Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

King Colt

Would You Rest Luck/Reggie in the Final Game B4 the Playoffs?

54 posts in this topic

The Colts play Houston in week 16. Houston will most likley rest their starters unless they need a win for home field advantage. If the Texans played their second string players would you rest Luck and Reggie for the playoffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not rest Andrew Luck. He is a rookie every snap whether in a blow out or a meaningless game is important to his development.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive never believed in resting your players. it just has a bad effect on them. their play gets sloppy, the timing isnt there, players are not doing what their suppose to. i say let them play and let them stay sharp. your chancing them getting hurt in every practice let alone a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i wouldn't rest any starters unless we were 14-0 & had a chance at a perfect season

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No because I am going to that game and will be my only one this season :)

Lol! Me too, but I've already been to Indy and Tenn once. The holiday games are typically when I take the family so it would be their first time to see Luck.

When my younger one was little she always used to ask me what we'd do when Peyton retired. I'd always tell her I was a fan during very bad times and we'd still go. Now she gets to see a future legend. Life is good for Colts fans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if we have our playoff spot locked in.

I agree.

If our spot is locked in I would rest our top defensive players & maybe have Luck play a series or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive never believed in resting your players. it just has a bad effect on them. their play gets sloppy, the timing isnt there, players are not doing what their suppose to. i say let them play and let them stay sharp. your chancing them getting hurt in every practice let alone a game.

Then explain how having a bye week doesn't hurt, and I don't see people complaining about that.

And it didn't hurt in 2009, so your theory is completely blown out of the water.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

and then some more

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I hope that resting players junk ended with the last GM.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

harnish might come in and create a qb controversy

Chandler Harnish was release a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

harnish might come in and create a qb controversy

I think you're on the wrong side of the United States lol. Keep going west a bit :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chandler Harnish was release a long time ago.

He is on our practice squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if they were dinged up and the playoff seed could not change. Other than that you keep the foot on the gas. I didn't agree with resting healthy players in the past, and won't this year or in the future.

If the game becomes one-sided then I start inserting some subs here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is. Im taking my son even though he is a Skins fan. Maybe I can change his view.

*Salutes*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then explain how having a bye week doesn't hurt, and I don't see people complaining about that.

And it didn't hurt in 2009, so your theory is completely blown out of the water.

actually it did we lost super bowl lol in 2006 when we didn't rest starters we won

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually it did we lost super bowl lol in 2006 when we didn't rest starters we won

Prove the correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i wouldn't rest any starters unless we were 14-0 & had a chance at a perfect season

I still want to slap some people senseless over that. If 14-0 crosses the Colts plate in the future and they go for it, it will make me want to slap the past regime even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, Chandler Harnish is on practice squad and has, in fact, been a help to Andrew Luck. They commonly share ideas and Andrew takes suggestions from Chandler quite frequently. Glad he's on our side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....you would rather be the 5th seed than the 6th...

.....the 5th seed wouldnt play Houston in the second rohnd...and, the way I understand it, has a (very small) to host the AFC championship game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is on our practice squad.

So, he wont be playing in garbage time unless someone gets injured prior to the game and he is activated. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....you would rather be the 5th seed than the 6th...

.....the 5th seed wouldnt play Houston in the second rohnd...and, the way I understand it, has a (very small) to host the AFC championship game

thats saying that houston loses a couple games right??? because even their tied with baltimore at the end of the season for the best record in the AFC houston has the tie breaker for the head to head match up in week 7 when they beat up on baltimore. they would have to lose 2 of their last 5 games which could be possible so i wouldnt doubt if it came to the final week that houston HAD to win to keep home field through out if they play their starters the whole game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then explain how having a bye week doesn't hurt, and I don't see people complaining about that.

And it didn't hurt in 2009, so your theory is completely blown out of the water.

explain the colts in 04 and 05. the packers last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are either for or against the concept of resting players.

There is no concrete evidence on either side of the coin because there are examples of teams resting and winning and teams not resting and winning and the same can obviously said for teams that do/don't rest and losing.

To me it's more of a mindset. It doesn't install the right mentality that the game of football requires. 2 live Crew has a song that seems to fit this mentality it helps install in my opinion, I can't quote the other Luke Skywalker on this board though. I also feel it affects the efficiency of the offense, even though there are examples of teams playing well after a bye week, one could easily argue that they could have played even better without the layoff. Again, there is no concrete proof to one argument or the other.

There are legitimate pros and cons to either choice. Even if the fans weren't part of the equation, and by that I mean fans paying good hard earned money to see their team/favorite players play, and not being given that chance. If you take the fans out of the equation, there is still history that is being stolen from players. Of course that also involves the fans as well, but the point should be clear.

It's easy to say that the Colts lost the Super Bowl in 2009, but they made it so resting didn't effect it and I'm not buying that. Finishing off the Jets and beating Buffalo would have made the stakes different and while they shouldn't need it, it gives the players something else to play for. Just like the 06 title was sweeter because the Colts knocked off the Patriots, an 09 title would have been sweeter with an undefeated season, as opposed to a two loss season, and it would have got that over-rated bunch in Miami to shut up once and for all. On the other side, I doubt the Patriots hurt over their more recent Super Bowl loss to the Giants than they did after their first Super Bowl loss to the Giants. A loss in the Super Bowl is going to suck whether it's your only loss of the year or not.

If a player has a lingering injury then he needs to see limited action, if he plays at all. A rookie quarterback, and the other rookie/young players need every snap they can get out of their rookie year.

