Sunday Nfl Countdown Is Ripping The Colts, And I Love It

[LUVTHESHOE]

Can someone please explain to me what Mike Ditka meant when he said " they(the colts) were afraid of perfection "?

Wth does that mean? Its devoid of logic and reason.

I think he simply meant that the Colts did'nt want the extra pressure of being undefeated while entering the playoffs. I kinda felt the same way, it was not to protect players or Manning does'nt play a quarter an a half in a blizzard, while dropping back to throw 25 times to break meaningless records.

[LUVTHESHOE]

Jaric, your right the decision to allow players to play for bonus milestones isn't consistent with the reasoning to pull players the game before.

But at that point, that wasn't what was important anymore. Polian had a locker room of angry players and wanted to get their heads right before the playoffs. He didn't expect the angry reaction from the fans or his players. The players tried to hide their frustration but really could not.

So Polian allowed them to play for their bonuses to lift moral.

I can remember almost every player saying they wanted to go for it, so he knew how they would react,and as far as the fans go I remember him basicly saying he did'nt care, that fans don't run teams. I know it may sound silly but the way that situation was handled is part of the distain both nationally and locally for sure for Caldwell and Polian.

[Jason_]

The colts front office does not answer to any fan and they're not going to make any in-game decision based on what they think fans want. You can't please all the people all the time..that's a fact of life. No matter what decisions they make there are going to be fans who disagree with them. Have the Colts had any problems selling out for games or selling season tickets since they didn't go undefeated? Yeah that'd be a big NO so their decision did not hurt their financial bottom line and it was never going to. If a few fans feel personally insulted, robbed, offended or whatever then so be it, they'll stop paying for their tickets but someone else will be more than willing to take those tickets so people who feel this way really need to get over themselves and their undeserved sense of self-entitlement.

Pulling players to keep them from reaching milestones is probably a labor issue. I would think that somewhere in the contracts the owners and management are prohibited from deliberately keeping players stats down to insure they don't reach a bonus plateau.

Very good point and could very well have been a factor in why some of the starters were still playing in the Buffalo game.

not going for 16-0 did not affect what the fans did. colts made about the same money they would have. hlad a star player went down then the colts would have lost more money because fans would not watch/purchase as much.

Exactly. If the Colts had won that SB then there'd be a lot less disdain (note I didn't say none, just less) about the decision to pull the starters. Also, would people still be this upset about the decision if the backups had been able to pull out a win in those last 2 games? Yes it's another "what-if" but seriously, people are upset about the colts "lying down" for those last 2 games and that's not what they did. They played the starters long enough in the Jets game to build a lead that the backups could hopefully sustain. They didn't send the backups in telling them to lose the game. If the backups had been able to pull out the win then are people still upset because it wasn't the starters that did it?

Bottom line is they weren't lacking courage, they weren't afraid of perfection (the notion in itself is stupid) and they didn't spit in anyone's face....they wanted to have the best opportunity to win the SB and they made the decision that they felt gave them the best opportunity to do that.

[oldunclemark]

& had the team gone 18-0, the player mentality would've been HUGELY different...

so no one can say what the outcome of the SB would've been under different circumstances...

I dont know that that's true.

NOLA was the underdog and they played it that way..

We were favored and we led most of the way..

I dont think that game goes any different if the Colts were 18-0.

Dont get me wrong....I think we threw away a chance at immortality..

Watch how big a deal it will be if Green Bay goes 19-0..

Rodgers will be called the greatest single-season QB of all time...

We gave that chance away

[Superman]

I remember Freeney getting hurt after we had the game won. He should have been on the sidelines.

The game wasn't won. There was four minutes left in a two score game. You keep Freeney out there so you can put the game away.

[oldunclemark]

The game wasn't won. There was four minutes left in a two score game. You keep Freeney out there so you can put the game away.

Freeney and Mathis are the closers...hes out there until the other team's offense has no chance to win

[Superman]

Freeney and Mathis are the closers...hes out there until the other team's offense has no chance to win

Exactly. With four minutes left, they have the ball and timeouts left, and are only down two scores, that game was NOT over yet. That's why Freeney was still on the field. Sucks that he got hurt, but you don't take your pass rushers off the field when it's time for them to mount a pass rush.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

not going for 16-0 did not affect what the fans did. colts made about the same money they would have. hlad a star player went down then the colts would have lost more money because fans would not watch/purchase as much.

