19-0

davyjose

Looks as if the Colts, should they gain home-field tomorrow night, will forego any chance of a perfect season, by resting pretty much all their starters, and play out the last 3 games pre-season style.
On the other hand, Drew Brees says it's a chance to make history, and the Saints will be doing their utmost to win every game.

I can see it from both sides, and as a Colts fan it disappoints me that any chance of a 19-0 is out the window. But then, thinking about it, I'd rather lose a dead-rubber in the reg-season to go 18-1, say, than to have what happened New England happen us. I've little doubt that New England 2007 were superior to Indy (or the Saints) 2009, and even they couldn't reach the finish line. Was going through such a brutal season their downfall? IMO, probably. In a nutshell, I don't think the Colts (or the Saints) have the legs for 19-0. I don't think anyone will - the proof lies in new England.

Also, imagine having three bye-weeks to rest players, and spend that time focussing on the Saints and the Chargers, rather than the Jags and Bills. The one possible stumbling block would be a loss of momentum. But get to a super bowl a refreshed 16-2 against a tired 18-0 ... which would you prefer?

Tristram

Resting players hasn't served the Colts well in the past. I think their Superbowl season was the one time in recent playoff history that they didn't/couldn't rest players beforehand.

Chanandler Bong

davyjose wrote: »

Looks as if the Colts, should they gain home-field tomorrow night, will forego any chance of a perfect season, by resting pretty much all their starters, and play out the last 3 games pre-season style.
On the other hand, Drew Brees says it's a chance to make history, and the Saints will be doing their utmost to win every game.

I can see it from both sides, and as a Colts fan it disappoints me that any chance of a 19-0 is out the window. But then, thinking about it, I'd rather lose a dead-rubber in the reg-season to go 18-1, say, than to have what happened New England happen us. I've little doubt that New England 2007 were superior to Indy (or the Saints) 2009, and even they couldn't reach the finish line. Was going through such a brutal season their downfall? IMO, probably. In a nutshell, I don't think the Colts (or the Saints) have the legs for 19-0. I don't think anyone will - the proof lies in new England.

Also, imagine having three bye-weeks to rest players, and spend that time focussing on the Saints and the Chargers, rather than the Jags and Bills. The one possible stumbling block would be a loss of momentum. But get to a super bowl a refreshed 16-2 against a tired 18-0 ... which would you prefer?

Good thread,

Thats Exactly what I was going to say initially, why intentionally stop a hot streak??. A winning mentality can carry on into the playoffs, but then again contrastingly in our championship season we went into the playoffs on a serious low with our D like Swiss cheese, but we quietly went about business happily being nobody's Superbowl pick. And look how that turned out

It's an impossible debate really, as which ever option Caldwell chooses, if we dont reach the SB he will have chosen the wrong one, and vice versa. It all depends on the team and the characters within, as playoff football is a different animal to the regular season. IMO it doesn't matter in what manner we get to the post-season, as long as we're there.

Different strokes for different folks teams

eagle eye

I am not sure that a decision has been reached on whether they will go for it or not, I think they are putting it out there to see what the fan reaction to resting players would be.

It was a gut wrenching end to the Patriots season in 2007 but I will always cherish the memory of that unbeaten season. Its not a Superbowl but imo its the next most special thing in the game.

The other thing is that if you look at the last couple of years, Roethlisberger and Parker played in the last regular season game last season, same with Eli and all his troops in 2007, same with Peyton and Marvin Harrison in 2006 and Big Ben and the Bus in 2005, so there is nothing to say that it will be of benefit to you in the playoffs. I would agree that a team would need to rest players if they are certain to play on wildcard weekend, but any team in a position to go for an unbeaten season would have two weeks to get over their last regular season game.

Lands Leaving

I don't think resting players is a gret idea, teams tend to build on momentum, so why just cut that off. A few weels off lets the pressure of the playoffs build and leads to the players going in out of prectice (real game practice I mean)

As easle eye said, they have an extra week of anyway, so why not at least let manning and co try for the unbeaten season, at least to keep them in game shape. If they have a lead pull them. Simple enough decision I think. It's a longer season than the Dolphins played so it's a chance to really make history as the first 19-0 team. Surely the players would prefer to go for it too, let alone the fans!

Gisty

They'll keep their starters in, no point not leaving them. But they will be pulling them out of games a lot faster than before. An injury will either happen or it won't. Resting players doesnt benefit them too much imo, you could "save" Manning for the playoffs only to see him blow out his knee on the first play in the playoffs.

The Pats didnt lose that Superbowl because they didnt rest players, they lost because the Giants outplayed them. Just like they won their bowls by outplaying their opponants on the day.

Chanandler Bong

eagle eye wrote: »

I am not sure that a decision has been reached on whether they will go for it or not, I think they are putting it out there to see what the fan reaction to resting players would be.

It was a gut wrenching end to the Patriots season in 2007 but I will always cherish the memory of that unbeaten season. Its not a Superbowl but imo its the next most special thing in the game.

