Tony Says Sit Them Still.

[dn4192]

On NBC last night the topic of the Packers going 16-0 came up and Tony still believes going 16-0 in the regular season is not a big deal and said he would begin sitting starters. Rodney Harrison agreeded that in upcoming games for the Packers he would start some but as the games got gonig he would pull some starters. It will be interesting to see what the Packer do.

[GoColts8818]

On NBC last night the topic of the Packers going 16-0 came up and Tony still believes going 16-0 in the regular season is not a big deal and said he would begin sitting starters. Rodney Harrison agreeded that in upcoming games for the Packers he would start some but as the games got gonig he would pull some starters. It will be interesting to see what the Packer do.

Well since the Packers might have just lost their star WR for the season and it happened in a game they were leading 31-0 at the time Dungy might have a merit to what he's saying.

I am not shocked at all Dungy said this, resting the starters all started with Dungy. It's what he believes in, don't take unnescery risks and rather we like it or not once you have homefield locked up playing your starters in games is a risk you don't have to take. Losing star players that is going to cost you games in the playoffs is not worth going 16-0 for. From a pure football stand point resting does have some merit behind it because the goal is to win a Super Bowl not go undefeated.

With that said clearly resting when you have a chance to go undefeated is wildly unpopular with fans but you know what we don't have to face the music if something bad happens to your team in a meaningless game. Can imange what kind of heat a coach would be under if say Rodgers got hurt in week 16 and the only thing the Packers were playing for was an undefeated season?

Resting isn't full proof either it can leave your team rusty (see us in 2005) and can cause issues in your lockerroom. That's why a coach has to weigh the options and do what they believe is best for their team because both sides have very valid cases. Dungy is a rest them guy (although worth pointing out he let his guys go for it in 2005 when he had a chance to rest them and only rested them after the shot at the perfect season was gone).

[wirymo]

Well, I think you should find a happy medium somewhere. Don't just give up on games, but don't run up the scores either. If you have a comfortable lead in the 3rd or 4th quarter, then sure pull your starters. I think it's a disgrace to the NFL and sportsmanship to just give up on games.

[LUVTHESHOE]

On NBC last night the topic of the Packers going 16-0 came up and Tony still believes going 16-0 in the regular season is not a big deal and said he would begin sitting starters. Rodney Harrison agreeded that in upcoming games for the Packers he would start some but as the games got gonig he would pull some starters. It will be interesting to see what the Packer do.

Then Dungy said right after that he thought they would run the table.

[GoColts8818]

Then Dungy said right after that he thought they would run the table.

He might have, he told you what they should do, it doesn't mean he thinks that is what they are going to do.

IE he was saying hey I think they should rest guys but doesn't believe they will sit them. I do that all the time with Colts stuff, I might think they should do something differently but I look at them and understand they are probably going to do something else.

[LUVTHESHOE]

He might have, he told you what they should do, it doesn't mean he thinks that is what they are going to do.

IE he was saying hey I think they should rest guys but doesn't believe they will sit them. I do that all the time with Colts stuff, I might think they should do something differently but I look at them and understand they are probably going to do something else.

I heard mccarthy say that they are taking it week by week and the players and coaches will address it on a week by week basis. I found that funny he said coaches and players, nobody else.

[GoColts8818]

I heard mccarthy say that they are taking it week by week and the players and coaches will address it on a week by week basis. I found that funny he said coaches and players, nobody else.

Smart move on his part he probably learned from the mistake the Colts made by not talking to the players about it. That was my biggest issue with the whole thing it was clear the players weren't on board with it and it sounded like most of them didn't even know it was going to happen.

[Smitto]

Nothings wrong with going for the perfect season, the players have worked their butts off to be where they are right now they deserve the very least to pursue that chance.

[doogansquest]

Nothings wrong with going for the perfect season, the players have worked their butts off to be where they are right now they deserve the very least to pursue that chance.

There's also nothing wrong with giving the players who worked their butts off to secure the #1 spot a well-deserved rest so they are fresh(er) for the toughest 3 game stretch of their lives.

Well since the Packers might have just lost their star WR for the season and it happened in a game they were leading 31-0 at the time Dungy might have a merit to what he's saying.

I am not shocked at all Dungy said this, resting the starters all started with Dungy. It's what he believes in, don't take unnescery risks and rather we like it or not once you have homefield locked up playing your starters in games is a risk you don't have to take. Losing star players that is going to cost you games in the playoffs is not worth going 16-0 for. From a pure football stand point resting does have some merit behind it because the goal is to win a Super Bowl not go undefeated.

