The Colts Quit Against The Jets, And Will Not Win The Super Bowl
NFL

If The 2009 Colts Are Remembered At All, It Will Be As The Team Who Threw Away History.

12/27/09 in NFL   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

While watching the Colts lose to the Jets, it was obvious that it was a bit disingenuous when Peyton Manning and the other Colts players were continuing to tow the company line and claim that an undefeated season wasn't that important to them. As the Jets put the game farther and farther out of reach, it looked like Manning aged 10 years in 10 minutes, and his frustration was obvious.

The fact is, whether the players publicly admit it or not, they wanted perfection. The fans made it clear that they wanted perfection as well, when they lustily booed Curtis Painter throughout the second half.

The decision to pull their starters wasn't a surprising one. The Colts have done the same thing many times throughout the past decade or so. But as our own 100%InjuryRate pointed out, it has never led to success for them.

The one time the Colts won a Super Bowl, it was after finishing 12-4, and as the #3 seed in the AFC. In the other years, when they looked like the best team in the league and rested their players late in the season, they ended up choking and losing to teams that were thought to be inferior.

For everyone who thinks that the Colts were right to rest their starters, and points to the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl as the reason, you're flat out wrong. I'm sorry to say it, but there are several reasons why you're way off base, starting with the aforementioned failures that the Colts have experienced after doing this very thing. But that's not the only reason.

The Colts' offense is based on precision passing, timing and chemistry between Peyton Manning and his receivers. The more they rest, the more that timing will suffer. They're already going to get an entire week off thanks to their #1 seed and first round bye. Do they really need to take an entire half off against the Jets, and probably at least that much time off against the Bills next week? Absolutely not. If anything, it's hindering them.

The worst part of it all, though, is that this is a team who gave up. No matter what happens from here on out, it doesn't matter. The Colts had a chance to make history, and stopped trying. They gave up. And for that, they should be embarrassed.

Some may say that the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl, and that if the Colts manage to do that, then they will have made history, regardless of their regular season record. Unfortunately, that's wrong.

Winning a Super Bowl isn't "making history". Whoever wins the Super Bowl this year will just become one of 44 teams to have done it. It's a great accomplishment, but it happens every single year.

An undefeated season, on the other hand, is something that only happens once in a great while. The 1972 Dolphins are the only ones who have done it so far, and they only went 17-0. To go 19-0 in today's era of parity would be a feat unmatched in all of sports history. THAT would be "making history".

My problem with the Colts isn't that they lost. Honestly, I was expecting them to lose at some point. I still believe they'll lose in the playoffs, as I've said for a while now. My problem is that they gave up. They had a chance to grab history by the throat, and beat it into submission, and they let it go.

Peyton Manning was disappointed, and his post-game comments reflected that. That's because Peyton Manning has a winning mentality, and wanted to add his name and his team's name to the top of the list of the greatest teams of all time, which could have been accomplished, had they finished undefeated. Very few people remember who won the Super Bowl before the 1972 Dolphins, but almost any football fan out there can tell you which team was the only undefeated team in NFL history.

The ignorant might point out the fate of the 2007 Patriots, who finished the regular season undefeated, only to lose to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. However, resting their players wouldn't have affected a thing. They were in the position to win the Super Bowl, and the Giants simply executed better than them when it mattered. Resting their players in weeks 16 and 17 wouldn't have changed a thing in the Super Bowl, which was more than a month later.

Another thing to consider was that the Jets were fighting for their playoff lives. With the win against the Colts, they were pushed to the top of the list of 8-7 teams, and are in prime position for a playoff spot. The Colts not only screwed over themselves by not trying to win, they also impacted the entire AFC playoff picture.

