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

[dn4192]

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....

No they cut the heart out of fans, that is it.

[dn4192]

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.

Who cares what GB does or doesn't do?

[Buck Showalter]

TRIVIAL BEYOND BELIEF.

As are all sports & message boards, but you are posting on a sports message board...

[BIGugly]

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...

Because I live here and I believe in supporting local. been to 281 games since 1984 including both Super Bowls. I will continue to support them. But I also tell it like it is. No pom poms.

[GoColts8818]

Because I live here and I believe in supporting local. been to 281 games since 1984 including both Super Bowls. I will continue to support them. But I also tell it like it is. No pom poms.

So now we are back to the being harsh on a team makes you a better fan being you are being objective arguement and those who have a different view point must be useing poms poms? Please this is so tired. It's a different view point. You don't have to agree with it but just because we don't all share the same view point doesn't make one of us a more real fan than the other which is what you seemed to be getting at in your post.

I am sorry I don't buy that just because someone is harsh on the Colts it makes them being objective or real or that just because someone can understand why the team did something means they are useing pom poms either. I think there are time that those being harsh are being objective and are being haters I also think there are times when those who support the team are being objective but at other times might be useing poms poms. Either way they are fans and are all entitled to their opinions just as you are no questions asked.

[dn4192]

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....

No they would not have beaten the Saints. The Saints were a better overall team, if you didn't see that watching the game then you might want to get those big eyes checked. The better team won that night, so at best the Colts would have been 18-1.

[BIGugly]

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

Fewer injuries last year than Green Bay, the Super Bowl winner..

patriots won 11 without Brady...

It CAN and SHOULD be done.

[dn4192]

Because I live here and I believe in supporting local. been to 281 games since 1984 including both Super Bowls. I will continue to support them. But I also tell it like it is. No pom poms.

Well no...you, me all of us tell it like how we view it. You are wrong at times, I am wrong at times, we are right at times. We have a view based on limited information which means we will never tell it like it is.

[dn4192]

Fewer injuries last year than Green Bay, the Super Bowl winner..

patriots won 11 without Brady...

It CAN and SHOULD be done.

Take Aaron Rogers off the Packers last year, they don't make the playoffs let alone win the SB, then are not 12-0 this season. Without Brady the Pats didn't make the playoffs. It's not the number but "who" is on the IR list. Look at Chicago right now, down a QB and a RB, what do you bet they don't make the playoffs...

[Buck Showalter]

Invested fans have the right to be upset when bad choices are made and your favorite team sticks to a philosophy that has proven not to work...

[BIGugly]

No they would not have beaten the Saints. The Saints were a better overall team, if you didn't see that watching the game then you might want to get those big eyes checked. The better team won that night, so at best the Colts would have been 18-1.

That win for the Saints was an UPSET. we got outcoached.

The Saints offense only scored 2 TD's in that game, and both of them were on a short field. One after a recovered onside kick, and one after we missed a 51 yard field goal attempt.

[Buck Showalter]

No they would not have beaten the Saints. The Saints were a better overall team, if you didn't see that watching the game then you might want to get those big eyes checked. The better team won that night, so at best the Colts would have been 18-1.

Saints had better coaching...

Colts were giving 3.5-5 points. So you are saying you know better than the wise guys...

LAUGHABLE...

again pure entertainment...

[GoColts8818]

That win for the Saints was an UPSET. we got outcoached.

The Saints offense only scored 2 TD's in that game, and both of them were on a short field. One after a recovered onside kick, and one after we missed a 51 yard field goal attempt.

There was also the drop by Garcon, Peyton's INT, Freeney's injury, the fact if you listen to Basket the fact he said he had the ball and gave it up because he hard someone saying blue's ball. That's just a dumb mistake by a player and yes you can blame the coach for that on some level but that's more of a mistake by the player for being dumb enough to give up the ball.