Some have mentioned bye weeks. Regular season they are fine, but in the playoffs I would prefer to have 2 more playoff teams in each conference so there isn't any bye weeks. It gives the owners more money(tickets/tv/etc), it gives the fans more football. That's just a personal opinion that I am sure some will share and some won't.

I'm against the resting of healthy players. Some are for it. So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No because I am going to that game and will be my only one this season :)

Me too, section 128 with my son in law. Don't want to discuss it now, bad luck to count those chickens.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats saying that houston loses a couple games right??? because even their tied with baltimore at the end of the season for the best record in the AFC houston has the tie breaker for the head to head match up in week 7 when they beat up on baltimore. they would have to lose 2 of their last 5 games which could be possible so i wouldnt doubt if it came to the final week that houston HAD to win to keep home field through out if they play their starters the whole game.

No....... the 5th seed could host the 6th seed in the AFC title game..Check it out

If Indy is 5th and defeats No. 4 Baltimore

If Cincy is 6th and defeats No 3 New England

Indy them tops No.2 Denver at Denver and Cincy upsets No. 1 Houston...at Houston

Indy would host Cincy in the AFC title game.

if the wild card teams meet in the AFC title game (a long shot I know)..the 5th seed hosts the sixth.

The way I understand it...

.....the sixth seed in the AFC can not possibly host anyone anytime in the post-season.

That's why the Colts want to win as many as they can and be the 5th seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....... the 5th seed could host the 6th seed in the AFC title game..Check it out

If Indy is 5th and defeats No. 4 Baltimore

If Cincy is 6th and defeats No 3 New England

Indy them tops No.2 Denver at Denver and Cincy upsets No. 1 Houston...at Houston

Indy would host Cincy in the AFC title game.

if the wild card teams meet in the AFC title game (a long shot I know)..the 5th seed hosts the sixth.

The way I understand it...

.....the sixth seed in the AFC can not possibly host anyone anytime in the post-season.

That's why the Colts want to win as many as they can and be the 5th seed.

thats assuming if both wild card teams make the AFC Champ. game. its highly unlikely that BOTH make the AFC Title game. both would have to go through NE,Baltimore,Denver, and Houston. thats a gauntlet of a playoff schedule. especially for the colts to run through. we saw how new england handled the colts once already. and were still waiting to see how the game against the texans will pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually it did we lost super bowl lol in 2006 when we didn't rest starters we won

We won two playoff games before the Super Bowl in 2009, and pretty convincingly. And then we started out pretty doggone well against the Saints. You're telling me the "rust" didn't show up until the second quarter of the Super Bowl, six weeks after the last meaningful regular season game?

Stop it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are either for or against the concept of resting players.

I am neither for nor against it, unless there are significant historical achievements in the balance. Never -- NOT EVER -- would I have been okay with shutting it down with a chance to go 16-0.

Outside of that, I think it's much ado about nothing. Like you said:

There is no concrete evidence on either side of the coin because there are examples of teams resting and winning and teams not resting and winning and the same can obviously said for teams that do/don't rest and losing.
I also feel it affects the efficiency of the offense, even though there are examples of teams playing well after a bye week, one could easily argue that they could have played even better without the layoff. Again, there is no concrete proof to one argument or the other.

Or, they could have played worse. Butterfly Effect: You'll never know, one way or the other, what would happen if you had made a different decision.

The Dwight Freeney injury in the 2009 AFCCG is a perfect example of why this is a two-sided coin. It showed that injuries can happen at any time; avoiding them is impossible. But it also showed why teams are sometimes cautious with their key players in games that "don't matter."

It's easy to say that the Colts lost the Super Bowl in 2009, but they made it so resting didn't effect it and I'm not buying that. Finishing off the Jets and beating Buffalo would have made the stakes different and while they shouldn't need it, it gives the players something else to play for. Just like the 06 title was sweeter because the Colts knocked off the Patriots, an 09 title would have been sweeter with an undefeated season, as opposed to a two loss season, and it would have got that over-rated bunch in Miami to shut up once and for all. On the other side, I doubt the Patriots hurt over their more recent Super Bowl loss to the Giants than they did after their first Super Bowl loss to the Giants. A loss in the Super Bowl is going to suck whether it's your only loss of the year or not.

I think the Super Bowl is enough. We didn't lose to the Saints because we weren't hungry enough. We lost because we made too many mistakes. And I don't think the decision to shut it down at the end of the regular season had anything to do with the outcome of that game.

Some have mentioned bye weeks. Regular season they are fine, but in the playoffs I would prefer to have 2 more playoff teams in each conference so there isn't any bye weeks. It gives the owners more money(tickets/tv/etc), it gives the fans more football. That's just a personal opinion that I am sure some will share and some won't.

Teams work hard to secure a top two seed and get that wild card bye. I can't understand the thinking that the bye is bad for the teams that earn it. If there were some legitimate correlation, I think it would have been suggested through numbers by now. But it's like you said, there's nothing to suggest that there's a link between the bye and winning or losing. If there were, teams wouldn't want the bye; they'd want to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Not unless the game is meaningless and one needs to heal an injury and even in that case I have a tough time seeing either guy wanting to sit if they can play with the injury. We all know everyone is aching this time of year anyway.

Basically.... NOOOOOOOOOOO

We need the experience regardless of the playoffs and playing Houston will be a good measuring stick at home. This is no well oiled machine. It's just oil with a machine next to it. lmao I just cracked myself up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.