If people are paying to watch a game of yours, you owe it to them to give it everything you've got and try to win. That is the entertainment business. And sports are in that business. You can justify not playing players that are already hurt and in danger of serious injury. You could justify pulling Manning if we're taking hit after hit. As I recall, Manning had figured out the Jets D and was starting to really heat up. There was no reason to pull him. It cheated all of us. I understand the business angle. I also understand that it didn't help us one bit. But I am saying that as a spectator sport, you must always strive to give those spectators what they want: wins. I don't believe in "meaningless games". Every game is important as a fan, as a player, and it should be as a coach. Take pride in your team, in your sport, and try to win every game.

[Jason_]

If people are paying to watch a game of yours, you owe it to them to give it everything you've got and try to win. That is the entertainment business. And sports are in that business. You can justify not playing players that are already hurt and in danger of serious injury. You could justify pulling Manning if we're taking hit after hit. As I recall, Manning had figured out the Jets D and was starting to really heat up. There was no reason to pull him. It cheated all of us. I understand the business angle. I also understand that it didn't help us one bit. But I am saying that as a spectator sport, you must always strive to give those spectators what they want: wins. I don't believe in "meaningless games". Every game is important as a fan, as a player, and it should be as a coach. Take pride in your team, in your sport, and try to win every game.

the Colts owe it to themselves to try to reach the goal they set for themselves and that was to win a SB. They don't owe you, me or any other spectator anything else beyond that.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

the Colts owe it to themselves to try to reach the goal they set for themselves and that was to win a SB. They don't owe you, me or any other spectator anything else beyond that.

If you sell a product, you stand by your product. Some of you would make terrible business executives. They need to start selling tickets with disclaimers saying that they will pull starters despite what the outcome might be once they have clinched a playoff spot or home field advantage.

How many of you would be upset if you bought tickets to see your favorite band, but key members of the band were replaced by other musicians of possibly lesser talent just because they needed to be healthy for the next concert? Would you be upset that you spent your money and didn't get to see the product you paid for? Sure you would. Why do you settle for that in sports? Play to win the game. Take pride in winning.

[Superman]

If you sell a product, you stand by your product. Some of you would make terrible business executives. They need to start selling tickets with disclaimers saying that they will pull starters despite what the outcome might be once they have clinched a playoff spot or home field advantage.

How many of you would be upset if you bought tickets to see your favorite band, but key members of the band were replaced by other musicians of possibly lesser talent just because they needed to be healthy for the next concert? Would you be upset that you spent your money and didn't get to see the product you paid for? Sure you would. Why do you settle for that in sports? Play to win the game. Take pride in winning.

If you don't see the difference between doing a concert and playing professional football, and if you can't understand why the Colts wanted to reduce the risk of injury, then this is a lost effort.

I don't like what we did in 2009. But I do understand why they did it.

[Jason_]

If you don't see the difference between doing a concert and playing professional football, and if you can't understand why the Colts wanted to reduce the risk of injury, then this is a lost effort.

I don't like what we did in 2009. But I do understand why they did it.

Yeah....agreed.

[Jaric]

i meant what i said. hubris = self-destructive pride

I know what hubris means.

And aspiring for greatness is not hubris.

[LUVTHESHOE]

If you don't see the difference between doing a concert and playing professional football, and if you can't understand why the Colts wanted to reduce the risk of injury, then this is a lost effort.

I don't like what we did in 2009. But I do understand why they did it.

Again, then don't spin it like they did stating they don't want to risk injury, and then go out and drop back 20 times in a row and throw it to our starting receivers for the sake of personal records in a freaking blizzard at Buffalo. That was ten times the risk than letting front liners finish the Jets game. I see this point made on here all the time and it seems not to be adressed. It was very stupid and against everything the front office said leading up to that game. I think that is what bothers people the most.

[wercolts]

Winning the last 2 games would not have increased the chances of winning it all. Resting injured players did and they still lost to a Saints team that was better that day. None of us can say with any certainty they would have gotten to the SB without the rest.