Coaching was a factor in that Super Bowl but let's not kid ourselves the players made mistakes as well. It was just simply not our day.

[BIGugly]

Take Aaron Rogers off the Packers last year, they don't make the playoffs let alone win the SB, then are not 12-0 this season. Without Brady the Pats didn't make the playoffs. It's not the number but "who" is on the IR list. Look at Chicago right now, down a QB and a RB, what do you bet they don't make the playoffs...

They didn't make the playoffs, but they went 11-5 which could have easily put them in ordinarily.

We went 10-6 last year, then one and done. Make up your mind, which is it?

Let me explain it to ya. It's COACHING.....

[BIGugly]

Saints had better coaching...

Colts were giving 3.5-5 points. So you are saying you know better than the wise guys...

...

Yeah, pretty much,

[Buck Showalter]

It was just simply not our day.

The football gods were mad at us for spitting in the eye of perfection...

[BIGugly]

The football gods were mad at us for spitting in the eye of perfection...

NOW, I don't wanna say anything, but I'm just sayin'.....

[Coltssouth]

NOW, I don't wanna say anything, but I'm just sayin'.....

You knew better than to do that!

[supremecoltsfan300]

We lost the sb b/c garcon dropped a huge pass, the coaching staff didnt let peyton go n score at the end of the half, hank couldnt recover the onside kick, stover missed a field goal, porter made a great play, wayne dropped a td at the end if the gane, and our d couldnt stop brees when it mattered most. that's why we lost.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

No they would not have beaten the Saints. The Saints were a better overall team, if you didn't see that watching the game then you might want to get those big eyes checked. The better team won that night, so at best the Colts would have been 18-1.

Well, the better coach and special teams won the game at any rate.

[Superman]

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)

I'm not jumping on anyone about being upset about that. It was upsetting. I hated it. I still do. That bothers me more than anything that's happened this season. I understand the rationale, but I don't like it, and I wouldn't have done it.

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.

I'm not bashing anyone. You're projecting. I'm not saying that it's helped us. I'm not saying I would necessarily do it. I would say that I don't think it's hurt us, but I'm not a "resting" advocate. I don't like it either. I get why they do it, especially in a typical year if you have seeding locked up in Week 16 or 17, go ahead and give your guys some reps off so they'll be fresh. I don't think it hurt our playoff run in 2009, as we beat up on the Ravens and Jets on the way to the Super Bowl, and that's with three weeks off. I think that pretty much disproved the "rust" theory. But it's not my favorite thing either.

Talking specifically about 2009, I think it was unforgivable. You have a shot at something that's never been done before, and you decide that it's simply not important enough to take the risk? I don't like it. I hate it. I don't think it had anything to do with what happened against the Saints a month later, but I still hate it.

In general, however, what I'm saying is that teams sit starters all the time at the end of the season. If we're 14-1 and we're locked up in the top seed, and we pull our starters early, that's not a big deal. Not to me. Seeding is locked up, there's nothing to play for, you want to take precautions to limit risk to your best players... no big deal. Happens all the time. So, if what we did in 2009 bothers you because you don't like when professional sports teams don't go all out 100% of the time, then it bothers you every time it happens. But I don't hear anyone complaining when the Patriots sit Tom Brady in Week 17 when everything is locked up. They pulled him halfway through their last game last season.

The NFL has taken a lot of heat in recent years because they charge full price for preseason games -- and force season ticket holders to pay for them, by the way -- but they put out a largely inferior product, almost on purpose. You could say the same thing about these games. If that's what your big deal is.

If you really feel that strongly about this issue, then I respect that. I just think you're the minority. I don't think most fans are concerned with a team sitting their best players in the last game of the season to reduce injury risk. I think fans were upset in 2009 because they wanted the Colts to go for a perfect season, and they turned their back on that. I'd be upset if I paid full price and my team didn't put out a full effort. That would be less than fulfilling. But I'd get that. Overall, I think the big stink had much more do with the perfect season than with anything else.

