Did you change your mind about resting starters?

[CaptainHook]

Did it change your mind?

[isleseeya]

in Colts case i still think it was a bad idea because of what they were trying to achieve and for fact that players seemed very unified to a man that they wanted to go for perfection

[WaterMan]

Brian Billick said on TV yesterday that you can't play the game of football scared.

[whomper]

in Colts case i still think it was a bad idea because of what they were trying to achieve and for fact that players seemed very unified to a man that they wanted to go for perfection

 

 

Exactly. Its apples and oranges and Hook is very bitter.

[CaptainHook]

Exactly. Its apples and oranges and Hook is very bitter.

I'm just asking questions!

[whomper]

I'm just asking questions!

 

 

I know. I dont know why I am busting your balls so much about this but I just cant help myself

[detlef]

I'm going to keep bringing this up because everyone continues to fixate on the healthy scratches. It appears Indy was resting some O-linemen who were actually nursing injuries so, at that point, you have to question how wise it would be to subject Manning to needless risk.

[CaptainHook]

I'm going to keep bringing this up because everyone continues to fixate on the healthy scratches. It appears Indy was resting some O-linemen who were actually nursing injuries so, at that point, you have to question how wise it would be to subject Manning to needless risk.

For the second straight week, 2 starting offensive linemen did not suit up. Against the Jets it was LT Charlie Johnson and RG Kyle DeVan. Against the Bills it was LT Charlie Johnson and RT Ryan Diem.

[BeeR]

I'm going to keep bringing this up because everyone continues to fixate on the healthy scratches. It appears Indy was resting some O-linemen who were actually nursing injuries so, at that point, you have to question how wise it would be to subject Manning to needless risk.

 

And that's why he played the majority of the game.

 

[detlef]

And that's why he played the majority of the game.

 

Well, you do have to balance the harm that sitting out the entirety of two games would do to timing vs the somewhat increased chance of him taking a hit behind 2nd stringers.

[WaterMan]

Well, you do have to balance the harm that sitting out the entirety of two games would do to timing vs the somewhat increased chance of him taking a hit behind 2nd stringers.

 

Manning can take a few hits. I believe in him. If other QBs in the NFL can take it, he can too.

[cdrudge]

Where's the "I still feel the same. It was a bad idea" option?

[CaptainHook]

Where's the "I still feel the same. It was a bad idea" option?

Doesn't "nope, I still think it's a bad idea" cover that?

[detlef]

Doesn't "nope, I still think it's a bad idea" cover that?

 

I think that was a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that there were two options where someone could explain they thought it was a good idea, but only one where they could say they thought it was a bad one. Of course, that sort of ignores the likely fact that anyone who thinks it's a bad idea to rest starters wasn't swayed to that opinion based on the number of injuries suffered this past weekend.

 

"Initially I agreed with the practice of resting starters to avoid injuries. But then a bunch of guys got hurt on the last week of play so now I think that's a dumb idea."

[CaptainHook]

From what I gather, the public opinion is this:

 

Teams have the right to rest starters at the end of a season, unless they have a shot at an undefeated season. If that's the case, they don't have that right.

 

To me, that's ridiculous. Why do the Colts HAVE to risk injury while the rest of the league rests up?

Edited January 4, 2010 by CaptainHook

[Big John]

It's also that there's absolutely nothing else interesting about Indiana than the Colts. And I think y'all have them moving sand dunes? That's kinda fun.

The Indianapolis Speedway?

[isleseeya]

From what I gather, the public opinion is this:

 

Teams have the right to rest starters at the end of a season, unless they have a shot at an undefeated season. If that's the case, they don't have that right.

 

To me, that's ridiculous. Why do the Colts HAVE to risk injury while the rest of the league rests up?

 

A team has a right to do whatever they want for sure but if we are talking about the Colts this season , and about what a football fan wants , how in the world can resting starters and basically giving the Jets a win to ruin a chance at history be acceptable and or something anyone wants to defend

 

if Colts management , coaches and ownership want to defend it thats fine but why would a true football fan and more importantly a Colts fan defend it

 

You had a chance at history that may never happen again ...

 

the worst part is the colts could win the Super Bowl and there is no way to know if they could have still won it if they played their starters and went for the record ..there is no palpable way to measure this or define it

[WaterMan]

Supposedly they are looking at incentives for teams to keep playing, because the NFL is losing money on late season games. That's coming from the commish himself.

[Cunning Runt]

It's also that there's absolutely nothing else interesting about Indiana than the Colts. And I think y'all have them moving sand dunes? That's kinda fun.

 

Ummm.. I live in Indiana and I guarantee you that I'm interesting. I shave my ball-sack. Don't you find that even remotely interesting about me?

[CaptainHook]

Supposedly they are looking at incentives for teams to keep playing, because the NFL is losing money on late season games. That's coming from the commish himself.

Yeah, that'll be interesting. They can't "punish" teams, 'cause teams would just make up injuries so that players can sit. Draft picks could be an incentive. What else is there?

[myhousekey]

Add Saints starting DE Charles Grant to the list of people injured in a meaningless week 17 game.

Apparently suffered a torn triceps in the 2nd Quarter and was put on IR today. Wonderful.

[keggerz]

Add Saints starting DE Charles Grant to the list of people injured in a meaningless week 17 game.

Apparently suffered a torn triceps in the 2nd Quarter and was put on IR today. Wonderful.

didn't realize you had just posted about this when I started a thread on it

[Big John]

I shave my ball-sack.

Is that what you call your head?

[Cunning Runt]

Is that what you call your head?

 

Uhhhh..... maybe.

[Shorttynaz]

NO LINK - just heard this on local radio this afternoon..

 

 

Maybe he was the wrong person to be talking to about this question, but earlier today on local radio - Anquan Boldin was asked if "when" there is nothing to play for a la Indianapolis Colts, are you in favor of sitting and not risking injury? Boldin said most definitely. If we played well enough this year to put ourselves in that same situation, I could have only hoped that coach Whisenhunt would have done the same thing regardless of chasing a record. The ultimate goal each season is to win a championship.

 

He was then asked about the Colts cheating the system and not respecting the game - as well as not giving the fans what they paid for. Boldin responded with - at the beginning of the season - the ultimate goal is to win the superbowl as I just stated. If you perform that much better than the competition to secure a spot a few weeks early as the Colts did, then the players should be given the chance to rest and get healthy for the playoff's.

 

The other question he was asked was if after a few weeks of little to no playing time, aren't you going to be a little rusty when you come back to play a game. His response was we practice 10 months out of the year. Speaking from a veterans point of view as most of their starters are (referring to the Colts) we know how to prepare for a game. Pressure brings out the best in players when it's win or go home.

 

(NOT RELATED TO THIS POST) Boldin was also asked about the severity of his leg injury and he said don't worry about me. I'll be suited up and will be making plays this Sunday.