Will The Packers Trash Their Perfect Season Like The Colts Did?

[King Colt]

I thought the Colts trashed their pride and reputation when they sat their starters the last two games of their 14-0 season only to lose the last two games. I would bet my house the Packers will do no such thing. The Packer Backers will not allow a chance at glory to pass the little town called "Green Bay". It is a matter of honor and pride rather than a trophy on the bosses shelf.

[oldunclemark]

With a 3-game lead on the Bears .....and if SF loses to Baltimore Thursday..

I can see it ...

[GoPats]

Nope. I don't care how big their lead is in the division... if they have a chance for 16-0, they'll go for it.

[Yehoodi]

my guess is along the same lines of GoPats . . . there does not seem to be the same kind of media attention attributed to the Packers undefeated season as there was with the Pats and Colts . . . and as such there may not be that added pressure moving foward (but there maybe as they get closer to the end), so the distraction may not be as great as with the colts and pats . . .

Indeed the Fins were underdogs in SB7, in addition, there was not this worldwide media, social media stuff going on back in 1972, and thus less pressure & distraction, something the '72 Fins did not have to deal with and will probably never admit too. . . plus there may have been some leftover AFL/NFL sentiment where the Fins may not have been expected to go 17-0 . . . and thus less pressure . . .

I think the "Path to Perfection" stuff on the Pats started like week 4 . . . 2007 was a very long long 5 month dogfight . . . and I do think to the Pats ran out of gas (one cant keep up a playoff type pace for 5 months) . . . well started to run out of gas in December of that year . . . everybody was gunning for the Pats . . .

Whereas the Packers are the lovable "tille town" "Lombardi Trophy is back home", "Isn't Roger so cute", "discount double check" team and I don't see the teams gunning for the Packers . . . without this and the potential for less distraction it will be easier for the Packers to take a chance at history as opposed to what the Colts had to deal with in 2009 . . .

With the Packers long history, one of the few things that is missing from the trophy case is an undefeated season, and as such, the team/franchise/city will likely want to strive for that goal . . .

my two cents . . .

[FireJimCaldwell]

I don't think they will spit into the eye of perfection.

When the Patriots were in pursuit, if Brady had torn his ACL in that game as opposed to the opener the next year, Belichick would have been grilled for playing him in what some would consider a meaningless game. But you have to keep in mind that Brady could have slipped in his soft-soled Uggs and torn the ACL falling down his steps in between that game 17 & the Super Bowl too.

If it is meant to happen it is going to happen. Now with that in mind, I would have hoped the Colts would have played Manning & the starters longer and hopefully in the process created a larger lead, and then at that point eased the foot off the gas a bit, and played it safer, maybe running a 3rd string RB as opposed to the starter, just making safer plays as opposed to playing full throttle like you are down 14 and have to have a W to get into the playoffs. You play it the same way next week in Buffalo.

That is what I expect the Packers to do it, because their coach has a back bone, he's not the best coach in the world but he has a back bone, and while their GM has an ego closing in on the size of Polian's, I feel he will respect the game of football and not fold and give anything away.

If they get a big lead, you'll see Matt Flynn come in to a ) get some work b ) protect Rodgers. Of course Flynn is more competent than Painter and the WCO the Packers use is far more efficient than a Manningless Colts offense, so they have that working in their favor. If the Patriots had gone up big on NYG in that game 16 I could easily see them replacing Brady with Cassell, but only after getting TD # 50, of course. Belichick wanted that as much if not more than Brady.

[WSO]

I see no reason why Matt flynn can't win them the last 2 games if they have already locked up home field and are 14-0. He has shown he is a good quarterback and last season nearly beat the Pats.

[pacolts56]

I thought the Colts trashed their pride and reputation when they sat their starters the last two games of their 14-0 season only to lose the last two games. I would bet my house the Packers will do no such thing. The Packer Backers will not allow a chance at glory to pass the little town called "Green Bay". It is a matter of honor and pride rather than a trophy on the bosses shelf.

I agree 110%

I highly, highly doubt that the NFL team that built its legacy under the direction of the man who's very name is on the Super Bowl trophy will embarrass themselves with the same timid, noodle-spined decision that Bill Polian forced Jim Caldwell into and disgusted Colts players with.