[BIGugly]

I'm not jumping on anyone about being upset about that. It was upsetting. I hated it. I still do. That bothers me more than anything that's happened this season. I understand the rationale, but I don't like it, and I wouldn't have done it.

I'm not bashing anyone. You're projecting. I'm not saying that it's helped us. I'm not saying I would necessarily do it. I would say that I don't think it's hurt us, but I'm not a "resting" advocate. I don't like it either. I get why they do it, especially in a typical year if you have seeding locked up in Week 16 or 17, go ahead and give your guys some reps off so they'll be fresh. I don't think it hurt our playoff run in 2009, as we beat up on the Ravens and Jets on the way to the Super Bowl, and that's with three weeks off. I think that pretty much disproved the "rust" theory. But it's not my favorite thing either.

Talking specifically about 2009, I think it was unforgivable. You have a shot at something that's never been done before, and you decide that it's simply not important enough to take the risk? I don't like it. I hate it. I don't think it had anything to do with what happened against the Saints a month later, but I still hate it.

In general, however, what I'm saying is that teams sit starters all the time at the end of the season. If we're 14-1 and we're locked up in the top seed, and we pull our starters early, that's not a big deal. Not to me. Seeding is locked up, there's nothing to play for, you want to take precautions to limit risk to your best players... no big deal. Happens all the time. So, if what we did in 2009 bothers you because you don't like when professional sports teams don't go all out 100% of the time, then it bothers you every time it happens. But I don't hear anyone complaining when the Patriots sit Tom Brady in Week 17 when everything is locked up. They pulled him halfway through their last game last season.

The NFL has taken a lot of heat in recent years because they charge full price for preseason games -- and force season ticket holders to pay for them, by the way -- but they put out a largely inferior product, almost on purpose. You could say the same thing about these games. If that's what your big deal is.

If you really feel that strongly about this issue, then I respect that. I just think you're the minority. I don't think most fans are concerned with a team sitting their best players in the last game of the season to reduce injury risk. I think fans were upset in 2009 because they wanted the Colts to go for a perfect season, and they turned their back on that. I'd be upset if I paid full price and my team didn't put out a full effort. That would be less than fulfilling. But I'd get that. Overall, I think the big stink had much more do with the perfect season than with anything else.

Yep

[BIGugly]

No they would not have beaten the Saints. The Saints were a better overall team, if you didn't see that watching the game then you might want to get those big eyes checked. The better team won that night, so at best the Colts would have been 18-1.

huh-uh

[Jaric]

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.

My best friend and his new wife got tickets to that game as a wedding present. It was the first time they'd been to a colts game in the new stadium. They can't even talk about the issue without having sad faces. And yeah, I'm with you, I can't imagine watching that live. I couldn't even watch it on television. One of about 3 times I've intentionally walked away from a game before.

That isn't my issue with it though. I'm one of those "you play to win the game!" guys so it never sits right with me when we take people out at the end of the year. I understand the other side of the argument, and it has it's merit, it's just not for me.

Sorry. I can't pass up a chance to spread the wisdom of teh Herm.

Seriously though I get what you're saying about Wayne, the whole team is already ticked. It's an olive branch of sorts. The whole thing was just handled so badly it's hard for me to have anything but a sour taste about it.

[BIGugly]

We lost the sb b/c garcon dropped a huge pass, the coaching staff didnt let peyton go n score at the end of the half, hank couldnt recover the onside kick, stover missed a field goal, porter made a great play, wayne dropped a td at the end if the gane, and our d couldnt stop brees when it mattered most. that's why we lost.

Yeah, pretty much. Guess we weren't prepared, were we. OBTW Stover hadn't kicked a 50 yard field goal in over 3 years, and that attempt was a 51 yarder. Saints ball, short field, TD.

