What if the Colts beat the Texans at Houston...

[shakedownstreet]

i remember one time in the late 80's or early 90's we played the san diego chargers two weeks in a row

[Balzer40]

I'm afraid the backloaded schedule is here to stay. There were too many unimportant games in the final weeks.

Teams complained. TV Networks complained. Fans complained.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you're complaining? What difference does it make to you? Sorry, I don't understand your view on this?

Divisional games should be at the end of the season so teams don't pull the Polian and Dungy crap of resting starters. I ALWAYS hated pulling starters just because the playoff spot was already set. "You play to win the game"(Herm Edwards) period!!! I know some will argue, but IMO, resting starters absolutely kills momentum going into the playoffs. That doesn't mean that a team can't find their mojo again in the playoffs, but it just puts the team in a handicapped position to overcome and that is something a team don't need. Its hard enough to win playoff games, no sense in putting yourself at a disadvantage to begin with. The injury argument is absolutely as lame as it gets too. Any players could get injured in the 1st series of the 1st playoff game too,

[Carlos Danger]

If we beat Houston on the road, it probably won't matter if they beat us in week 17 because we will have 10 wins by then... JMO

[Carlos Danger]

The only way I'd agree to rest my starters if I were a coach is if they needed the week to get healthy... and being tired doesn't count as an injury. There is some logic to trying to give your team fresh legs in the playoffs, but it doesn't seem to make a big difference come game day.. The only mitigating factor is the possibility of losing players to injury in a meaningless game... as a coach, you can't really win in that situation... everybody's opinion is going to revolve around whether you win that playoff game or not...

[PMan Escape Plan]

can we just win @ detroit first??

[Superman]

Divisional games should be at the end of the season so teams don't pull the Polian and Dungy crap of resting starters.

How does making the games at the end of the season divisional matchups influence whether teams rest their starters or not? If seeding is locked up in Week 17, and I want to rest my starters, how does it matter that I have a divisional game scheduled?

[Balzer40]

How does making the games at the end of the season divisional matchups influence whether teams rest their starters or not? If seeding is locked up in Week 17, and I want to rest my starters, how does it matter that I have a divisional game scheduled?

I feel like this is largely a Rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway. Of course, if the seeding is locked up in week 17, its not really going to have any effect on whether a team decides to sit their starters or not, but they scheduled these late season divisional matchups to lessen the likelyhood of a team having everything wrapped up in the last 3 or 4 weeks of the season. I was not all butthurt like so many were back in '09, but that don't change my position on whether teams should start their starters or not. Every team should always put their best players on the field for every game despite if they have their playoff spot locked up or not.

It is still my opinion(and mostly that of most players too) that resting players before the playoffs is a momentum killer. It bit us in the rear end a bunch of times. You don't take your foot off the gas when you're trying to run through the playoffs. I feel like it puts the team at an unnecessary disadvantage. I just find it a little ironic that the 1 yr. when the Colts had to fight and scratch till the very end of the regular season, is the same yr. that they rolled through the playoffs and won the SB. They never had a chance to take it easy 1 week, and that was their saving grace IMO.

[Superman]

I feel like this is largely a Rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway.

It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, so thanks for taking the time.

Of course, if the seeding is locked up in week 17, its not really going to have any effect on whether a team decides to sit their starters or not, but they scheduled these late season divisional matchups to lessen the likelyhood of a team having everything wrapped up in the last 3 or 4 weeks of the season.

I can appreciate the NFL wanting to give a team more incentive to play all the way through Week 17. But first of all, even when we were 14-0, our playoff position wasn't wrapped up until after Week 15. So no one is going to have everything wrapped up in the last three or four weeks. It's just not likely to happen.

The last couple of weeks, yeah, maybe, if a team is that far ahead of everyone else in the conference. But usually it's just the last week of the season that the top seeds are pretty well determined. And having that last game of the season be a divisional game doesn't really change that. Even if the last three are divisional games, usually only two teams in a division even have a chance at making the playoffs. Maybe you'll get three every once in a while that are in the running.