Let's face it... no matter what the Colts do this year, they are a failure. Not because they don't have the chance to win a Super Bowl. They still have that chance. They're failures because they gave up. It's that simple.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/8/10   |   Sxy_Sarah   |   14366 respect

masternate30 wrote:
The way I see it is that the end of the year is the worst time to start losing games. Great coaches are those who play to win regardless.  To say we let this one go because we want to rest our players is the excuse losers' make when they don't have real leadership skills to get the job done. Any coach could have taken the Colts to the playoffs with all that talent they have and with the competitive nature of Manning.  OK here is something to think about, " why did they let Manning stay in so he could break a record"?  Wasn't breaking a record more important to them than winning a Super Bowl?  It was clear to me that the Colts where the the best team and would have won that game with the first team in. They have made this mistake before and did not make it to the Super Bowl. They won't make it this year either.  The San Diego Chargers own them and will lay a good  spanking on them again and go on to the Super Bowl.  I don't think this rookie coach has the ability to lead them in a pressure situation like the playoffs.  They might not even make it past the first round. Think of this, wouldn't it be ironic if the team  they did not perform well against make the playoffs and defeat them to move on.  Records don't mean anything in the playoffs. Arizona went to the Super Bowl last year with an 8/8 record. Need I say more.  It's no doubt that the players wanted to win.  This game might be carry on into the playoffs.  Winning creates courage and confidence. Losing creates fear and doubt. When the Colts don't make it to the Super Bowl this will follow this coach through out his career. The Colts will not make the playoffs next year because I don't think this coach has the ability to inspire the winning instinct into the players.  He has taken a ready made team for the Super Bowl and immobilized them. The coaches not only let the starting players down, they embarrassed the back up QB and showed the rest of the teams that the Colts cannot win without Manning.  By looking at the faces of their starting players on the side lines as the second team players where getting their butts whip, I could see the sadness in their eyes. The coaches let them play into the third quarter so Manning could break the passing, yet would not let them go for the single season winning record.     What a let down for the players and the fans who pay for tickets that ultimately pay their salaries.  They seem to think the fans don't deserve to see their team go undefeated.  These players make millions a year to win games. Many people working for a living don't get a day off to rest unless they are sick. These people work everyday for a year.  These players only work four months out of the year at the most. What a privileged  life.

Well I agree with that 100% but it was the coach who threw it away the plays have to do as the coach calls it and he made a bad bad call and now they will come back and bite them in the a$$!!

1/4/10   |   seminolematt   |   25 respect

The Colt's did the smart thing they already have home field throughout the post season. Peyton is the M.V.P. and the Colts will win The Super Bowl

1/2/10   |   mrtygoodwin   |   2 respect

HIIIIIIIIIII
HOW ARE YOU?

1/2/10   |   lovefms

Jess wrote:
I was actually speaking about the franchise in general - the coaching staff, etc. It's easier just to say "they" than to say "Caldwell didn't even give the players a chance to try" or something similar...color me lazy.

ok

12/30/09   |   montel1995   |   1 respect

Jess wrote:
At least they wouldn't have given up. Who's to say who would have won? That's not the point...they didn't even try.

they should of kept peyton in because some people will kill for an undeafeated season and they had treated tht season like trash

12/30/09   |   kvtigers92   |   4 respect

Jess wrote:
I was actually speaking about the franchise in general - the coaching staff, etc. It's easier just to say "they" than to say "Caldwell didn't even give the players a chance to try" or something similar...color me lazy.

colts coach is stupid not to pull starters play pull out of game on 3rd q i watch oh boy that suck would have unbeatable ties with pats just lost one fool peyton is upset he have tight close lips on tv he didnt like that to pull out to lose game for jets

12/30/09   |   Berniemike   |   19 respect

Jess wrote:
I was actually speaking about the franchise in general - the coaching staff, etc. It's easier just to say "they" than to say "Caldwell didn't even give the players a chance to try" or something similar...color me lazy.

I think that your on the right track by saying that caldwell didnt even give them a chance to go for the record of having the perfect season. They certainly should have given them a chance to try it.... Have a great New Years!

12/29/09   |   mrtygoodwin   |   2 respect

Jess wrote:
At least they wouldn't have given up. Who's to say who would have won? That's not the point...they didn't even try.

thats so true Jess............that act made me sick, hon, I can only think how they felt, standing on the sidelines HAVING to watch

12/28/09   |   Debi_L   |   11862 respect

RunningDawg wrote:
This puts more meaning on the Super Bowl....If the Colts do not make it there, then this season was a waste fro them.  You gave away a chance at perfection, something that hardly ever happens.  So if they do not get to the "Big game" then the decision to rest the starters makes the seaon a failure.  Even if they are 17-2 the season could be viewed as a failure.