[-JJ-]

my guess is along the same lines of GoPats . . . there does not seem to be the same kind of media attention attributed to the Packers undefeated season as there was with the Pats and Colts . . . and as such there may not be that added pressure moving foward (but there maybe as they get closer to the end), so the distraction may not be as great as with the colts and pats . . .

Indeed the Fins were underdogs in SB7, in addition, there was not this worldwide media, social media stuff going on back in 1972, and thus less pressure & distraction, something the '72 Fins did not have to deal with and will probably never admit too. . . plus there may have been some leftover AFL/NFL sentiment where the Fins may not have been expected to go 17-0 . . . and thus less pressure . . .

I think the "Path to Perfection" stuff on the Pats started like week 4 . . . 2007 was a very long long 5 month dogfight . . . and I do think to the Pats ran out of gas (one cant keep up a playoff type pace for 5 months) . . . well started to run out of gas in December of that year . . . everybody was gunning for the Pats . . .

Whereas the Packers are the lovable "tille town" "Lombardi Trophy is back home", "Isn't Roger so cute", "discount double check" team and I don't see the teams gunning for the Packers . . . without this and the potential for less distraction it will be easier for the Packers to take a chance at history as opposed to what the Colts had to deal with in 2009 . . .

With the Packers long history, one of the few things that is missing from the trophy case is an undefeated season, and as such, the team/franchise/city will likely want to strive for that goal . . .

my two cents . . .

I don't think they throw a perfect season away either but man you hit the nail on the head with the 07 Pats. It was like playoff games starting week 4. Like man can't we just play a football game. The main reason was because the offense was the best the NFL had ever seen so the demand was higher. I too think they just finally ran out of gas although the game was still close.

[dn4192]

Do those teams that go undefeated in the regular get anything over those that don't outside of home field advantage throughout the playoffs? If not that I don't see what the big deal is...

[WSO]

Do those teams that go undefeated in the regular get anything over those that don't outside of home field advantage throughout the playoffs? If not that I don't see what the big deal is...

A spot in history

[CCH]

It doesn't really matter because Matt Flynn and Green Bay's backups are probably better than most teams in the NFL right now. But I think they'll go for it.

[UMLBB10]

Do those teams that go undefeated in the regular get anything over those that don't outside of home field advantage throughout the playoffs? If not that I don't see what the big deal is...

i bet the players in the locker room disagree

[chad72]

That talk gets put to rest when the Packs lose by a FG to the Lions on thanksgiving . The rest of the season, they will be playing for home field advantage with the 49ers.

[-JJ-]

Do those teams that go undefeated in the regular get anything over those that don't outside of home field advantage throughout the playoffs? If not that I don't see what the big deal is...

gee..thats real simple. As a fan its kind of fun watching your team win. ya know ..right? so you didn't get to watch any losses. Get it?

The record books are nice but watching the games was the fun part.

[Go Blue Horseshoe]

I thought the Colts trashed their pride and reputation when they sat their starters the last two games of their 14-0 season only to lose the last two games. I would bet my house the Packers will do no such thing. The Packer Backers will not allow a chance at glory to pass the little town called "Green Bay". It is a matter of honor and pride rather than a trophy on the bosses shelf.

I respectfully disagree with your stance on this issue. I, just like every other Colts fan, wanted to see the team go 16-0, but what I wanted more was to keep our key players healthy going into the playoffs. If any of those guys who got benched would have gotten hurt we might not have made it back to the Super Bowl. That would have been a real tragedy. But I agree with you about the Pack. I don't see them sitting guys. I think they probably should, but I don't think they will.

[objectivecoltsfan]

Do those teams that go undefeated in the regular get anything over those that don't outside of home field advantage throughout the playoffs? If not that I don't see what the big deal is...

Football is a game, if you have a chance to go down as the greatest team to ever play, then only a * like Bill Polian would quit.

[everybodysgotone]

Nothing in life like a missed opportunity. When it comes to on-field performance you play for the day. There's no argument for laying up because we didn't win a title with that course of action. Would things have different otherwise?....we'll never know. I think the Packers will play to win.

[King Colt]

With a very good Bears team (even without Cutler) on their schedule the Pack would never rest Rogers against the arch rival. It's a shame Cutler is out for this could have been a real head banger.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Can you imagine what Coach Lombardi would say about even contemplating such a gutless move?