[Jaric]

Believe me I am still not happy with the decision either, and I am in no way trying to justify what they did. What I am saying is although I don't agree with it I can understand them playing the players they did.

Oh I understand why they did what they did. I guess my issue is that if you're going to take that stand, then take it. Waffling after the fact just makes you look wishy washy or like a hypocrite. Neither of which is positive.

Jaric, your right the decision to allow players to play for bonus milestones isn't consistent with the reasoning to pull players the game before.

But at that point, that wasn't what was important anymore. Polian had a locker room of angry players and wanted to get their heads right before the playoffs. He didn't expect the angry reaction from the fans or his players. The players tried to hide their frustration but really could not.

So Polian allowed them to play for their bonuses to lift moral.

I really hope you're wrong here (the bolded) Part of being a leader is understanding what motivates the people you're leading. I'd much rather attribute this to simple stubborness as opposed to outright incompetence.

[Jason_]

Again, then don't spin it like they did stating they don't want to risk injury, and then go out and drop back 20 times in a row and throw it to our starting receivers for the sake of personal records in a freaking blizzard at Buffalo. That was ten times the risk than letting front liners finish the Jets game. I see this point made on here all the time and it seems not to be adressed. It was very stupid and against everything the front office said leading up to that game. I think that is what bothers people the most.

This actually was addressed by Colts_mp:

Pulling players to keep them from reaching milestones is probably a labor issue. I would think that somewhere in the contracts the owners and management are prohibited from deliberately keeping players stats down to insure they don't reach a bonus plateau.

Now without reading the fine details of the CBA and player contracts we can't know for sure, but this does seem like a reasonable argument for why the players were still allowed to reach their milestones.

[supremecoltsfan300]

If you don't see the difference between doing a concert and playing professional football, and if you can't understand why the Colts wanted to reduce the risk of injury, then this is a lost effort.

I don't like what we did in 2009. But I do understand why they did it.

completely agree too

[Superman]

Again, then don't spin it like they did stating they don't want to risk injury, and then go out and drop back 20 times in a row and throw it to our starting receivers for the sake of personal records in a freaking blizzard at Buffalo. That was ten times the risk than letting front liners finish the Jets game. I see this point made on here all the time and it seems not to be adressed. It was very stupid and against everything the front office said leading up to that game. I think that is what bothers people the most.

And I think that's disingenuous. People are bothered because we had a legitimate chance to go undefeated, and we threw it away, at home, no less. There's really no way to justify what we did, even if we completely benched our starting lineup in Buffalo. It was handled poorly, it was unnecessary, and the comments afterward just made it worse. I was more upset about Week 16 than I am about this season.

Still, I understand the reason behind it. I just don't think that reason is good enough.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

If you don't see the difference between doing a concert and playing professional football, and if you can't understand why the Colts wanted to reduce the risk of injury, then this is a lost effort.

I don't like what we did in 2009. But I do understand why they did it.

I'm not a *. I'm not a fanatic. I'm actually well-educated, level-headed individual. There is obviously a difference between football and a concert. I don't need someone on a message board to point that out. I love it when people attempt to show how smart they are by stating the painfully obvious. What I am saying, and I guess the people who disagree just want to ignore, is that when you are in the entertainment business and you are taking people's money, you should put on the best show possible or you are messing them. It is not fair. You can bring the argument that it is the smart move all you want, but the bottom line is that they let the fans down. It has nothing to do with the perfect season in my opinion. They didn't try their best to win the game. It bothers me as a fan and consumer every time an organization or company doesn't stand by their product. It's just wrong not to do so. And the Colts have done it more than once, not just the 2009 season.

If you think it is acceptable to sell a product and not stand by it, please PM me and tell me what business you are in and what you sell so that I can stay the heck away.

[Coltssouth]

Oh I understand why they did what they did. I guess my issue is that if you're going to take that stand, then take it. Waffling after the fact just makes you look wishy washy or like a hypocrite. Neither of which is positive.

Thank you for your kind reply.

I thought I had spelled out my feeling in this thread, but I will try further in case you don't understand what I am trying to say.