Respect is done for the day....well for another 15 minutes, but you are right on the money with that post.  I was a fan of two undefeated teams going to the Super Bowl.  Now the Saints have two losses, but I am still cheering for them to go all the way, but the colts? meh, try again next year, and this time, play for the 18-0 and worry about the SB IF and/or when you get there.

12/28/09   |   jjplynch   |   264 respect

zzj000 wrote:
I dont feel the need to try and prove anything. I dont think the pressure of being undefeated would have weighed on a veteran team like the Colts in a way it may have the Saints should they have acheived it. I mearly point out that history would show that a loss proir to the playoffs gives a team the chance to refocus and see areas that need improvement that they may not see should they continue to win.
Thats all irrelevant. All that matters is how you perform in the playoffs and I see no need for concern from Indy right now. I hae a difficult time seeing how you think the Patriots are a legitimate threat. The Chargers possibly but NOT the Patriots. The Pats are 0-4 this year on the road against playoff teams (@ Jets, @ Denver, @ Indy and @ New Orleans). What gives you any inclination this team can go on the road and win in the playoffs?
San Diego is playing well but they also have to go to Indy to reach the Super Bowl. Their ONLY road win against a playoff team was a 3 pt win against a struggling Cowboy offense. I'm sorry, but for all your hopes and dreams PAT.... I see the Colts going to the Super Bowl with or without the starters participation in the final 2 regular season games. Whether they are 16-0 or 14-2.... all roads lead thru Indy!

For starters, the Patriots are peaking at the right time.  Their offense is still one of the greatest in the league, their defense is finally stepping up.  They whipped the Colts through 3 quarters in Indy, and lost with the de rigueur 30 yard pass interference call (flag was thrown what 3-4-5 seconds late?), and a blown call by (your choice of ) Belichick/Referees.   And their defense played like swiss cheese in that game.  Only 2 Peyton Interceptions. 

Only New Orleans truly whipped New England this season, and they've shown that the emotion of that game burned them out, they've lost 2 of 4, first to that struggling Cowboy offense.  And without the utter incompetence of the Washington Kicker (who misses a 23 yard field goal?) it would have been 3 of 4.  So chalk that up to any given Sunday.

Of course, San Diego has a better chance of beating the Colts, its the Colts who have to prove they can beat SD.  They've lost the Home and Home series of the past two playoffs.  Fact: Colts can't beat SD, the Jets showed they can't stop the run.  The Pats showed they can't stop the pass.  If Peyton goes down hard, they're back to the bottom of the league and Colts fans get to envy Patriots/Steelers/Chargers fans everywhere. 

Finally, a loss like the Saints had can be beneficial, it refocuses the team, but the Colts don't think they lost, they think they gave the game away.  They won't benefit from it.  But If it snows in Buffalo Sunday and Peyton throws 8 interceptions, then maybe the Colts will benefit.

12/28/09   |   derms33   |   17645 respect

I'd fire him...he is a Dungy coattail rider anyways...

12/28/09   |   RunningDawg   |   248 respect

This puts more meaning on the Super Bowl....If the Colts do not make it there, then this season was a waste fro them.  You gave away a chance at perfection, something that hardly ever happens.  So if they do not get to the "Big game" then the decision to rest the starters makes the seaon a failure.  Even if they are 17-2 the season could be viewed as a failure.

12/28/09   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

zzj000 wrote:
I dont think the Colts chances are better or worse by losing. If you read my post more clearly, I say that the Colts are a veteran team and a loss would mean very little. The only point I am making, and have made repeatedly the past 24 hrs, is that the risk of injury out weighed the gain of perfection. Caldwell made the right call. And as I said before... I would have yanked them sooner along with a few more guys on defense!
The whole issue surrounding the Colts game yesterday is being WAY over dramatized. They are still the team to beat. Period!

Here's something you said: "I have to ask myself.... Why are you so heartbroken over the Colts losing a game Pat? Could it be because you live and die by stats and know that only 1 team has ever ran the table and it would be in Indy's advantage statistically to lose prior to the playoffs?"