[Coltsman1788]

No...unfortunately only Indy management feels comfortable enough to live with that kind of infamy. I hate listening to Mike Goldberg on Mike & Mike describe tanking 16-0 as "Indianapolis Coltsing it". He uses the term repeatedly and sounds all giddy like he gets some sort of joy by saying it.

[Corndog]

With a very good Bears team (even without Cutler) on their schedule the Pack would never rest Rogers against the arch rival. It's a shame Cutler is out for this could have been a real head banger.

I agree, Cutler would have made this a very interesting game. I seriously doubt the Packers rest their starters against the Bears, especially if it means they can eliminate the Bears from the playoffs and not have to worry about the possibility of meeting them in the playoffs possibly with Cutler. Without Cutler it all depends if Hanie can continue to improve enough to be able to open the run game up for Forte. The Bears have a solid defense that can slow the Packers, it is in the hands of the offense to see if they can control the clock and put up enough points to win the game. The Lions laid down the ground work for what it takes to defeat Green Bay, stopping the run and running the ball well on offense. It all comes down to whether your team can execute it. The Bears may be the only team able to execute it well enough in the regular season to beat them. In the playoffs San Fransisco is the team built to be Green Bay. I could honestly see Green Bay going undefeated in the regular season only to lose to San Fran in the NFC Championship. I would love to see that happen, I really don't want to have to deal with another Packers SB Victory, especially with all of the fans they have here in Fort Wayne. Long time and bandwagon, they both annoy me.

[mahagga73]

no way,Only a Polian would have the arrogance to pee on football history.

[Andy]

Well they took a big step closer to perfection with that big win today.

[21isSuperman]

Well they took a big step closer to perfection with that big win today.

It was close though. Rodgers looked like he wasn't even trying on that last drive to score a FG

[cmgww]

Hey genius OP, THE COLTS DIDN'T HAVE A PERFECT SEASON....WE LOST THE SUPERBOWL IN 2009!!!! Stop with the "we crapped on perfection" stuff. It's sour grapes, and it's long over with. I don't agree with the way it was handled, but I am SICK of it. You want Manning and the boys going full tilt in Buffalo the next week?? Sure they played a series to stay sharp and get some records, but I didn't want to see a major injury (like Welker's ACL that final week)....And going 16-0 wouldn't have magically changed the outcome of SB 44 people! 18-1, just like the Pats.

I fully disagree with the way the Jets game was handled. It was poor PR, and they should have announced the plan to pull the starters. As for "peeing on perfection", no. It wasn't, b/c the Colts LOST the Super Bowl. So it wasn't perfection. That's what you hindsighters like to conveniently forget. Going 16-0, had it not been done two seasons prior, might have been an option. But I agree that the goal was to win the Super Bowl all along, not go undefeated in the regular season. If the Colts had lost to the Ravens, I'd be screaming right along with you (see 2005), but they came out and kicked butt all the way up until the 2nd half of SB 44.

If the Pack has things sewn up, I see them resting guys. It's a long season, and even with the bye there's a lot of wear and tear. That said, the roll they're on, their backups could probably win all 16.

But please for the love of everything holy, stop with the "we crapped on perfection", "we laid down", "we quit" stuff...b/c we didn't. Quitting would have been pulling the starters for the playoffs, and the Colts sure as heck didn't do that.

[cmgww]

Football is a game, if you have a chance to go down as the greatest team to ever play, then only a * like Bill Polian would quit.

did you forget we lost the SB? Your argument just went out the window....just like the 18-1 Pats from 2007

[cmgww]

If we HAD played the starters in those final two games and, say, Dallas Clark or Wayne went out with a season ending injury, can you imagine the outcry?? you would have all been screaming for Polian/Caldwell's head for playing the starters in meaningless games. Like I said earlier, Wes Welker went out with a torn ACL b/c Belichick played him in the final game of the season. HE IS ON RECORD ("A Football Life") as saying he regretted that decision....Belichick of all coaches! The man who stomps on every teams throat and never lets up regretted playing all out that final game b/c it cost them their top WR and they got bounced by the Ravens in the Wild Card round.

Freeney's freak ankle injury was in the playoffs when you never pull guys if there is even a chance the other team could get back into the game (which there was at the time, a slim one but still). That and he jumped to avoid hitting Sanchez late b/c of the rules today that protect the QB (not complaining, it's benefited Manning plenty of times)...