Now I'm gonna talk out of the other side of my mouth, hate to give the ammo up, BUT...he WAS kicking 'em between the uprights from the 45 yard line during warm ups..(that translates to a 48 yarder. (-7 from line of scrimmage, + 10 for end zone)...But as Monica Lewinski said about her new boy friend "close, but no cigar"....

[Coltssouth]

My best friend and his new wife got tickets to that game as a wedding present. It was the first time they'd been to a colts game in the new stadium. They can't even talk about the issue without having sad faces. And yeah, I'm with you, I can't imagine watching that live. I couldn't even watch it on television. One of about 3 times I've intentionally walked away from a game before.

That isn't my issue with it though. I'm one of those "you play to win the game!" guys so it never sits right with me when we take people out at the end of the year. I understand the other side of the argument, and it has it's merit, it's just not for me.

Sorry. I can't pass up a chance to spread the wisdom of teh Herm.

Seriously though I get what you're saying about Wayne, the whole team is already ticked. It's an olive branch of sorts. The whole thing was just handled so badly it's hard for me to have anything but a sour taste about it.

Loved that video!

[BIGugly]

Saints had better coaching...

Colts were giving 3.5-5 points. So you are saying you know better than the wise guys...

LAUGHABLE...

again pure entertainment...

Colts giving 3 1/2 to 5 means we are favored by that much....

[Jaric]

Loved that video!

It's one of the more underrated coaching meltdowns.

That and:

EDIT: ok, I apparently can't figure out how to embed. Here is the link:

EDIT: ok nevermind...lol

[chrisfarley]

what if manning would have gotten a concussion or something crazy like that in those last two games and is deemed ineligible to play in the playoffs, then our playoff chances vanish immediately!!! (case in point -- this season).

The two teams we played (Jets and Buffalo) would have been out for our heads because they would have wanted to stop us from getting the 16-0 or better. Shula might have even paid them to crack our heads......

[Blue Horseshoe]

Who cares what GB does or doesn't do?

You apparently do as often as you talk about them

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

Well... It doesn't matter now. All I see is that if we would have gone for it then we would have a better coach than we really do and maybe could have won the SB. That season imo is just another knock against him.

[justnhlsmok]

NFL Countdown?

ESPN, right?

Go figure...

[LUVTHESHOE]

You apparently do as often as you talk about them

That is why I call him flip-flop. He references other teams in almost every post he makes. He will do or say anything just to rebut whatever poor poster he is involved with is stating.

[doogansquest]

If you go so far as to be unable to forgive people for a football decision, you need serious psychiatric help. Forgiveness is required when your existence, or your innocence has been infringed upon, deceived, or damaged. It's a freaking sport. Get over it. You are in the sad minority.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway because we lost the Super Bowl.

[LUVTHESHOE]

If you go so far as to be unable to forgive people for a football decision, you need serious psychiatric help. Forgiveness is required when your existence, or your innocence has been infringed upon, deceived, or damaged. It's a freaking sport. Get over it. You are in the sad minority.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway because we lost the Super Bowl.

Hello , it is called football talk, just talk. I have not yet read of any crimes being committed due to said decisions, so relax and join in on the banter. This is a football fan forum, a place to vent and discuss, nothing more.

[dn4192]

They didn't make the playoffs, but they went 11-5 which could have easily put them in ordinarily.

We went 10-6 last year, then one and done. Make up your mind, which is it?

Let me explain it to ya. It's COACHING.....

If you believe that then that is fine, you have your right to your opinion, but I think you put to much value into a coaches impact. for me it all comes down to the players.

[Jaric]

Hey look! Another driveby post by doogan where he looks down his nose at everyone!

How original...

[LUVTHESHOE]

Hey look! Another driveby post by doogan where he looks down his nose at everyone!

How original...

lol, mall cop

[objectivecoltsfan]

If you go so far as to be unable to forgive people for a football decision, you need serious psychiatric help. Forgiveness is required when your existence, or your innocence has been infringed upon, deceived, or damaged. It's a freaking sport. Get over it. You are in the sad minority.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway because we lost the Super Bowl.