I'm still waiting to see how it's statistically advantageous for the Colts to lose. You'll probably never actually give a reason for that statement, because it's simply not true.

The trendy response is to say that it's good to rest your players, but that has NEVER worked for this Colts team. EVER. Look at their recent history. It's a fact.

They're the team to beat, but I think they're the team that WILL be beaten.

12/28/09   |   zzj000   |   388 respect

Pat wrote:
History shows that? Really? That's a pretty ignorant statement. In the Super Bowl era, only 2 teams have gone undefeated. One of them won the Super Bowl, and the other one lost the Super Bowl, but were winning the game late in the 4th quarter. So how does history say that losing a game helps? It doesn't.

And the reason I said you should prove something, is because you said that the Colts chances of winning the Super Bowl are higher, now that they have lost a game. I categorically disagree with that statement, and I don't see any possible way that you could possibly justify that, and I'd love to hear your attempt at explaining that.

I dont think the Colts chances are better or worse by losing. If you read my post more clearly, I say that the Colts are a veteran team and a loss would mean very little. The only point I am making, and have made repeatedly the past 24 hrs, is that the risk of injury out weighed the gain of perfection. Caldwell made the right call. And as I said before... I would have yanked them sooner along with a few more guys on defense!
The whole issue surrounding the Colts game yesterday is being WAY over dramatized. They are still the team to beat. Period!

12/28/09   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

zzj000 wrote:
I dont feel the need to try and prove anything. I dont think the pressure of being undefeated would have weighed on a veteran team like the Colts in a way it may have the Saints should they have acheived it. I mearly point out that history would show that a loss proir to the playoffs gives a team the chance to refocus and see areas that need improvement that they may not see should they continue to win.
Thats all irrelevant. All that matters is how you perform in the playoffs and I see no need for concern from Indy right now. I hae a difficult time seeing how you think the Patriots are a legitimate threat. The Chargers possibly but NOT the Patriots. The Pats are 0-4 this year on the road against playoff teams (@ Jets, @ Denver, @ Indy and @ New Orleans). What gives you any inclination this team can go on the road and win in the playoffs?
San Diego is playing well but they also have to go to Indy to reach the Super Bowl. Their ONLY road win against a playoff team was a 3 pt win against a struggling Cowboy offense. I'm sorry, but for all your hopes and dreams PAT.... I see the Colts going to the Super Bowl with or without the starters participation in the final 2 regular season games. Whether they are 16-0 or 14-2.... all roads lead thru Indy!

History shows that? Really? That's a pretty ignorant statement. In the Super Bowl era, only 2 teams have gone undefeated. One of them won the Super Bowl, and the other one lost the Super Bowl, but were winning the game late in the 4th quarter. So how does history say that losing a game helps? It doesn't.

And the reason I said you should prove something, is because you said that the Colts chances of winning the Super Bowl are higher, now that they have lost a game. I categorically disagree with that statement, and I don't see any possible way that you could possibly justify that, and I'd love to hear your attempt at explaining that.

12/28/09   |   zzj000   |   388 respect

Pat wrote:
Prove that it's in their advantage to lose prior to the playoffs, and I'll pretend that was a legitimate point.

I have made no secret of the fact that I don't like the Colts, but even when it's a team I dislike, I enjoy witnessing greatness. I'm glad the Colts lost, and I'm glad they won't go 19-0, but it's extremely disappointing that it happened this way.

That being said, I still honestly think they'll lose in the playoffs. I'm not saying that because I don't like them, as difficult as it might be for you to believe... I'm saying that because I simply don't think it will happen. I don't see them beating the Colts or Patriots right now.

I dont feel the need to try and prove anything. I dont think the pressure of being undefeated would have weighed on a veteran team like the Colts in a way it may have the Saints should they have acheived it. I mearly point out that history would show that a loss proir to the playoffs gives a team the chance to refocus and see areas that need improvement that they may not see should they continue to win.
Thats all irrelevant. All that matters is how you perform in the playoffs and I see no need for concern from Indy right now. I hae a difficult time seeing how you think the Patriots are a legitimate threat. The Chargers possibly but NOT the Patriots. The Pats are 0-4 this year on the road against playoff teams (@ Jets, @ Denver, @ Indy and @ New Orleans). What gives you any inclination this team can go on the road and win in the playoffs?
San Diego is playing well but they also have to go to Indy to reach the Super Bowl. Their ONLY road win against a playoff team was a 3 pt win against a struggling Cowboy offense. I'm sorry, but for all your hopes and dreams PAT.... I see the Colts going to the Super Bowl with or without the starters participation in the final 2 regular season games. Whether they are 16-0 or 14-2.... all roads lead thru Indy!

