|
02-03-2010, 06:16 PM | #46 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
Quote:
If the Patriots rested Welker, they might have won a few playoff games. I think it's absolutely reeruned to say it was a stupid move. The Colts are in the Super Bowl. Agree or disagree with the decision, dumb decisions don't put you in the Super Bowl. And if I'm choosing between an undefeated season leading to a loss in the AFC Championship game vs. a less-than-perfect season leading to a Super Bowl berth, I'll pick the Super Bowl every day of the week. I can't believe we're criticizing a Super Bowl coach for a regular season decision he made. In fact, the two teams to rest their starters, the Saints and the Colts, are in the Super Bowl. |
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 06:20 PM | #47 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
Quote:
Period. It's not to go in the record books. The Colts are in the Super Bowl. What I do know is that resting the starters didn't hurt their Super Bowl chances. I don't understand how anyone can call a coach a dumbass when he's in the biggest game of the year. Because I can tell you one thing. People remember the Pats' 16-0 season. But they also remember them as being the team that couldn't close the deal. I would much rather be remembered for closing the deal than being perfect and then losing when it counted most. |
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 06:41 PM | #48 | |
Threepeat!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milk/Honey/Gazland
Casino cash: $4247293
|
Quote:
I think it's safe to say that: a perfect season (21-0; incl.SB win) > SB (w/o a perfect record) win in the grand scheme of things. This has already been proven by 1972 Dolphins. As for the argument of protecting the players: every NFL player that I've heard or read in this regard said that not playing is a detriment. I'll take their word for that. That said, I wouldn't call their coach a dumbass. Actually, he's smarter than 30 other coaches from a scoreboard perspective. Also, I believe the front office made the decision, not the coach. But that's based only on speculation that I've heard from the NFL 'experts'. And lastly, my original point was just as much about the attitude of highly successful competitors like Len Dawson and Peyton Manning. Men that WANT to be on the field because of their desire to compete, accomplish and win. Men with unwavering confidence in themselves and in their team. Men willing to risk a great accomplishment for a greater accomplishment.
__________________
You seem nice! Last edited by T-post Tom; 02-03-2010 at 06:57 PM.. |
|
Posts: 20,409
|
02-03-2010, 06:47 PM | #49 | |
Super Grover
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: KCMO
Casino cash: $9095135
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Taco John If you're not sure who you're voting for at this point in time, you can abandon all connection to the word "smart." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Taco John ...He asked who I am voting for. I told him, "well, that depends... ." |
|
Posts: 6,292
|
02-03-2010, 06:58 PM | #50 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
Quote:
Unless you're suggesting that Drew Brees was at risk of getting a bench splinter when he sat against Carolina. |
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 07:03 PM | #51 | |
MVP
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in K.C. baby!!!!
Casino cash: $6103433
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 7,015
|
02-03-2010, 07:04 PM | #52 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
Quote:
It was a very conservative play. And not one I would have made. But there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. And the theory that sitting is to a player's detriment is pretty hard to qualify when two of the teams that sat players are now in the Super Bowl. And I think the argument about sitting being a detriment were largely in the days when players were on the bench for an entire game at the end of the season. Now, coaches are letting players play out an entire first half before resting them. Like I said, there is no guarantee the Colts or Saints would have made the Super Bowl had they not sat their players late in the season. We don't know if players would have played less fresh or if any key players would have gotten injured in that span. If the Saints did as much as lost Colston in a meaningless game, that's probably the difference between a close OT win against the Vikings and a loss. So while we don't know what would have happened if the Colts/Saints kept playing their players, we know exactly what happened because they benched them. They made the Super Bowl. A conservative decision, but I don't get all the people on this thread that are suggesting it was a dumb one (not you). |
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 07:19 PM | #53 |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
Casino cash: $2264931
|
Wow, this thread went full reerun fast.
Who remembers Super Bowl XXII? Uh, perhaps the players who won the f***ing game, the players who lived their childhood dream, and all the fans associated with the two teams? JFC, we're actually discounting the Super Bowl? And yeah, injuries can happen at any time, which is why you sit your players in a meaningless game. Yeah, one reason you might remember the 17-0 season off the top of your head is because it happened two f***ing years ago... and had New England sat their starters against the Giants in the regular season, who knows what would have happened in the rematch. Oh, but I'm sure all the players look back on that season as a resounding success, because at least they went 16-0!!! Oh, and let's forget the part about how the Colts could have been playing the Chargers in the playoffs had they beaten the Jets in the regular season, and the Chargers own the Colts. Call it a lame move or whatever.... say it hurts the competitive nature of the game, etc; but don't discount being in the SB. JFC, every QB discussion on this board comes down to rings, and now none of that matters.... I guess Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning because of the 16-0 season and not because of the rings? If Manning won this year and another one in the next year or two, he'll still be in the shadow of Brady for that epic regular season that ended in a playoff loss. |
Posts: 55,839
|
02-03-2010, 07:23 PM | #54 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Parkville MO
Casino cash: $10005170
|
Quote:
Deep breaths, buddy. Count to 10. |
|
Posts: 54,695
|
02-03-2010, 07:24 PM | #55 |
NFL's #1 Ermines Fan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My house
Casino cash: $2768491
VARSITY
|
Of course a player could get hurt. But compare that to the certainty that they're going to be frustrated and annoyed. If they're good enough to be 14-0, I'm pretty sure they're going to be frustrated and annoyed. And the next time contract negotiations come up or some team crisis occurs, that frustration and annoyance will resurface. I think there's a cost that's not measured when a decision like that is made.
__________________
I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit. |
Posts: 141,870
|
02-03-2010, 07:59 PM | #56 | |
Super Grover
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: KCMO
Casino cash: $9095135
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Taco John If you're not sure who you're voting for at this point in time, you can abandon all connection to the word "smart." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Taco John ...He asked who I am voting for. I told him, "well, that depends... ." |
|
Posts: 6,292
|
02-03-2010, 08:03 PM | #57 | |
Dumbass!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leading the Marty bashing
Casino cash: $10029395
|
Quote:
You don't remember, even though they played the Chiefs in the first round in one of the worst playoff games you'll ever be witness too?
__________________
|
|
Posts: 70,769
|
02-03-2010, 08:52 PM | #58 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 08:54 PM | #59 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $1554497
|
Quote:
Your goal is to win the Super Bowl. That's 100 times more important than any kind of record. In the end, every time anyone in the future brings up the 16-0 Patriots, it will immediately be followed with a "yeah, but...." |
|
Posts: 48,666
|
02-03-2010, 10:58 PM | #60 |
MVP
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in K.C. baby!!!!
Casino cash: $6103433
|
|
Posts: 7,015
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|