[SilentHill]

No because smart teams know that momentum going into the playoffs is everything.

[SilentHill]

If we HAD played the starters in those final two games and, say, Dallas Clark or Wayne went out with a season ending injury, can you imagine the outcry?? you would have all been screaming for Polian/Caldwell's head for playing the starters in meaningless games. Like I said earlier, Wes Welker went out with a torn ACL b/c Belichick played him in the final game of the season. HE IS ON RECORD ("A Football Life") as saying he regretted that decision....Belichick of all coaches! The man who stomps on every teams throat and never lets up regretted playing all out that final game b/c it cost them their top WR and they got bounced by the Ravens in the Wild Card round.

Freeney's freak ankle injury was in the playoffs when you never pull guys if there is even a chance the other team could get back into the game (which there was at the time, a slim one but still). That and he jumped to avoid hitting Sanchez late b/c of the rules today that protect the QB (not complaining, it's benefited Manning plenty of times)...

No real fans would scream for that.... you play to win the game.

[GoPats]

Like I said earlier, Wes Welker went out with a torn ACL b/c Belichick played him in the final game of the season. HE IS ON RECORD ("A Football Life") as saying he regretted that decision....Belichick of all coaches! The man who stomps on every teams throat and never lets up regretted playing all out that final game b/c it cost them their top WR and they got bounced by the Ravens in the Wild Card round.

Big difference though.

In 2009, the Patriots were 10-5 going into that last game against Houston. Winning that game wouldn't have changed playoff seedings.

It's a different story when your team is 14-0 or 15-0. I still don't understand the decision that the Colts made that year, and I think it was disgraceful, quite honestly. It wasn't the reason they lost the Super Bowl, but all you had to do was take one look at Manning's face on the sideline to see that he was disgusted.

For the life of me I can't understand why a team would eschew the opportunity to achieve football immortality. Plenty of teams have won Super Bowls. No team has won out an entire 16-game regular season and then rolled on to 19-0 and a Super Bowl win. It was a chance to achieve an epic, once-in-a-lifetime thing.

[cmgww]

No real fans would scream for that.... you play to win the game.

That is total hindsight bull crap and you know it. People would have been going nuts for risking our guys in a meaningless game...i was glad to see them play just enough in that Buffalo game to stay sharp but still sweating till the starters were pulled. So don't say fans would have been ok with losing a major weapon, and that costing a shot at even going to the Super Bowl....bc it is 20/20 hindsight nonsense. The only reason I was even ok w the starters playing for a bit at Buffalo was bc Dungy let them rest too much and they came out rusty at times....

[cmgww]

Big difference though.

In 2009, the Patriots were 10-5 going into that last game against Houston. Winning that game wouldn't have changed playoff seedings.

It's a different story when your team is 14-0 or 15-0. I still don't understand the decision that the Colts made that year, and I think it was disgraceful, quite honestly. It wasn't the reason they lost the Super Bowl, but all you had to do was take one look at Manning's face on the sideline to see that he was disgusted.

For the life of me I can't understand why a team would eschew the opportunity to achieve football immortality. Plenty of teams have won Super Bowls. No team has won out an entire 16-game regular season and then rolled on to 19-0 and a Super Bowl win. It was a chance to achieve an epic, once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Which is why Belichick regretted playing his starters in that game. Imagine how much worse it would have been had Manning gone down on the hard, frozen turf during that Buffalo game. The 07 Pats were dang lucky they didn't lose any key guys during that run.

Oh and as I stated earlier.....WE LOST. Sure the players were mad during that Jets game. I already said the situation was handled very poorly. But Manning calle that meeting to remind them what the true goal of that season was....to win the Super Bowl. That's my best guess as to what went on in that meeting anyway. And the team responded by throttling the Ravens and Jets to get to the Super Bowl. I still believe we recover that onside kick, game over. Thanks Hank...

[Blue Horseshoe]

Which is why Belichick regretted playing his starters in that game. Imagine how much worse it would have been had Manning gone down on the hard, frozen turf during that Buffalo game. The 07 Pats were dang lucky they didn't lose any key guys during that run.

Oh and as I stated earlier.....WE LOST. Sure the players were mad during that Jets game. I already said the situation was handled very poorly. But Manning calle that meeting to remind them what the true goal of that season was....to win the Super Bowl. That's my best guess as to what went on in that meeting anyway. And the team responded by throttling the Ravens and Jets to get to the Super Bowl. I still believe we recover that onside kick, game over. Thanks Hank...