12/28/09   |   SnFlwr071s   |   13 respect

It' the Coaches fault and I would be pisses just like the First string was, you could see it in their faces though out the second half. They knew the coach was making a mistake but no one had the balls to say anything. They could have made history and had the best season of their lives but the coach is just a moron and never thinks. I unserstand he didn't want any of his starters hurt before playoffs but come on do you really think that if you leave them out it's helping them at all?  You just tossed their spirits down the toilet idiot.

12/28/09   |   LONE_STAR   |   20 respect

 OK MY TWO CENTS. THE TEAM AND THE FANS WERE CHEATED OUT OF A PERFECT SEASON. THEY DESERVED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY TO WIN !!!!!!! 

12/28/09   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

zzj000 wrote:
I have to ask myself.... Why are you so heartbroken over the Colts losing a game Pat? Could it be because you live and die by stats and know that only 1 team has ever ran the table and it would be in Indy's advantage statistically to lose prior to the playoffs? Just wonderin.
The Jets offens had done little to the point of the Colts starters being yanked. The fumble by Painter which resulted in a Jets TD was key play. If not for that turnover and TD, I think the Colts would have hung on and probably won the game. We will never know, but I still stand by the decision to get them out of there and not risk injury.  I have a bit of an advantage on you in the sense I have seen Painter play many games at Purdue and I was shocked he struggled that much. But in his defense, he didnt have Wayne, Clark or Addai to go to either.
We will never know what was going thru Caldwell's head but I have to think he thought even with Painter and the backup receivers we can hold on and win this. The JETS offense had done nothing to make him think otherwise up to the point of the changes.

Prove that it's in their advantage to lose prior to the playoffs, and I'll pretend that was a legitimate point.

I have made no secret of the fact that I don't like the Colts, but even when it's a team I dislike, I enjoy witnessing greatness. I'm glad the Colts lost, and I'm glad they won't go 19-0, but it's extremely disappointing that it happened this way.

That being said, I still honestly think they'll lose in the playoffs. I'm not saying that because I don't like them, as difficult as it might be for you to believe... I'm saying that because I simply don't think it will happen. I don't see them beating the Colts or Patriots right now.

12/28/09   |   zzj000   |   388 respect

I have to ask myself.... Why are you so heartbroken over the Colts losing a game Pat? Could it be because you live and die by stats and know that only 1 team has ever ran the table and it would be in Indy's advantage statistically to lose prior to the playoffs? Just wonderin.
The Jets offens had done little to the point of the Colts starters being yanked. The fumble by Painter which resulted in a Jets TD was key play. If not for that turnover and TD, I think the Colts would have hung on and probably won the game. We will never know, but I still stand by the decision to get them out of there and not risk injury.  I have a bit of an advantage on you in the sense I have seen Painter play many games at Purdue and I was shocked he struggled that much. But in his defense, he didnt have Wayne, Clark or Addai to go to either.
We will never know what was going thru Caldwell's head but I have to think he thought even with Painter and the backup receivers we can hold on and win this. The JETS offense had done nothing to make him think otherwise up to the point of the changes.

12/28/09   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

zzj000 wrote:
I am obviously in the Minority but I have NO PROBLEM with Caldwell's decision. In fact, Peyton and the other key starters wouldn't see a second of action next week. You can point to all the "history" you want, but as a coach you have to play the percentages. The percentages tell you that you have a much better chance of injury if you are in the game. IF, someone was to get hurt then ALL the blame falls on Caldwell's shoulders. I dont blame him and would have done the same thing.... only I would have yanked them much sooner!