The other thing is that if you look at the last couple of years, Roethlisberger and Parker played in the last regular season game last season, same with Eli and all his troops in 2007, same with Peyton and Marvin Harrison in 2006 and Big Ben and the Bus in 2005, so there is nothing to say that it will be of benefit to you in the playoffs. I would agree that a team would need to rest players if they are certain to play on wildcard weekend, but any team in a position to go for an unbeaten season would have two weeks to get over their last regular season game.

Lands Leaving wrote: »

I don't think resting players is a gret idea, teams tend to build on momentum, so why just cut that off. A few weels off lets the pressure of the playoffs build and leads to the players going in out of prectice (real game practice I mean)

As easle eye said, they have an extra week of anyway, so why not at least let manning and co try for the unbeaten season, at least to keep them in game shape. If they have a lead pull them. Simple enough decision I think. It's a longer season than the Dolphins played so it's a chance to really make history as the first 19-0 team. Surely the players would prefer to go for it too, let alone the fans!

All this goes out the window however if say a starter or even (God Forbid) Manning gets a serious injury, then do you think the fans/media would commend Caldwell for playing his 1st string in a game they didnt absolutely need to win?, its nice in theory, but I'd rather rest a few select key players tbh

Lands Leaving

Yeah I see where you're coming from. Kind of unfair, but thats sport!

Chargers will beat the Colts anyway!

Chanandler Bong

Lands Leaving wrote: »

Yeah I see where you're coming from. Kind of unfair, but thats sport!

Chargers will beat the Colts anyway!

I'd like to disagree with conviction, but the Chargers are the team i dislike playing against most of any in the League



*shudder*

Morrisseeee

Denver pilling on the pressure at the mo, 13-0 might be unlucky for them, never mind 19-0 !!!!!

davyjose

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Denver pilling on the pressure at the mo, 13-0 might be unlucky for them, never mind 19-0 !!!!!

Manning pulled his head out of his ass for a nice drive. It's unfair really, the guy has his worst game in years, and he still throws 4 TD's and I'm unimpressed. It shows you can take anything for granted really.

Still, mightn't be a bad time for a rest for the Offense. It has definitely dipped since the Pats game.

davyjose

eagle eye wrote: »

I am not sure that a decision has been reached on whether they will go for it or not, I think they are putting it out there to see what the fan reaction to resting players would be.

It was a gut wrenching end to the Patriots season in 2007 but I will always cherish the memory of that unbeaten season. Its not a Superbowl but imo its the next most special thing in the game.

The other thing is that if you look at the last couple of years, Roethlisberger and Parker played in the last regular season game last season, same with Eli and all his troops in 2007, same with Peyton and Marvin Harrison in 2006 and Big Ben and the Bus in 2005, so there is nothing to say that it will be of benefit to you in the playoffs. I would agree that a team would need to rest players if they are certain to play on wildcard weekend, but any team in a position to go for an unbeaten season would have two weeks to get over their last regular season game.

Do you think the Pats would have won the superbowl in '07 if they'd taken their foot off the gas in the reg season? I do, look at their performance levels at the start of the season compared to the end. They played the best football ever seen in the early part, IMO.

eagle eye

davyjose wrote: »

Do you think the Pats would have won the superbowl in '07 if they'd taken their foot off the gas in the reg season? I do, look at their performance levels at the start of the season compared to the end. They played the best football ever seen in the early part, IMO.

I honestly couldn't say Davy, I think you would have to be in the Patriots organisation to know that. Our OL were pretty poor in the Superbowl and the AFCCG, our D stepped up in the playoffs, the D had been pretty decent all year but went to another level in postseason.

You are facing the best teams in the playoffs, so any problem with your team that might have looked like a minor problem can suddenly become a huge hole in your team.

The thing though about '07 thats unique is we faced the Giants who nobody expected we would see in the Superbowl, they got a free look at the best we had to offer against them. So from that standpoint it was a bad move to play all our starters in the final game.

Gisty

eagle eye wrote: »

.

The thing though about '07 thats unique is we faced the Giants who nobody expected we would see in the Superbowl, they got a free look at the best we had to offer against them. So from that standpoint it was a bad move to play all our starters in the final game.

That is such utter bollocks. You also had a free look at the best THEY had to offer in the regular season. Yet the Pats didnt make any adjustments at all.

eagle eye

Gisty wrote: »

That is such utter bollocks. You also had a free look at the best THEY had to offer in the regular season. Yet the Pats didnt make any adjustments at all.

And your point is? Would we not have got a free look at them if we had rested players?

Chanandler Bong

eagle eye wrote: »

And your point is? Would we not have got a free look at them if we had rested players?

I think this injury to Ware has made my mind up about resting players. Imagine if that had happened to him in a meaningless game at the end of the year with home field already wrapped up?, i dont think Indy could handle that happening to Freeney or Mathis

cooker3

From a completely selfish POV it's a pity as the idea of having an Superbowl between 2 unbeaten teams would be unbelievably epic. It would be a game like no other.