Well this is a sports message board and I will never forgive them for that. I didn't say that it consumes every minute of my day and I lose sleep at night because of it. You are in the overwhelming minority.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

I'm not jumping on anyone about being upset about that. It was upsetting. I hated it. I still do. That bothers me more than anything that's happened this season. I understand the rationale, but I don't like it, and I wouldn't have done it. I'm not bashing anyone. You're projecting. I'm not saying that it's helped us. I'm not saying I would necessarily do it. I would say that I don't think it's hurt us, but I'm not a "resting" advocate. I don't like it either. I get why they do it, especially in a typical year if you have seeding locked up in Week 16 or 17, go ahead and give your guys some reps off so they'll be fresh. I don't think it hurt our playoff run in 2009, as we beat up on the Ravens and Jets on the way to the Super Bowl, and that's with three weeks off. I think that pretty much disproved the "rust" theory. But it's not my favorite thing either. Talking specifically about 2009, I think it was unforgivable. You have a shot at something that's never been done before, and you decide that it's simply not important enough to take the risk? I don't like it. I hate it. I don't think it had anything to do with what happened against the Saints a month later, but I still hate it. In general, however, what I'm saying is that teams sit starters all the time at the end of the season. If we're 14-1 and we're locked up in the top seed, and we pull our starters early, that's not a big deal. Not to me. Seeding is locked up, there's nothing to play for, you want to take precautions to limit risk to your best players... no big deal. Happens all the time. So, if what we did in 2009 bothers you because you don't like when professional sports teams don't go all out 100% of the time, then it bothers you every time it happens. But I don't hear anyone complaining when the Patriots sit Tom Brady in Week 17 when everything is locked up. They pulled him halfway through their last game last season. The NFL has taken a lot of heat in recent years because they charge full price for preseason games -- and force season ticket holders to pay for them, by the way -- but they put out a largely inferior product, almost on purpose. You could say the same thing about these games. If that's what your big deal is. If you really feel that strongly about this issue, then I respect that. I just think you're the minority. I don't think most fans are concerned with a team sitting their best players in the last game of the season to reduce injury risk. I think fans were upset in 2009 because they wanted the Colts to go for a perfect season, and they turned their back on that. I'd be upset if I paid full price and my team didn't put out a full effort. That would be less than fulfilling. But I'd get that. Overall, I think the big stink had much more do with the perfect season than with anything else.

Sorry, I didn't really mean to say that you in particular were jumping on people. I just happened to be responding to your post. Lo siento mucho amigo.

Anyway...

Of course you didn't see people on here getting upset when they sat Tom Brady, this is a Colts forum. They are our self-imposed arch-rivals. However, It still bothers me when teams don't play to win. I really don't have a problem when backups go in when you have such a commanding lead that the opposition can't even hope to come back. I think running up the score with the starters is also is in bad sportsmanship, and you are just asking for the opponents defense to give you a couple of late hits if you are doing that. But, this does not make me a hypocrite in any way, because I am still advocating trying to win the game.

I never said that players that are banged up and in jeopardy of sustaining a injury shouldn't be rested. Of course they should. It is inhumane to make them play and detrimental to the team's ability to win down the stretch.

As far as preseason. It is a time to find out what all of your players can do, not just the starters. However, those tickets should cost next to nothing!!! I does offend me that they would charge anywhere close to what a regular game costs. In fact, it has always been my opinion that they ought to make the nosebleed section free. At least to the underprivileged who could never afford a regular season game.

In general, I hate the preseason. It is a sham, a farce. They shouldn't even keep score as far as I'm concerned. Why keep score if you aren't playing to win?

In the end, it is their decision. And it really doesn't bother me that much. I just think that when you take people's money, you should put forth the best effort possible. And that's right, In my opinion.