Another note.... I know he's a rookie QB but I guarantee you that NOONE on the Colts sidelines was expecting Painter to struggle like he did. Jus sayin............

If no one on the Colts expected Painter to struggle like that, then that's just another sign that they're incompetent. There's no reason whatsoever to think that he could do well against that defense, considering Manning didn't even look that great against them either.

12/28/09   |   zzj000   |   388 respect

I am obviously in the Minority but I have NO PROBLEM with Caldwell's decision. In fact, Peyton and the other key starters wouldn't see a second of action next week. You can point to all the "history" you want, but as a coach you have to play the percentages. The percentages tell you that you have a much better chance of injury if you are in the game. IF, someone was to get hurt then ALL the blame falls on Caldwell's shoulders. I dont blame him and would have done the same thing.... only I would have yanked them much sooner!

Another note.... I know he's a rookie QB but I guarantee you that NOONE on the Colts sidelines was expecting Painter to struggle like he did. Jus sayin............

12/28/09   |   phatkat   |   1044 respect

wrote:
True, but I would rather see players be taken out now before they get hurt and throw it all away. That just makes sense.

makes sense to me sherry....

12/28/09   |   seminolematt   |   25 respect

Jess wrote:
I was actually speaking about the franchise in general - the coaching staff, etc. It's easier just to say "they" than to say "Caldwell didn't even give the players a chance to try" or something similar...color me lazy.

not if they win the super bowl.

12/28/09   |   phatkat   |   1044 respect

Colts almost had it...bummer! great game though!

12/28/09   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1163 respect

Scott wrote:

Just how many times has Peyton Manning actually gotten hurt during a game?  Also, if you are the rookie head coach of an undefeated team, why wouldnt you want to go into history as being the 1st team to go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl?

Here's the answers-#1 Never.  #2 I would yes but apparently Caldwell is afraid of greatness.
#1 Just how many times has Peyton Manning actually gotten hurt during a game? #2 If you are the rookie head coach of an undefeated team, why wouldnt you want to go into history as being the 1st team to go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl?

12/28/09   |   Indysweety_Lola   |   105 respect

wrote:
I hear ya....it was a eye opening day for sure....

You know, it would've been sweet to go for an undeafeted run. But it wasn't the big pic and if resting the starters was gonna get us to the SB then by all means do it. We gave the Jets that win. If the starters played we would've won no doubt. But as a true fan I'm letting go and moving on cause it doesn't even matter that we lost one freakin' game =). Gimme ur feedback on this by sending me a message jeffgordanfan38801

12/28/09   |   food_man56   |   2775 respect

The point is you are supposed to win every game.  You go out there and give your best  and the best team that day wins.  Had Manning stayed in there, he would not have given up.  He's a stick to the last minute guy.  Don't agree with the coaches on giving this game away.

12/28/09   |   Drummer99   |   4020 respect

I guess Manning was thinking, "will this happen again?" as far as looking upset. Will he ever go 14-0 again, he's 33, maybe he was looking forward to having something to remember, like going 19-0, or even tying the Pats record. I can see that part as well. I think he wanted to take the risk. I wonder if there was a discussion with Manning and Caldwell and he said, "I need ya'll healthy"... Also, the Superbowl is history, its the top, its the best team of the year. That said, If Manning wanted to risk it, and Manning made that clear, Caldwell should have respected it.

12/28/09   |   DarkSexy   |   56 respect

BLKWOLF wrote:
FOR WHAT ITS WORTH, THEY PLAY TO BE THE NEXT SUPERBOWL CHAMP.. TRYING TO BE UNDEFEATED IS GREAT. BUT IN THE LONG RUN, HOW WOULD IT LOOK TO BE 17-0 AND LOSE THE LAST PLAY OFF GAME? THERE IS A BIGGER GOAL IN SITE AND THAT IS TO BE THE NEXT SUPERBOWL CHAMP. I RESPECT MANNING BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF THE FEW PLAYERS THAT PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME!!!

See that is what I am talking about at least someone knows what they are talking about.

12/28/09   |   BLKWOLF   |   89 respect

FOR WHAT ITS WORTH, THEY PLAY TO BE THE NEXT SUPERBOWL CHAMP.. TRYING TO BE UNDEFEATED IS GREAT. BUT IN THE LONG RUN, HOW WOULD IT LOOK TO BE 17-0 AND LOSE THE LAST PLAY OFF GAME? THERE IS A BIGGER GOAL IN SITE AND THAT IS TO BE THE NEXT SUPERBOWL CHAMP. I RESPECT MANNING BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF THE FEW PLAYERS THAT PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME!!!

12/28/09   |   Drummer99   |   4020 respect

jjplynch wrote:
If Manning plays and goes down, Indianapolis goes back to the team before Manning - 2-14 every year. 

Give the Jets some credit, they out-performed Indy in playing some common opponents - laying a beating on Houston, and beating New England without any help from Belichick.  Its just possible that they didn't need Peyton out of the game, he wasn't performing that great anyways.

I gave the Jets credit, I like the Jets as well, (Which sucks when your fav teams play each other) I will add they have a great running game. As for the Colts losing with Manning, I don't know, and we won't know. I do know it woulda been closer than 29-15. Manning and co. could have easily scored two more TDs.

12/28/09   |   DarkSexy   |   56 respect

rayblomquist wrote:
they shoud have let manning play the colts coach is a a-- hole i thoug i wood see a game but i saw the great mistake of all time.

Now if Payton would have gotten hurt then you would have had people mad because of that.  You just can't please people these days.

12/28/09   |   rayblomquist   |   12 respect

they shoud have let manning play the colts coach is a a-- hole i thoug i wood see a game but i saw the great mistake of all time.

12/28/09   |   rayblomquist   |   12 respect

they shoud have let manning play the colts coach is a a-- hole i thoug i wood see a game but i saw the great mistake of all time.

12/28/09   |   mk_donley   |   2554 respect

I know its okay to rest your starters, but week 16??? Did Caldwell jump the gun too quick? He should've done that week 17, not 16. C"MON MAN!!!!!!!

12/28/09   |   jjplynch   |   264 respect

Drummer99 wrote:
I have mixed emotions about the decision. If Manning plays and goes down with a season ending injury then the Coach gets blamed. Obviously Caldwell didn't care about making history, he was trying to look smart by protecting his best players. I could also say, the team came this far, why not keep going and try to win all of the games, there is two sides to this. I know, Manning probably wouldn't get hurt, but, if he did, then what? in a game that wouldn't have got them any further in the level of playoffs. I woulda said the same about the Saints, except they're losing with their starters, very concerning. I think most of me says, go for it, the team is 14-0, keep going. The other part says, injury's come fast and furious.
Maybe only take Manning out if you are leading by at least two touchdowns. Not 5 points. The Jets have a good D, and they want the playoffs, trying to get a piece of the pie, so, even with Manning and co. this game MIGHT have been lost, I think the game would have been closer.  Btw, I haven't heard Caldwells press conference, but, he'd probably say he's also getting paid to win playoff games,
and if you risk your starters you may not be able to go on. As I said, mixed emotions, mixed thoughts about whether Caldwell was being to protective. I KNOW, I know, it sucks to lose and they were staring at breaking the Dolphins and Pats record.

If Manning plays and goes down, Indianapolis goes back to the team before Manning - 2-14 every year. 

Give the Jets some credit, they out-performed Indy in playing some common opponents - laying a beating on Houston, and beating New England without any help from Belichick.  Its just possible that they didn't need Peyton out of the game, he wasn't performing that great anyways.

12/28/09   |   Drummer99   |   4020 respect

I have mixed emotions about the decision. If Manning plays and goes down with a season ending injury then the Coach gets blamed. Obviously Caldwell didn't care about making history, he was trying to look smart by protecting his best players. I could also say, the team came this far, why not keep going and try to win all of the games, there is two sides to this. I know, Manning probably wouldn't get hurt, but, if he did, then what? in a game that wouldn't have got them any further in the level of playoffs. I woulda said the same about the Saints, except they're losing with their starters, very concerning. I think most of me says, go for it, the team is 14-0, keep going. The other part says, injury's come fast and furious.
Maybe only take Manning out if you are leading by at least two touchdowns. Not 5 points. The Jets have a good D, and they want the playoffs, trying to get a piece of the pie, so, even with Manning and co. this game MIGHT have been lost, I think the game would have been closer.  Btw, I haven't heard Caldwells press conference, but, he'd probably say he's also getting paid to win playoff games,
and if you risk your starters you may not be able to go on. As I said, mixed emotions, mixed thoughts about whether Caldwell was being to protective. I KNOW, I know, it sucks to lose and they were staring at breaking the Dolphins and Pats record.