I was not happy in any way with them pulling the starters in that game. My mom had offered to buy us tickets to go and I told her no, that it was too much money. (She would have spent almost $1300.00 for the ones she wanted to buy) In hindsite, we were all glad she did not spend the money as it was depressing enough watching it at home.

Reggie was due a huge bonus for the completion of his record. I don't begrudge anyone a chance to make money. I do not agree with the way this fiasco was handled in any way, but I think they did the right think in regards to the record he needed.

[Buck Showalter]

None of us can say with any certainty they would have gotten to the SB without the rest.

None of us can say with any certainty that we might not have won the Super Bowl had we gone 18-0...

[Buck Showalter]

I dont know that that's true.

We gave that chance away

thats all you need to say...

We don't know...

We gave the chance away,

[Superman]

I'm not a *. I'm not a fanatic. I'm actually well-educated, level-headed individual. There is obviously a difference between football and a concert. I don't need someone on a message board to point that out. I love it when people attempt to show how smart they are by stating the painfully obvious. What I am saying, and I guess the people who disagree just want to ignore, is that when you are in the entertainment business and you are taking people's money, you should put on the best show possible or you are messing them. It is not fair. You can bring the argument that it is the smart move all you want, but the bottom line is that they let the fans down. It has nothing to do with the perfect season in my opinion. They didn't try their best to win the game. It bothers me as a fan and consumer every time an organization or company doesn't stand by their product. It's just wrong not to do so. And the Colts have done it more than once, not just the 2009 season. If you think it is acceptable to sell a product and not stand by it, please PM me and tell me what business you are in and what you sell so that I can stay the heck away.

Why are we talking about Week 16 then? You go to preseason games and teams don't try to win. You have teams that sit their starters down at the end of the season to reduce the risk of injury, and it happens every season. The reason for the outrage was because we could have gone undefeated, and chose to give up on that game. You're trying to make this a bigger issue, and I hear what you're saying, but it's simply not the case. Maybe that's your problem with what we did, in which case you've had that problem since long before 2009. But the vast majority of fans who were upset about Week 16 in 2009 were upset because we were 14-0 and chose to give up. Anything else is auxiliary.

[Fatboyslim11]

Why are we talking about Week 16 then? You go to preseason games and teams don't try to win. You have teams that sit their starters down at the end of the season to reduce the risk of injury, and it happens every season. The reason for the outrage was because we could have gone undefeated, and chose to give up on that game. You're trying to make this a bigger issue, and I hear what you're saying, but it's simply not the case. Maybe that's your problem with what we did, in which case you've had that problem since long before 2009. But the vast majority of fans who were upset about Week 16 in 2009 were upset because we were 14-0 and chose to give up. Anything else is auxiliary.

Why do you constantly present your points of view as something other than just that - a point of view. We all have opinions and the poster made some good points. You DO play to win the game, each and every time. Don't try to muddle the issue with the preseason vs regular season comparision. Injuris can and do happen in the first preseason game, any game in the regular season or playoffs. Holding out players to prevent injuries is like whistling in the dark. What counts is victories in the regular and postseasons. One point of view was it was dumb to take out the starters when playing them COULD have resulted in a perfect season. Valid argument. The other point of view is Colts management made the decision to pull the starters and that was that. Also valid. There will always be differing viewpoints on that subject and in the end, a lot of will agree to disagree Lol!

[Superman]

Why do you constantly present your points of view as something other than just that - a point of view. We all have opinions and the poster made some good points. You DO play to win the game, each and every time. Don't try to muddle the issue with the preseason vs regular season comparision. Injuris can and do happen in the first preseason game, any game in the regular season or playoffs. Holding out players to prevent injuries is like whistling in the dark. What counts is victories in the regular and postseasons. One point of view was it was dumb to take out the starters when playing them COULD have resulted in a perfect season. Valid argument. The other point of view is Colts management made the decision to pull the starters and that was that. Also valid. There will always be differing viewpoints on that subject and in the end, a lot of will agree to disagree Lol!

Would it help if I added a "JMO" to every post?

I'm not defending The Decision. I never have. I said that I understand why they did it, but I don't like it. I don't even understand what you're trying to argue here.

