January 25, 201016 yr I said it just because we'll always wonder if they could have gone undefeated for the entire season. I think that's what he was saying as well. Yea but the criticism would never be greater than after a loss.
January 25, 201016 yr Yea but the criticism would never be greater than after a loss. True, but you still have to wonder if they would have been able to get to 19-0. I loved that the Patriots tried for it and I didn't think that they lost the Super Bowl because of it. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder though.
January 25, 201016 yr Oh I absolutely think they should have tried for it. If they win it all it will be hard to criticize Caldwell too much though.
January 25, 201016 yr Oh I absolutely think they should have tried for it. If they win it all it will be hard to criticize Caldwell too much though. I agree with you there. I just think that we'll always think of what could have been.:thumb:
January 25, 201016 yr :irked: On my TV, there is still 6 minutes to go. :lol: I DVR'ed the game and am watching it. I did a great job of avoiding hearing the final scores, but when Bluto created the thread I couldn't avoid it. I avoided the Pro Sports forum as a whole, but it was the "newest post". Oh well. Oh, SURE. It's MY fault...! :irked:
January 25, 201016 yr :lol: Explain that logic to me? You will question it ever more if they win rather than if they were to lose? I will NEVER understand any logic that says winning the game is not important. Going undefeated was important to the players and fans, just not to the ownership and head coach. One thing I learned watching Herm Edwards for years coaching the Jets is that "You play to win the game." I understand their logic, but they will always be seen as the team that could've gone 19-0 (if they win the Superbowl).
January 25, 201016 yr Yea but the criticism would never be greater than after a loss. How has going 18-1 effected the Pats? I don't know that they took too much criticism for going for 19-0 and not resting guys. I never heard anyone say they should have rested guys to stay fresh for a playoff run and that is why the Giants beat them. I think if the Colts went for 19-0 and fell short then there would be criticism, but not because they went for 19-0. They have failed in the past using the rest players philosophy and have been hammered for that. If they go on to win it all, fans will always wonder what if.
January 25, 201016 yr How has going 18-1 effected the Pats? I don't know that they took too much criticism for going for 19-0 and not resting guys. I never heard anyone say they should have rested guys to stay fresh for a playoff run and that is why the Giants beat them. I think if the Colts went for 19-0 and fell short then there would be criticism, but not because they went for 19-0. They have failed in the past using the rest players philosophy and have been hammered for that. If they go on to win it all, fans will always wonder what if. I'd rather go 17-2 and win the Super Bowl than 18-1 and not.
January 25, 201016 yr I'd rather go 17-2 and win the Super Bowl than 18-1 and not. That's not what we're saying though. If the Colts win the Super Bowl, you'd have to wonder if they could have went undefeated for the entire season had they tried. I don't think that being 18 and 0 lost the SB for New England. Indy could be 18 and 0 right now if they would have tried to win games 15 and 16. Resting those players did not ensure that they would get to the Super Bowl. Maybe it prevented an injury or two but we'll never know that. That's why we're second guessing. We'll never know if this team could have done it or not, though it's likely that the could have. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.