January 25, 201016 yr I'd rather go 17-2 and win the Super Bowl than 18-1 and not. Why do you assume that they would not win the Superbowl if they go for 19-0? Is there anything, based on the way they were playing and have played to this point, that says they were or are going to lose? The two are not mutally exclusive. You can both win the Superbowl and go undefeated.
January 26, 201016 yr ^ It doesn't even cross my mind, at this point. Their goal all along was to win the Super Bowl. That said, they're still on pace to do so. If they don't win, the situation can be re-examined. However, at this point, they look to have made the right decision. It allowed rest to much needed contributors of the team. The Pats practice a different belief system, playing starters throughout, and it burned them greatly in regards to Wes Welker.
January 26, 201016 yr ^ It doesn't even cross my mind, at this point. Their goal all along was to win the Super Bowl. That said, they're still on pace to do so. If they don't win, the situation can be re-examined. However, at this point, they look to have made the right decision. It allowed rest to much needed contributors of the team. The Pats practice a different belief system, playing starters throughout, and it burned them greatly in regards to Wes Welker. Two things... One, to assume that any player doesn't go out there and play a game thinking that they are going to win isn't very realistic (and I know you understand this very well RP, I do not mean the comment to be a slight at you in the least). While their stated goals did not include going undefeated we all realize that the Colts wanted to win every game they played, as did all teams in the NFL. The difference between the Colts and everyone else is that they had a realistic shot at doing so and management decided that winning regular season games wasn't as important as ensuring the health of their players. I get the logic, but I don't understand why if you are so close you wouldn't go for it for fear of injury. Did you hold all starters out of practices- why even allow guys to suit up for the last two games? You mentioned Wes Welker; he was injured on the second play of the game- this could have happened to any player on the Colts team in those two games. The players wanted this; you could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices after the game. I say go for history. Two; I don't believe that the Colts are here exclusively (or even mainly or mostly or in any real meaningful part) because they rested guys. I don't even know if we can quantify how effective this strategy is. The Superbowl champion has been so hit or miss that I bet there is no way to quantify the effectiveness of resting guys at the end of the regular season. Why do we assume that this strategy has helped the Colts? I just think they are better than everyone in the AFC (and NFL) because they beat everyone for 14 games when they set their minds to doing so and I believe they could have both gone undefeated and won the Superbowl. Again, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive- you can do both.
January 26, 201016 yr Why do you assume that they would not win the Superbowl if they go for 19-0? Is there anything, based on the way they were playing and have played to this point, that says they were or are going to lose? The two are not mutally exclusive. You can both win the Superbowl and go undefeated. Not saying it has anything to do with resting the players or not. But IMO the Colts have looked sharper these last 2 games than they have all year. There is no definative proof one way or the other, but maybe it did help them. Who knows.
January 26, 201016 yr Yeah, but looks like he could be around for a while. Maybe. I could be wrong, but I believe his personality is one that you love on your side when things are going well...but, if things go south, those same fans that love Rex's swagger could very well turn on him.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.