Football One more reason to love Len Dawson: - Page 4

T-post Tom · 11:46 AM

When asked (on 810 this am) if he agreed with the Colts decision to sit their starters and miss out on the opportunity to have the first undefeated ("perfect") season during the 16 game regular season era.

"Are you kidding? ARE YOU KIDDING? As a competitor, you have a chance to go out and do something that's never been done?!? If I was in Peyton Mannings place, I would have run back out onto the field."

The fire still burns bright in Mr. Dawson.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

I agree with Len Dawson...

Dumbest move of the season...I think Rick Reilly said as much in one of his columns or on his blog or something...and it really was.

BUT

Peyton Manning is way too classy to cause a distraction like that...going back into the game against his coaches will.

Still a gutless, spineless move by Caldwell if you ask me.

19-0 was so doable...

Wes Welker tore his ACL in a meaningless game.

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.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRichard

You missed the point. They will not be remembered for winning the Superbowl. I was just pointing out the coach is a dumbass not necessarily that he will be remembered for it years down the road. I know that is what I said but it was just to emphasize the fact that I believed that the coach was a dumbass for doing it.

The goal is to win the Super Bowl.

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.

T-post Tom · 02-03-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

...I would much rather be remembered for closing the deal than being perfect and then losing when it counted most.

Even though you weren't addressing me specifically, some of us may be referring to different things. In the scope of a 21-0 season (my original point): "being perfect" and "losing when it counted the most" ARE mutually exclusive. "Being perfect" includes "closing the deal."

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.

KingPriest2 · 02-03-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wes Welker tore his ACL in a meaningless game.

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.

Dude injuries can happen to anyone at any given time People get hurt in games all the time So you cant use that agrument

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2

Dude injuries can happen to anyone at any given time People get hurt in games all the time So you cant use that agrument

What do you mean I can't use that argument? When your players sit, they don't get injured. That's why Wes Welker tore his ACL in a game he could have been sitting, while Reggie Wayne stayed healthy.

Unless you're suggesting that Drew Brees was at risk of getting a bench splinter when he sat against Carolina.

jjjayb · 02-03-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wes Welker tore his ACL in a meaningless game.

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.

Before this year, all the other years the Colts rested their starters they made the superbowl ZERO times. The year they actually won the superbowl they didn't rest any starters. Maybe this time will be different for them. But seriously, again, I don't even remember which year they one the superbowl. Somebody wins it every year. Just never the Chiefs.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Even though you weren't addressing me specifically, some of us may be referring to different things. In the scope of a 21-0 season (my original point): "being perfect" and "losing when it counted the most" ARE mutually exclusive. "Being perfect" includes "closing the deal."

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.

I'm mostly referring to those who call him a dumbass for sitting his players.

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).

**Bearcat** · 02-03-2010, 07:19 PM

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.

**KcMizzou** · 02-03-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

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.

Deep breaths, buddy. Count to 10.

**Rain Man** · 02-03-2010, 07:24 PM

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.

KingPriest2 · 02-03-2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

What do you mean I can't use that argument? When your players sit, they don't get injured. That's why Wes Welker tore his ACL in a game he could have been sitting, while Reggie Wayne stayed healthy.

Unless you're suggesting that Drew Brees was at risk of getting a bench splinter when he sat against Carolina.

Doesnt matter players get hurt all the time cant use it

milkman · 02-03-2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Before this year, all the other years the Colts rested their starters they made the superbowl ZERO times. The year they actually won the superbowl they didn't rest any starters. Maybe this time will be different for them. But seriously, again, I don't even remember which year they one the superbowl. Somebody wins it every year. Just never the Chiefs.

Really?

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?

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPriest2

Doesnt matter players get hurt all the time cant use it

Tell me how a player gets hurt sitting on a bench.

Butt splinters?

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

If a player is frustrated or annoyed because they didn't go undefeated but made the Super Bowl, then that's not the kind of player you want on your team anyway.

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...."

jjjayb · 02-03-2010, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Really?

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?

Repressed memory. For obvious reasons.

02-03-2010, 09:41 AM
T-post Tom Threepeat! Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Milk/Honey/Gazland Casino cash: $4377293	One more reason to love Len Dawson: When asked (on 810 this am) if he agreed with the Colts decision to sit their starters and miss out on the opportunity to have the first undefeated ("perfect") season during the 16 game regular season era. "Are you kidding? ARE YOU KIDDING? As a competitor, you have a chance to go out and do something that's never been done?!? If I was in Peyton Mannings place, I would have run back out onto the field." The fire still burns bright in Mr. Dawson. Last edited by T-post Tom; 02-03-2010 at 11:46 AM..
Posts: 20,325

02-03-2010, 07:19 PM	#53
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $2554931	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: 55,635

02-03-2010, 07:24 PM	#55
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3058491 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: 141,661