Beating a team you have beaten 10 years in a row, usually by 2 touchdowns, and one you were obviously superior to before your GM took his little football and went home is no great achievement. Had they won the championship it would have been tainted by this gutless move.

[SilentHill]

That is total hindsight bull crap and you know it. People would have been going nuts for risking our guys in a meaningless game...i was glad to see them play just enough in that Buffalo game to stay sharp but still sweating till the starters were pulled. So don't say fans would have been ok with losing a major weapon, and that costing a shot at even going to the Super Bowl....bc it is 20/20 hindsight nonsense. The only reason I was even ok w the starters playing for a bit at Buffalo was bc Dungy let them rest too much and they came out rusty at times....

Once again... No... Did Pats fans go nuts for risking their players to go 16-0? You have the same philosophy as the Colts FO, which has proven time and time again that it is the WRONG choice.

[SilentHill]

Which is why Belichick regretted playing his starters in that game. Imagine how much worse it would have been had Manning gone down on the hard, frozen turf during that Buffalo game. The 07 Pats were dang lucky they didn't lose any key guys during that run.

Whats he difference? We didn;t win the superbowl anyhow. Imagine how much better it would have been if we had the momentum of a 16-0 season going into the playoffs?

[bap1331]

I really think that the Packers are trying to go perfect. When they ask Rodgers about going perfect, you can tell they are trying to. He gives that smile at every post game interview. They will lose in the Super Bowl i think. Probably to the Ravens...

[GoPats]

Which is why Belichick regretted playing his starters in that game. Imagine how much worse it would have been had Manning gone down on the hard, frozen turf during that Buffalo game. The 07 Pats were dang lucky they didn't lose any key guys during that run.

If a key player had been injured toward the end of the 2007 season, no... I would not have had issues with that.

I've said it before. There have been 45 Super Bowl winning teams. It's a great achievement but it's been done many times and will be repeated again every February until the end of time. But no team has ever played out a 16-game schedule and won every single game.

To use an analogy...

Imagine an Olympic athlete, say a runner, has a chance to break a record. Instead, with a comfortable lead in the race, he pulls up and walks the last 50 yards to the finish line because he might pull a hamstring or maybe he'll trip if he runs it. Then after the race he says, "the point is to win a gold medal." That would be true in one sense, but anybody watching would have questioned what the heck he was doing.

[objectivecoltsfan]

I really think that the Packers are trying to go perfect. When they ask Rodgers about going perfect, you can tell they are trying to. He gives that smile at every post game interview. They will lose in the Super Bowl i think. Probably to the Ravens...

I love the Packers attitude towards it. They aren't shying away from it but they aren't talking it up too much either. When they get asked about it they give an honest answer unlike the clowns in the Colts organization. I've heard Rodgers say we will talk about it more when we get to 14-0 or 15-0, but it won't matter if we don't take it one game at a time. To me that is the perfect answer and I love it. They will go for it when the time comes.

[bap1331]

I love the Packers attitude towards it. They aren't shying away from it but they aren't talking it up too much either. When they get asked about it they give an honest answer unlike the clowns in the Colts organization. I've heard Rodgers say we will talk about it more when we get to 14-0 or 15-0, but it won't matter if we don't take it one game at a time. To me that is the perfect answer and I love it. They will go for it when the time comes.

its obvious though that they are trying to go 16-0. Why not? They are the defending Super Bowl champs. I hope they do though so they learn their lesson too about imperfection just like the Patriots. I dont believe theres any team that can compete against the Ravens defense right now. I just want to the the Saints or Packers offense to get humiliated. Mostly the Saints though. I hate them...

[objectivecoltsfan]

its obvious though that they are trying to go 16-0. Why not? They are the defending Super Bowl champs. I hope they do though so they learn their lesson too about imperfection just like the Patriots. I dont believe theres any team that can compete against the Ravens defense right now. I just want to the the Saints or Packers offense to get humiliated. Mostly the Saints though. I hate them...

The Ravens? Seriously? The lost to Seattle, Tennessee put up 26 on them, they lost to a pathetic Jacksonville team, of all the AFC contenders, Baltimore scares me less that New England, Pittsburgh, and maybe even Houston.