With that said clearly resting when you have a chance to go undefeated is wildly unpopular with fans but you know what we don't have to face the music if something bad happens to your team in a meaningless game. Can imange what kind of heat a coach would be under if say Rodgers got hurt in week 16 and the only thing the Packers were playing for was an undefeated season?

Resting isn't full proof either it can leave your team rusty (see us in 2005) and can cause issues in your lockerroom. That's why a coach has to weigh the options and do what they believe is best for their team because both sides have very valid cases. Dungy is a rest them guy (although worth pointing out he let his guys go for it in 2005 when he had a chance to rest them and only rested them after the shot at the perfect season was gone).

+1: Very well said.

[mammo]

why says the backups wont finish off the season... good time to get backups more reps in the game, so if something was to happen in the playoffs, backups dont look bad as. i mean if they win the last 2 games with several key players out, they will take alot of confidence from that

[Go Blue Horseshoe]

I'm sure that any team would love to go undefeated, but you HAVE to do everything possible to keep your guys healthy going into the playoffs. I have said it before in here, if you go undefeated but don't win the Super Bowl, then who cares? Sure, its a great accomplishment either way, but you gotta win the big one for people to remember you. Look at the year that the Pats went undefeated and made it to the Super Bowl. The only thing that they get remembered for that year is the fact that they lost the game at the end. Being world champs is way more important than beating everyone in the regular season.

[Mameluc]

I never liked the idea of resting but the truth is that there is valid reasoning for it. just look at NE when they lost welker in the last week 2 years ago. there was no need for it.

i didnt like it when we did it but it had a reason.

[Buck Showalter]

Well since the Packers might have just lost their star WR for the season and it happened in a game they were leading 31-0 at the time Dungy might have a merit to what he's saying.

I am not shocked at all Dungy said this, resting the starters all started with Dungy. It's what he believes in, don't take unnescery risks and rather we like it or not once you have homefield locked up playing your starters in games is a risk you don't have to take. Losing star players that is going to cost you games in the playoffs is not worth going 16-0 for. From a pure football stand point resting does have some merit behind it because the goal is to win a Super Bowl not go undefeated.

With that said clearly resting when you have a chance to go undefeated is wildly unpopular with fans but you know what we don't have to face the music if something bad happens to your team in a meaningless game. Can imange what kind of heat a coach would be under if say Rodgers got hurt in week 16 and the only thing the Packers were playing for was an undefeated season?

Resting isn't full proof either it can leave your team rusty (see us in 2005) and can cause issues in your lockerroom. That's why a coach has to weigh the options and do what they believe is best for their team because both sides have very valid cases. Dungy is a rest them guy (although worth pointing out he let his guys go for it in 2005 when he had a chance to rest them and only rested them after the shot at the perfect season was gone).

What is a meaningless game???

[Superman]

Well since the Packers might have just lost their star WR for the season and it happened in a game they were leading 31-0 at the time Dungy might have a merit to what he's saying.

I am not shocked at all Dungy said this, resting the starters all started with Dungy. It's what he believes in, don't take unnescery risks and rather we like it or not once you have homefield locked up playing your starters in games is a risk you don't have to take. Losing star players that is going to cost you games in the playoffs is not worth going 16-0 for. From a pure football stand point resting does have some merit behind it because the goal is to win a Super Bowl not go undefeated.

There's a world of difference between pulling back when you're up four touchdowns, and not sending your guys out there in an effort to win in the first place. I know the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl, but on the way, you establish a goal to win every game you take the field for. When you decide that reducing the risk of injury is more important than winning games -- even if they're "meaningless" -- you open up room for disagreement. Especially when there's a significant historical accomplishment within your grasp.

With that said clearly resting when you have a chance to go undefeated is wildly unpopular with fans but you know what we don't have to face the music if something bad happens to your team in a meaningless game. Can imange what kind of heat a coach would be under if say Rodgers got hurt in week 16 and the only thing the Packers were playing for was an undefeated season?

Injuries happen. I think, especially after 2009, fans would be more forgiving if you suffer an injury while trying to make history than they would be if you give up on making history.

And on the other hand, if you shut it down in Week 16, and then you lose a key player to injury in your first playoff game, it highlights the fact that injuries happen, and you really can't control it even when you're being careful.

