. The only major injury risk is Edge. So sit him in the second half, and run Dominic Rhodes. their offense wouldnt lose that big of a step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Absolutely- every year a team wins the Superbowl- going undefeated is rare, and much more valuable. 534314[/snapback] i wouldn't say people forget who wins the superbowl, it still is a major event and a huge achievement, but going undefeated, that's just nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Hell yes they should. Going undefeated will make them the new football gods. If they rest starters and lose a game then go on to win the Superbowl it'll just make them another team that won the Superbowl. Nice and everything, but nothing monumental like going undefeated. Week 16/17- Indy down by 3. 3rd quarter. Dungy: "Ok Payton, time to come out." Manning: "Uhhh....no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 i would love to see them go for it, but there are dangers. This time of year, teams that are out of it will be playing back-ups who want to make a name for themselves and get noticed, so I think the potential for a freak injury increases due to these players that are not as disciplined as the everyday players. If the ultimate goal is the super bowl then you have to play them but play them sparingly. Its a tough call! Polian was on Mike Francessa's show yesterday and strongly hinted that the Colts would lower the risk of injury to their starters by getting them out early and not making it a priority to win their last 3 since they've already locked up homefield advantage. Francessa is on a tirade today about this, insisting that the Colts should in no way turn their backs on a chance to make history. What say you? What if it was the Bills? 534280[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Francessa is on a tirade today about this, insisting that the Colts should in no way turn their backs on a chance to make history. 534280[/snapback] Superbowl wins=history. Undefeated would be nice, but in the end, who cares? Does anyone besides the dolfin old timers care about their season? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Superbowl wins=history. Undefeated would be nice, but in the end, who cares? Does anyone besides the dolfin old timers care about their season? Nope. 534363[/snapback] ok, quick test. '69 Chiefs, '72 Dolphins? Both of those teams won a super bowl. Which one do people recognize today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Superbowl wins=history. Undefeated would be nice, but in the end, who cares? Does anyone besides the dolfin old timers care about their season? Nope. 534363[/snapback] I guess you somehow have missed the media fawning over some team that comes close to being undefeated and the numerous stories about the dolfin old timers and their champagne sipping when the last undefeated team loses. Does anyone else care? Yeah, just about everybody. How many times in the last few weeks have they mentioned the '72 Dolphins and how many times have they mentioned any past Super Bowl winner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 ok, quick test. '69 Chiefs, '72 Dolphins? Both of those teams won a super bowl. Which one do people recognize today? 534367[/snapback] Hank in the red sportcoat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I guess you somehow have missed the media fawning over some team that comes close to being undefeated and the numerous stories about the dolfin old timers and their champagne sipping when the last undefeated team loses. Does anyone else care? Yeah, just about everybody. How many times in the last few weeks have they mentioned the '72 Dolphins and how many times have they mentioned any past Super Bowl winner? 534373[/snapback] This is my thinking too. For all the talk to the contrary, people remember an undefeated season (hell, it's only happened once) a LOT longer than a SB victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I guess you somehow have missed the media fawning over some team that comes close to being undefeated and the numerous stories about the dolfin old timers and their champagne sipping when the last undefeated team loses. Does anyone else care? Yeah, just about everybody. How many times in the last few weeks have they mentioned the '72 Dolphins and how many times have they mentioned any past Super Bowl winner? 534373[/snapback] You are correct, they get 30 seconds of air time per year when the last undefeated team loses. It means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 This is my thinking too. For all the talk to the contrary, people remember an undefeated season (hell, it's only happened once) a LOT longer than a SB victory. 534380[/snapback] I agree. And it's not like it's either/or. All you're talking about is the risk that someone would incurr an injury that would make the difference in them winning or not winning the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 ok, quick test. '69 Chiefs, '72 Dolphins? Both of those teams won a super bowl. Which one do people recognize today? 534367[/snapback] If i was old enough, i'd remember the 69 chiefs. I remember pretty much every superbowl i've ever watched and the great players on the team that won it. Problem is, the random fan won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 What is more of a let-down, really? Here are the three options. Colts go 16-0 (19-0), win Superbowl. Colts go 16-0, lose in playoffs. Colts go 15-1, win Superbowl. Clearly "A" would be great, but I think they'd be pretty happy with "C". If they get the record, then lose in the playoffs (especially to the Paytoilets), Manning still has the "can't win the big one" stigma. Who will give two craps about the record if they don't win out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 What is more of a let-down, really? Here are the three options. Colts go 16-0 (19-0), win Superbowl. Colts go 16-0, lose in playoffs. Colts go 15-1, win Superbowl. Clearly "A" would be great, but I think they'd be pretty happy with "C". If they get the record, then lose in the playoffs (especially to the Paytoilets), Manning still has the "can't win the big one" stigma. Who will give two craps about the record if they don't win out? 534398[/snapback] You forgot - Colts go 15-1, lose in the playoffs/Super Bowl Everything has a risk, but you only get an opportunity to make history once in a blue moon. "Your "best"! Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and !@#$ the prom queen." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts