Tony Says Sit Them Still.

[Superman]

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.

I said James Dungy's death was a factor. I didn't blame the loss on it. If you don't think it was a factor, then like I said, we see that differently.

And the point I made about 2009 was that our winning the AFC disproves the rust theory. Whatever you're saying about anyone else doesn't speak to the fact that you can win even if you rest your starters at the end of the season.

[oldunclemark]

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.

I would be cash money that the Packers WILL NOT pull their starters...at all

..and I can guarantee they wont pull anybody against the arch-rival Bears on Christmas Day.

I wonder 1f we'd have pulled our starters in game 15 of 2009 against New England or some big rival?

they

[dn4192]

I would be cash money that the Packers WILL NOT pull their starters...at all

..and I can guarantee they wont pull anybody against the arch-rival Bears on Christmas Day.

I wonder 1f we'd have pulled our starters in game 15 of 2009 against New England or some big rival?

they

I think Tony would have pulled them no matter whom we were playing if the division and no. 1 seed was wrapped up. Agree or disagree with him, Tony Dungy does not put any value in goning undefeated.

[GoColts8818]

What is a meaningless game???

When you have everything wrapped up it becomes a meaningless game if you don't agree with that fine that's your opinion but when you have nothing to be gained from it in terms of playoff sedding and you are playoff team it's a meaningliness game for that team because they don't gain anything from winning the game. Again if you don't agree with that view piont you don't have to but a lot of people do.

[GoColts8818]

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.

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.

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.

Injuries happen but if you can prevent them and you don't you are going to get ripped for it. It comes with the job. You don't think the media and fans wouldn't rip a coach a part if the franchise got hurt in a game that the team didn't HAVE to win? People aren't just going to be understanding of that. They just aren't. They are going to kill you for having them out there when they didn't have to be. Like I said it comes down to are you willing to take that risk. Dungy isn't that's his view. I am well aware that not everyone shares that view point and I don't think people who have a different view are wrong for it either. It's much like how some coaches are a 4-3 defense type of coach and others are 3-4. Both have their strengths and both have drawbacks. You just do what you believe in and what you think is right.

The goal is to win the Super Bowl and if at some point you take a look at your team and go we are beat up and I feel like it would be serve us to sit our players down and let them rest to help with that goal then you know what that goal to win a game might not be as important because it might start to become in the way of winning a Super Bowl. Clearly the for the Colts 2009 that is the way they felt and despite the gripping we do it worked. We didn't get key players hurt in the last two games and the team looked very sharp and fresh in their first playoff game vs. the Ravens which is where you are going to see the result of resting.

Like I said before though it is wildly unpopular with the fans. Trust me I was as mad as everyone else when they pulled the starters in the Jets game but again I could understand why they did it. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

Also I don't think the Colts ever set out and said hey let's try to lose this game. Just like most teams in the NFL the back ups weren't good enough to beat other teams starters. Although they did beat the Cardinals starters in 2005. The back ups always played hard they just weren't better than other teams starters who in a lot of cases were playing for their playoff lives. Look at 2007 when it took everything the Titans who had to win to get in had to beat Jim Sorgi.

I think rust was a bit of an issue in 2005 and I also think what happend with Dungy's son was as well. If you watch the 2005 game two thinks jump out, one the guys were flat out of sync which is a biproduct of rust. The other issue is that they were really flat which I think was a biproduct of what happened to Dungy's son. Also Jeff Saturday brought it up on the America's game after the Super Bowl the following year and saying this wasn't just a guy this was a kid they all knew and had been on their sideline it was clear it had a major impact on all of them and frankly a bigger one than most fans say it was. So I would say both were major factors in that game. Add to that the Steelers a team who historicaly has been a bad match up for us and you get a loss.

[Buck Showalter]

When you have everything wrapped up it becomes a meaningless game if you don't agree with that fine that's your opinion but when you have nothing to be gained from it in terms of playoff sedding and you are playoff team it's a meaningliness game for that team because they don't gain anything from winning the game. Again if you don't agree with that view piont you don't have to but a lot of people do.

alot of people think pickles taste better than cucumbers

[a06cc]

Again we should only be concerned about the Colts.

[BIGugly]

I think Tony would have pulled them no matter whom we were playing if the division and no. 1 seed was wrapped up. Agree or disagree with him, Tony Dungy does not put any value in goning undefeated.

Division and No. 1 seed was wrapped up vs. the Jets in game 15. Pulled the starters in the 3rd quarter. Why start them at all? . Started them in game 16 in a blizzard vs Buffalo in Canada with Manning at QB for some irrellavent individual records. Only after they got their hundred catches or whatever recored Reggie and Dallas were after did he pull them.

Tony messed up not going for history at 14-0. Misguided concept rusting starters. We won the Super Bowl NOT rusting starters.

Thanks for nuttin', Tony.

[dn4192]

Division and No. 1 seed was wrapped up vs. the Jets in game 15. Pulled the starters in the 3rd quarter. Why start them at all? . Started them in game 16 in a blizzard vs Buffalo in Canada with Manning at QB for some irrellavent individual records. Only after they got their hundred catches or whatever recored Reggie and Dallas were after did he pull them.

Tony messed up not going for history at 14-0. Misguided concept rusting starters. We won the Super Bowl NOT rusting starters.

Thanks for nuttin', Tony.

If players were Rusty as you claim (wrongly may I add) then how did we even get to the SB?

[BIGugly]

The point is that playing the starters for the entire game, not just 3 quarters, when you are 14-0, and winning the Super Bowl are NOT mutually exclusive events. You really can do both. You certainly should try and do both.

[wercolts]

I'd hate to go 18 and DOH! because I lost a key player in a game that had no playoff implications. I play the starters just enough to keep the rust off.

[BIGugly]

I'd hate to go 18 and DOH! because I lost a key player in a game that had no playoff implications. I play the starters just enough to keep the rust off.

It has HISTORY implications. Go for 19-0. It only comes around once in how often????

[wercolts]

It has HISTORY implications. Go for 19-0. It only comes around once in how often????

Undefeated has already been done. Lombardi's are more important than being 2nd to accomplish something.

[bigunjohn]

SIT em!

[cmgww]

Ask Bill Belichick how playing the starters in the final week of 2009 went....lost Welker and the Pats got bounced from the playoffs the next week. He's openly regretted it in the recent documentary about him, a Football Life....

I liked the 2009 approach. But I didn't like the way the Jets game was handled. The Colts should have announced they planned to pull the guys, not just do it without any notice. That's my big beef with the whole thing. The 19-0 thing never was my thing. So many people still get their panties in a wad over it, ignoring the fact that we still lost the Super Bowl....16-0 wouldn't have changed that, it would have put us in the same league as the 18-1 Pats.

But 2009 was better b/c the starters got some playing time to stay sharp in weeks 16 and 17, something Dungy really didn't do. He pretty much gave the 2005 team a month off, and that played into the loss, IMO (that and his son's death). But then again in 2008 they had to play the whole way through (well they did rest some guys week 17), but still lost to the Chargers. I think that was due more to the bad matchup we've always had vs. the Chargers...

It's really a crap shoot...too much time off for the Colts caused rust IMO, as the offense is predicated on timing and precision. But we've lost when having to play all the way until the end of the season too (2008 and 2010). And we've won with giving the guys time off (2003 and 2004)....so who knows?

[BIGugly]

Undefeated has already been done. Lombardi's are more important than being 2nd to accomplish something.

Not 19-0

[BIGugly]

Undefeated has already been done. Lombardi's are more important than being 2nd to accomplish something.

Do BOTH ! !

[BIGugly]

Not 19-0

If you finish second, you have accomplished NEITHER.

If you finish first, you have accomplished BOTH.

Men of GREATNESS recognize opportunity and sieze upon it to accomplish GREAT THINGS.

LESSER men don't even recognize the opportunity.

[BIGugly]

...ignoring the fact that we still lost the Super Bowl....16-0 wouldn't have changed that, it would have put us in the same league as the 18-1 Pats.

But what would have happened had we been 18-0 at the time?

And the same league as the 18-1 Pats ain't bad company.

[SilentHill]

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.

When I saw this thread I honestly thought it was about the colts.. I mean were 3 games away from a perfect season, time to sit the starters!

[cranium cramp]

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.

Nice to know there is a coach somewhere with the kahunas to not worry what the GM has to say............

[BIGugly]

Nice to know there is a coach somewhere with the kahunas to not worry what the GM has to say............

Or his EX head coach (read 'boss').

Tanks for nuttin', Tony