Resting isn't full proof either it can leave your team rusty (see us in 2005) and can cause issues in your lockerroom. That's why a coach has to weigh the options and do what they believe is best for their team because both sides have very valid cases. Dungy is a rest them guy (although worth pointing out he let his guys go for it in 2005 when he had a chance to rest them and only rested them after the shot at the perfect season was gone).

I don't think rust was the issue in 2005. James Dungy's death was a much bigger factor. On top of that, we simply had trouble handling the pass rush in the first half. I think "rust" is a cop out. We gave that game away. Same thing in 2007, not to mention the fact that we had zero pass rush without Freeney and Mathis. I thought 2009 pretty well disproved the "rust" theory. You can have a couple weeks off and still come out and take care of business against good teams.

[tonychen]

I never liked the idea of resting but the truth is that there is valid reasoning for it. just look at NE when they lost welker in the last week 2 years ago. there was no need for it.

i didnt like it when we did it but it had a reason.

Considering the talent level of the Colts, I think we just could not afford losing any of the starters in 09, and I do support the idea of resting the starters and I believe that was why we reached the superbowl, and not pulling Freeney late in the Jets playoff game was one of the direct reasons we lost in that SB. Many claimed the two goals were not exclusive, but I don't think so because Colts were not very talented and the backups were not even close. They needed to get all good players to play a perfect game to beat the red hot Saints.

On the other hand, when talking about the meaning of a football game, a perfect season might not be less meaningful than a SB trophy. There are SB trophies every year but the chance to reach perfection is much rare. If the goal of the game is to entertain the audience, the team should have gone for the perfect season as it was what the most of the audience wanted. Even if they exit early from the playoff due to crucial injuries in the last two weeks, the audience should be able to forgive them and still feel satisfied.

[tonychen]

What is a meaningless game???

The entire game of football could be 'meaningless' since it is just sth. for fun for most of the fans not betting on it or working in related areas. If say the goal of the game is to make fans feel happy, then as far as the fans care and want the team to win, there is no meaningless game.

[dn4192]

What is a meaningless game???

Games that have zero barring on your standing for the playoffs. If you have the no.1 seed and HF advantage wrapped up then any games remaning are meaningless.

[Buck Showalter]

Games that have zero barring on your standing for the playoffs. If you have the no.1 seed and HF advantage wrapped up then any games remaning are meaningless.

It was sarcasm...

brainiacs

but the fact that you felt it neccessary to spell it out for me... WOW...

Thanks...

[chad72]

Basically what Dungy said was he does not think they should go for it all out at the risk of not giving enough rest for players that are banged up and playing starters in the 3rd quarter in a game out of reach.

He followed it by saying that he thinks they can still go undefeated without going all out for it given their talent and depth.

[a06cc]

I thought this was the Colts forum? I could careless about the old coach or the Packers.

[chad72]

Many claimed the two goals were not exclusive, but I don't think so because Colts were not very talented and the backups were not even close. They needed to get all good players to play a perfect game to beat the red hot Saints.

Bill Polian obviously knew the level of depth (or lack of) that he had on the Colts roster that can hang with the best of the NFL. Not much beyond a set of healthy 25 led by #18.

[dn4192]

Bill Polian obviously knew the level of depth (or lack of) that he had on the Colts roster that can hang with the best of the NFL. Not much beyond a set of healthy 25 led by #18.

A doubt there are many teams that if they lose "key" players and have to rely on depth will do very well. Look at chicago and philly, but have great star players but when the backups are asked to play considerable time you see they don't perform well.

Think Bears fans are happy with their backup QB?

[WSO]

Matt Flynn is an excellent backup. Even pulling the starters they have so much depth at the WR position and across the board they'll still go 16-0.

[21isSuperman]

I don't see why you can't rest your starters AND win the game. The Packers have arguably the most explosive offense in the NFL and can score at will. Get Rodgers out there to start, have him get a 21 point lead by half time, then sit him down in the second half. Flynn has shown that he is decent, so there isn't much chance of giving up a 21 point lead. You win the game to keep your streak alive and rest your starters for half of the game

[Jason_]

It was sarcasm...

brainiacs

but the fact that you felt it neccessary to spell it out for me... WOW...

Thanks...

hey braniac, if you want people to get your sarcasm then perhaps add some sort of smiley or a /sarcasm...something at all in the post to indicate you were being sarcastic. I'm sure it sounded sarcastic in your head when you made the post but guess what...tone doesn't get reflected in written word. Don't make a post that was sarcastic without giving ANY indication that you were being sarcastic and then get in a huff when people took you seriously. ;)

[tonychen]

Matt Flynn is an excellent backup. Even pulling the starters they have so much depth at the WR position and across the board they'll still go 16-0.

That might be true. He did almost led his team to a win in Foxborogh last year. And there are many quality backups in this league. The Billy Volek in San Diego came into our house and kicked the butt of our starting defense in 07.

[Pombi]

I don't think rust was the issue in 2005. James Dungy's death was a much bigger factor. On top of that, we simply had trouble handling the pass rush in the first half. I think "rust" is a cop out. We gave that game away. Same thing in 2007, not to mention the fact that we had zero pass rush without Freeney and Mathis. I thought 2009 pretty well disproved the "rust" theory. You can have a couple weeks off and still come out and take care of business against good teams.

No, No, No, No! Your not honestly going to say the largest factor in the 2005 playoff game that caused us to lose was the death of James Dungy? Are you serious?! He caused Peyton's timing to be off? He caused the O-Line to have their worst game that whole year?

Also when Favre's father died he played the best game of his career. Close deaths don't make the team around you play worse. It just affects the way fans and media look at the game. It's just asinine to call that the biggest factor in 2005/

And you can't say it was the same thing in 07 then in the next breath talk about the lack of pass rush. There was almost no pass rush in that whole playoff game in 2007. Even when they would send Sanders on the blitz it would be immediately picked up and Rivers would burn them up top to Vincent Jackson.

[Buck Showalter]

hey braniac, if you want people to get your sarcasm then perhaps add some sort of smiley or a /sarcasm...something at all in the post to indicate you were being sarcastic. I'm sure it sounded sarcastic in your head when you made the post but guess what...tone doesn't get reflected in written word. Don't make a post that was sarcastic without giving ANY indication that you were being sarcastic and then get in a huff when people took you seriously. ;)

People take me seriously???

[Jason_]

I don't see why you can't rest your starters AND win the game. The Packers have arguably the most explosive offense in the NFL and can score at will. Get Rodgers out there to start, have him get a 21 point lead by half time, then sit him down in the second half. Flynn has shown that he is decent, so there isn't much chance of giving up a 21 point lead. You win the game to keep your streak alive and rest your starters for half of the game

I agree in theory....but then you might wind up with a portion of your fan base accusing you of being a gutless, cowardly hypocrite. lol

Seriously though, I agree...it's all about finding a balance. Injuries can't be prevented completely but the risk can be reduced by not playing key players when you don't absolutely have to. You want to keep them in rhythm so they're prepared for the playoff run, but you also want to have them healthy and rested for the playoff run. So, it's all about finding balance.

[Pombi]

Considering the talent level of the Colts, I think we just could not afford losing any of the starters in 09, and I do support the idea of resting the starters and I believe that was why we reached the superbowl, and not pulling Freeney late in the Jets playoff game was one of the direct reasons we lost in that SB. Many claimed the two goals were not exclusive, but I don't think so because Colts were not very talented and the backups were not even close. They needed to get all good players to play a perfect game to beat the red hot Saints.

On the other hand, when talking about the meaning of a football game, a perfect season might not be less meaningful than a SB trophy. There are SB trophies every year but the chance to reach perfection is much rare. If the goal of the game is to entertain the audience, the team should have gone for the perfect season as it was what the most of the audience wanted. Even if they exit early from the playoff due to crucial injuries in the last two weeks, the audience should be able to forgive them and still feel satisfied.

Sorry but that's not the goal players have in mind. That's the goal of the TV stations. If every player actually wanted to entertain the audience we would have alot of Chad Ochocinco's and there wouldnt be a excessive fines for touchdown celebrations and it wouldn't be a penalty of delay of game to spike the ball after a first down. But that's not the league we live in.

Players kill time, run out the clock, Rest starters and all sorts of other boring things because they want to achieve the real goal of football which is a Superbowl trophy.

[21isSuperman]

I agree in theory....but then you might wind up with a portion of your fan base accusing you of being a gutless, cowardly hypocrite. lol

Seriously though, I agree...it's all about finding a balance. Injuries can't be prevented completely but the risk can be reduced by not playing key players when you don't absolutely have to. You want to keep them in rhythm so they're prepared for the playoff run, but you also want to have them healthy and rested for the playoff run. So, it's all about finding balance.

can't please everyone

[Superman]

No, No, No, No! Your not honestly going to say the largest factor in the 2005 playoff game that caused us to lose was the death of James Dungy? Are you serious?! He caused Peyton's timing to be off? He caused the O-Line to have their worst game that whole year?

The death of James Dungy rocked the team. You're going to tell me that coming out early for a couple games made the team incapable of playing well, but the death of the coach's son has nothing to do with it? We see this differently. That's fine.

And no, neither of those things has anything to do with Peyton's timing or the offensive line. Peyton's timing was off because the protections weren't good. The protections weren't good because we didn't block well or pick up the blitz well. At least in the first half.

Also when Favre's father died he played the best game of his career. Close deaths don't make the team around you play worse. It just affects the way fans and media look at the game. It's just asinine to call that the biggest factor in 2005/

The Favre story was so big because it's not the norm. It's great that he had such a good game, but when you lose a close family member, your performance at work, school, whatever, is usually affected. It's hard to focus.

Like I said, we see this differently. I'm not saying that we lost because James Dungy died. We lost because we didn't play well. I just don't think that loss was attributable to us resting at the end of the season.

And you can't say it was the same thing in 07 then in the next breath talk about the lack of pass rush. There was almost no pass rush in that whole playoff game in 2007. Even when they would send Sanders on the blitz it would be immediately picked up and Rivers would burn them up top to Vincent Jackson.

?

We gave the playoff game in 2007 away, just like we gave the game away in 2005. That's what I was saying. I'm not sure what you think I was saying.

We turned the ball over in the red zone twice (Marvin's fumble; Kenton Keith's drop). Two most impactful plays of the game. Had nothing to do with "rust." And the lack of a pass rush was due to us not having Freeney or Mathis in the game. Those injuries actually lend to the idea that we should try to avoid injuries at the end of the season. Whenever you have to try to manufacture a pass rush, it means you don't have pass rushers. Good teams blitz to supplement their pass rush, not to make up for not having one at all. And with Freeney and Mathis, we had zero pass rush. Killed us at the end of the game. It was made worse by the fact that Ron Meeks doesn't know how to blitz effectively.

And then, we shut everything down in 2009, and do nothing but roll over the Ravens and Jets and go to the Super Bowl, proving that you can shut it down early and still take care of business. I don't like shutting it down, but I understand the idea behind it, and I've never believed that doing so makes it harder to win in the playoffs. The fact that we won the AFC in 2009 undermines the entire "rust" argument.

[Pombi]

The death of James Dungy rocked the team. You're going to tell me that coming out early for a couple games made the team incapable of playing well, but the death of the coach's son has nothing to do with it? We see this differently. That's fine.

And no, neither of those things has anything to do with Peyton's timing or the offensive line. Peyton's timing was off because the protections weren't good. The protections weren't good because we didn't block well or pick up the blitz well. At least in the first half.

The Favre story was so big because it's not the norm. It's great that he had such a good game, but when you lose a close family member, your performance at work, school, whatever, is usually affected. It's hard to focus.

Like I said, we see this differently. I'm not saying that we lost because James Dungy died. We lost because we didn't play well. I just don't think that loss was attributable to us resting at the end of the season.

?

We gave the playoff game in 2007 away, just like we gave the game away in 2005. That's what I was saying. I'm not sure what you think I was saying.

We turned the ball over in the red zone twice (Marvin's fumble; Kenton Keith's drop). Two most impactful plays of the game. Had nothing to do with "rust." And the lack of a pass rush was due to us not having Freeney or Mathis in the game. Those injuries actually lend to the idea that we should try to avoid injuries at the end of the season. Whenever you have to try to manufacture a pass rush, it means you don't have pass rushers. Good teams blitz to supplement their pass rush, not to make up for not having one at all. And with Freeney and Mathis, we had zero pass rush. Killed us at the end of the game. It was made worse by the fact that Ron Meeks doesn't know how to blitz effectively.

And then, we shut everything down in 2009, and do nothing but roll over the Ravens and Jets and go to the Super Bowl, proving that you can shut it down early and still take care of business. I don't like shutting it down, but I understand the idea behind it, and I've never believed that doing so makes it harder to win in the playoffs. The fact that we won the AFC in 2009 undermines the entire "rust" argument.

Really? Cause Peyton Manning openly stated after that game that the O-Line had their worst game all season and he was ROCKED for saying it. But you can continue to believe if was the death of James Dungy. Ill keep agreeing with the person who was on the field behind that O-line.

And dude? What did we win in 2009? Lol a whole lot of nothing.