The other poster is saying that if he pays for the entertainment, the team owes it to him to try to win. I might agree with that. But that's not the real reason people are upset about The Decision. We're -- all of us -- upset because they gave up on a chance at a perfect season.

[BIGugly]

Winning the last 2 games would not have increased the chances of winning it all. Resting injured players did and they still lost to a Saints team that was better that day. None of us can say with any certainty they would have gotten to the SB without the rest.

They absolutely would have won the Super Bowl if they had not rusted players. Had they been 16-0, they would have gone 19-0.

So says BIGugly, so it is.....

They cut the heart out of this team when they pulled them in the 3rd quarter of the 15th game. If they were gonna tank, don't start them and ask them to play to win right up until the time Caldwell decides it's no longer time to win...

So says BIGugly, so it is....

[GoColts8818]

They absolutely would have won the Super Bowl if they had not rusted players. Had they been 16-0, they would have gone 19-0.

So says BIGugly, so it is.....

They cut the heart out of this team when they pulled them in the 3rd quarter of the 15th game. If they were gonna tank, don't start them and ask them to play to win right up until the time Caldwell decides it's no longer time to win...

So says BIGugly, so it is....

Rust shows up in the first game not after you've played two games to get to the Super Bowl. The Colts in fact looked crisp and fresh vs. the Ravens. So like it or not resting the players did exactly what the Colts wanted it to do. With that said I didn't like the call to pull the starters either but again like smoeone else said I can understand it. Frankly i think the fact it worked made people hate it that much more because they felt so wronged by it they wanted to see it blow up in the Colts faces and grasp at straws to say that it did.

The heart was not pulled out had it been they wouldn't have beat the Ravens or Jets to get to the Super Bowl. The team did exactly what Peyton said they did when he was interviewed before the Super Bowl. They moved on from it.

[Buck Showalter]

They absolutely would have won the Super Bowl if they had not rusted players. Had they been 16-0, they would have gone 19-0.

So says BIGugly, so it is.....

They cut the heart out of this team when they pulled them in the 3rd quarter of the 15th game. If they were gonna tank, don't start them and ask them to play to win right up until the time Caldwell decides it's no longer time to win...

So says BIGugly, so it is....

Words!!!

[No 1 Manning Fan]

Why are we talking about Week 16 then? You go to preseason games and teams don't try to win. You have teams that sit their starters down at the end of the season to reduce the risk of injury, and it happens every season. The reason for the outrage was because we could have gone undefeated, and chose to give up on that game. You're trying to make this a bigger issue, and I hear what you're saying, but it's simply not the case. Maybe that's your problem with what we did, in which case you've had that problem since long before 2009. But the vast majority of fans who were upset about Week 16 in 2009 were upset because we were 14-0 and chose to give up. Anything else is auxiliary.

It's not just about the perfect season (even though I think those of you that jump on fans for getting upset about giving up on the undefeated season are out of line). It's about going out and winning every game, because that is why each game is played. It bothers me that any team would give up ever. I would hate to see an opponent sit starters against us, even if it meant a win for us. That would feel like an empty win to me. I hate to see a team not try to win. The game lacks integrity that way. This is what's great about college football, they play to every game to the best of their ability. I'm not saying I prefer the convoluted BCS system. I love the NFL playoff system. But I like the the fact that college football teams play every game with equal importance.

If the Colts decide that trying to win is not important in every game, then that is their choice, but I don't think it's right. And the Colts have not shown me that this strategy pays off in the end. So, all of you out there that are bashing folks like me who oppose giving up on games, please explain to me how it has benefitted us. Break it down and show me how this strategy has made the franchise more successful in the playoffs. If you can't, then stop telling us that tho is the smart thing to do that this is in no way cheating the fans and the integrity of the game.

[Blue Horseshoe]

I think it was probably the single worst public relations move in NFL history and they are never going to live it down.

[Buck Showalter]

I think it was probably the single worst public relations move in NFL history and they are never going to live it down.

Truth

+1

[BIGugly]

Rust shows up in the first game not after you've played two games to get to the Super Bowl. The Colts in fact looked crisp and fresh vs. the Ravens. So like it or not resting the players did exactly what the Colts wanted it to do. With that said I didn't like the call to pull the starters either but again like smoeone else said I can understand it. Frankly i think the fact it worked made people hate it that much more because they felt so wronged by it they wanted to see it blow up in the Colts faces and grasp at straws to say that it did.

The heart was not pulled out had it been they wouldn't have beat the Ravens or Jets to get to the Super Bowl. The team did exactly what Peyton said they did when he was interviewed before the Super Bowl. They moved on from it.

That's what he SAID, and that's the reason he had a TEAM MEETING that week, right?

nonsense...Caldwell lost this team THAT DAY ! ! Our record since that day is 12-22..(reg season and playoffs)

Any Questions????

[GoColts8818]

That's what he SAID, and that's the reason he had a TEAM MEETING that week, right?

nonsense...Caldwell lost this team THAT DAY ! ! Our record since that day is 12-22..(reg season and playoffs)

Any Questions????

Right why did we beat the Ravens and Jets if he lost the team and why did they rally and make the playoffs last year when they had a chance to quit on him at 6-6?

[Buck Showalter]

Rust shows up in the first game not after you've played two games to get to the Super Bowl. The Colts in fact looked crisp and fresh vs. the Ravens. So like it or not resting the players did exactly what the Colts wanted it to do. With that said I didn't like the call to pull the starters either but again like smoeone else said I can understand it. Frankly i think the fact it worked made people hate it that much more because they felt so wronged by it they wanted to see it blow up in the Colts faces and grasp at straws to say that it did.

The heart was not pulled out had it been they wouldn't have beat the Ravens or Jets to get to the Super Bowl. The team did exactly what Peyton said they did when he was interviewed before the Super Bowl. They moved on from it.

Thats the professional thing to say...

I refuse to believe the players believe it...

& for the record since that decision how has the team been doing...

Suppose you make a chart to follow the teams success since that decision, what would that chart look like???

[BIGugly]

Words!!!

I looked into their eyes that day, they were hurt, disallusioned, stunned.

HISTORY had been taken from them. This team KNEW it.

Betcha Green Bay won't QUIT if they get that far.

[BIGugly]

Thats the professional thing to say...

I refuse to believe the players believe it...

& for the record since that decision how has the team been doing...

Suppose you make a chart to follow the teams success since that decision, what would that chart look like???

12 wins , 22 losses

[MAC]

They cut the heart out of this team when they pulled them in the 3rd quarter of the 15th game. If they were gonna tank, don't start them and ask them to play to win right up until the time Caldwell decides it's no longer time to win...

This is only an issue with fans who weren't paying attention. The Colts gave a clear indication before the game that they weren't concerned with trying to go undefeated, and the players played not much more than they would have in a pre-season game. I watched that game fully expecting the starters to get pulled at half-time. The only difference between that game and similar games in previous years is that the end of the first half was kind of funky, and the Colts tried to build a lead again in the 3rd quarter before sitting. That actually reflects changing their plans because they wanted to have a better chance of winning, not "tanking" as you put it. Suggesting that they desired to lose is offensive in its own right (as is your silly comment about Caldwell).

They played the starters a little bit in each of the last two games so they wouldn't sit "too" long without any live action, then the reserves did everything they could to win. Nobody tried to lose, nobody desired to lose, they just treated it as an exhibition game - because that's exactly what it was. They won every single contested game that year except the Super Bowl. The last two were no more important than pre-season. Are you upset that they didn't win all four pre-season games as well? Wait a second, now that I think about it, did the Dolphins and Patriots REALLY go undefeated in their years? Or did they "tank" a couple of pre-season games? I don't actually know, because I don't actually care enough to look it up. Because it's TRIVIAL BEYOND BELIEF.

[dn4192]

That's what he SAID, and that's the reason he had a TEAM MEETING that week, right?

nonsense...Caldwell lost this team THAT DAY ! ! Our record since that day is 12-22..(reg season and playoffs)

Any Questions????

OMG...give up, that horse is so dead. He did not lose the team. We are 12-22 since then do to lack of talent on the field in key positions. If you are so "upset" with this franchise why not try being a Bengal fan, or a Lion Fan or even a Titan fan...

[dn4192]

12 wins , 22 losses

And in those 34 games how many have been without Peyton, Dallas Clark and many other key starters?