But take the AFC North, for instance: Three teams have a shot at the playoffs, but the Ravens will likely have that division locked up by Week 17. All they'll have to play for will be the #1 seed, and it doesn't matter that their final game is against the Bengals (who are trying for a wild card spot). All that will matter is where the Texans and Patriots are. And the Texans already beat the Ravens, so all things being equal, they'll have a leg up on them for the #1 seed anyways. Whether those last games are divisional games or not really doesn't make them any more important. If the Ravens playoff seeding is already determined before that finale against the Bengals, the fact that they're playing the Bengals won't matter.

[GoColts8818]

If the Texans loss one game before facing us and we win every game before facing them and lets just say we sweep them and win both games, what would that mean as for the playoff seeding with the Texans being the #1 seed?

thst loss would probably be to New England and the pats get homefield then.

[Balzer40]

It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, so thanks for taking the time.

I can appreciate the NFL wanting to give a team more incentive to play all the way through Week 17. But first of all, even when we were 14-0, our playoff position wasn't wrapped up until after Week 15. So no one is going to have everything wrapped up in the last three or four weeks. It's just not likely to happen.

The last couple of weeks, yeah, maybe, if a team is that far ahead of everyone else in the conference. But usually it's just the last week of the season that the top seeds are pretty well determined. And having that last game of the season be a divisional game doesn't really change that. Even if the last three are divisional games, usually only two teams in a division even have a chance at making the playoffs. Maybe you'll get three every once in a while that are in the running.

But take the AFC North, for instance: Three teams have a shot at the playoffs, but the Ravens will likely have that division locked up by Week 17. All they'll have to play for will be the #1 seed, and it doesn't matter that their final game is against the Bengals (who are trying for a wild card spot). All that will matter is where the Texans and Patriots are. And the Texans already beat the Ravens, so all things being equal, they'll have a leg up on them for the #1 seed anyways. Whether those last games are divisional games or not really doesn't make them any more important. If the Ravens playoff seeding is already determined before that finale against the Bengals, the fact that they're playing the Bengals won't matter.

I get what you're saying, but my whole point is that IMO, I don't ever want to see us rest starters at the end of the regular season no matter where we are in the conference or divisional standings. The only reason I feel like this is because I feel like it has a negative effect on the team and not a beneficial effect going into the playoffs. I just hate the injury reasoning for this train of thought. Players can get injured at any time and taking the foot off the gas in the last game or 2 of the season and losing momentum is a bad idea IMO. I will always feel like that contributed to our early exits from the playoffs many many times. It may not have been the only factor, but it definitely played a part IMO.

[Superman]

I get what you're saying, but my whole point is that IMO, I don't ever want to see us rest starters at the end of the regular season no matter where we are in the conference or divisional standings. The only reason I feel like this is because I feel like it has a negative effect on the team and not a beneficial effect going into the playoffs. I just hate the injury reasoning for this train of thought. Players can get injured at any time and taking the foot off the gas in the last game or 2 of the season and losing momentum is a bad idea IMO. I will always feel like that contributed to our early exits from the playoffs many many times. It may not have been the only factor, but it definitely played a part IMO.

This debate is going on in multiple threads right now. I understand your viewpoint, even if I disagree with it. And actually, I don't even necessarily disagree, I just don't think there's a proven correlation between shutting it down and losing in the playoffs.

Either way, scheduling half of a team's divisional matchups in the last month of the season doesn't fix that.

I get setting the last game of the season between divisional rivals. Last season, the Giants and Cowboys duked it out in Week 17 for the divisional crown, and the loser went home. Big time matchups, good scheduling, great ratings. In 2008, the finale between the Chargers and Broncos determined the division winner. It works sometimes. But you can't force importance on unimportant games just by making them divisional games. The math is usually set by then, and it doesn't matter who you're playing.

That's even more true when the team in question is 14-0. We could have finished 2009 against all three divisional opponents, and we still wouldn't have played those final two games with any level of urgency.