[Andy]

Well McCarthy wants to go 16-0 supposedly, so I think this ends that.

[Superman]

Really? Cause Peyton Manning openly stated after that game that the O-Line had their worst game all season and he was ROCKED for saying it. But you can continue to believe if was the death of James Dungy. Ill keep agreeing with the person who was on the field behind that O-line.

Are you saying that the offensive line played poorly because we allowed a couple of them to play fewer reps in the last two games of the season? It has nothing to do with the fact that the Steelers used a great defensive scheme that even Peyton had trouble identifying through the first half of the game?

Also, I specifically mentioned the poor offensive line play in my previous post. To me, that's the reason we lost, because the line didn't play well. I don't think the line played poorly simply because we pulled players in the last two games. I have trouble finding the link between the two, myself.

And dude? What did we win in 2009? Lol a whole lot of nothing.

We won two playoff games. If "rust" is going to manifest, is that going to happen right away, or is it going to happen a month later? If you're blaming the Super Bowl loss on "rust" from not playing in Weeks 16 and 17, I don't know what to say.

Your entire post is a red herring. You're misconstruing everything I'm saying.

[swflacoltsfans]

I agree with sitting them after they play a half. Having an offense sit out more than one game is a mistake.

If we sat Dwight in the last two minutes of the playoff game against the Jets he wouldn't have injured his foot and we would have had a better chance of beating new orleans in the SB.

[cmgww]

I agree with sitting them after they play a half. Having an offense sit out more than one game is a mistake.

If we sat Dwight in the last two minutes of the playoff game against the Jets he wouldn't have injured his foot and we would have had a better chance of beating new orleans in the SB.

You don't sit starters in the playoffs unless it's a total blowout. There was still a slim chance that the Jets could have gotten back into that game (slim yes, but still there)....Blame the stupid late hit QB- wears a skirt rules for Freeney's injury, as he had to hurdle Sanchez to avoid getting flagged and landed awkwardly.

[cmgww]

The only problem I have ever had with the Jets debacle was the way that it was handled. I was fine with them resting starters, b/c 16-0 doesn't guarantee crap (as we lost the SB it wouldn't have meant squat). That and it had been done two season's prior, and we all watched the country poke fun at the Pats for 18-1 (don't act like you didn't...google "18-1 pats" and see how much crap they got for not winning the final game) What I wasn't happy with was pulling the starters without any announcement of it. Just pulled the rug out from under the players and fans' feet...hated that. But I respect the strategy. I didn't want to see a starter go down in snowy Buffalo, but I am glad they played enough to stay sharp (and get a few records)...

[Pombi]

Are you saying that the offensive line played poorly because we allowed a couple of them to play fewer reps in the last two games of the season? It has nothing to do with the fact that the Steelers used a great defensive scheme that even Peyton had trouble identifying through the first half of the game?

Also, I specifically mentioned the poor offensive line play in my previous post. To me, that's the reason we lost, because the line didn't play well. I don't think the line played poorly simply because we pulled players in the last two games. I have trouble finding the link between the two, myself.

We won two playoff games. If "rust" is going to manifest, is that going to happen right away, or is it going to happen a month later? If you're blaming the Super Bowl loss on "rust" from not playing in Weeks 16 and 17, I don't know what to say.

Your entire post is a red herring. You're misconstruing everything I'm saying.

Lol I like how you just assumed my point. I actually agree with you rust had no part in any of our losses and I never said that we lost cause we were rusty. I'm just saying that believing we lost cause of James Dungy is the most misinformed thing I've read all day. I don't think we were rusty in 2009 and thats not why we lost. But we also didn't "win" anything. Ask the 18-1 patriots how important it was to them winning 2 playoff gamess...

Lol so your entire post at mine was pointless cause I never said we were rusty I just said your reasons are silly. You assumed and put words in my mouth. Your misconstruing everything I am saying.

[Pombi]

Lol I like how you just assumed my point. I actually agree with you rust had no part in any of our losses and I never said that we lost cause we were rusty. I'm just saying that believing we lost cause of James Dungy is the most misinformed thing I've read all day. I don't think we were rusty in 2009 and thats not why we lost. But we also didn't "win" anything. Ask the 18-1 patriots how important it was to them winning 2 playoff gamess...

Lol so your entire post at mine was pointless cause I never said we were rusty I just said your reasons are silly. You assumed and put words in my mouth. Lol you wanna talk about Misconstruing? YOU CHOSE MY OPINION FOR ME! hahahaha