12/28/09   |   CowboyFan1   |   74 respect

I was shocked when they started taking starters out of the game with it so close.  You could see the players were not happy campers and that game went down the tubes.  I kept thinking he would put Manning back in or a few of the other starters and stop the bleeding,but NOPE.  Saving your players for next week/playoffs etc is 1 thing but to KNOW you are costing yourself a WIN,your nuts.    If I was the owner I might be thinking of what I wanted to say to him. 

Not saying they wouldn't of lost the game or maybe even next week....but that game they purely lost on bad coaching.  It is a shame.

12/28/09   |   rohan97

??????????

12/28/09   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

aos035 wrote:
"The ignorant might point out the fate of the 2007 Patriots"

Somebody's a wittle sore, aren't they?

No, it has nothing to do with being sore. I'm just saying that the Patriots deciding to go for 16-0 had nothing to do with them losing the Super Bowl, and it's ignorant to think that it did.

12/28/09   |   Jupiter1200   |   108 respect

wrote:
I hear ya....it was a eye opening day for sure....

I love the colts because of manning but I had a good feeling the perfect run would be over this week..Just like my team,Saints last week.Then you heckled me for picking the Jets.Hmmm

12/28/09   |   Jess   |   34886 respect

coyotedances wrote:
Let's keep this in proper prospective. "they" the players had nothing to do with the coaches decision. So who "didn't even try"

I was actually speaking about the franchise in general - the coaching staff, etc. It's easier just to say "they" than to say "Caldwell didn't even give the players a chance to try" or something similar...color me lazy.

12/28/09   |   fooltomery   |   21 respect

(Edited by fooltomery)

The entire Colts roster, led by Peyton Manning, should have met with Jim Caldwell and the Colts ownership and expressed their desire to play to win each game. They should have resisted taking a dive. Sure, they might have lost the game anyway, but that's always a risk. This Jets game will always be viewed as one that was given away. Ticket-holding fans (and lovers of true sporting contests) have a right to be pissed.

12/28/09   |   coyotedances   |   23936 respect

Jess wrote:
At least they wouldn't have given up. Who's to say who would have won? That's not the point...they didn't even try.

Let's keep this in proper prospective. "they" the players had nothing to do with the coaches decision. So who "didn't even try"

12/28/09   |   coyotedances   |   23936 respect

fooltomery wrote:
Even if the Colts win the Super Bowl, they will have shown themselves unworthy sportsmen.  For them to treat a regular season game like a pre-season game is to perpetrate a fraud upon their fanbase and, in particular, on those fans who paid good money for tickets to watch their team take a dive for the Jets.  If the Colts were boxers, they would be scorned out of their sport.

"Even if the Colts win the Super Bowl, they will have shown themselves unworthy sportsmen" You would condemn an entire team for one man's decision? That's like saying all Raiders players are jerks because of Al Davis. Get real.

12/28/09   |   fooltomery   |   21 respect

(Edited by fooltomery)

Even if the Colts win the Super Bowl, they will have shown themselves unworthy sportsmen.  For them to treat a regular season game like a pre-season game is to perpetrate a fraud upon their fanbase and, in particular, on those fans who paid good money for tickets to watch their team take a dive for the Jets.  If the Colts were boxers, they would be scorned out of their sport.

12/28/09   |   Jess   |   34886 respect

wrote:
Excuse are like ass*oles...everyone has one. Maybe Manning should have put up more than 15 points with the time he put in. He didnt even throw a TD. Maybe you should blame the Colts Defense for giving up over 200 Yards on the ground to a 7-7 Jets team.  Whos to say the Colts would have won if Manning had stayed in the game.

Sometimes when you win...you actually lose. And sometimes when you lose...you actually win. And sometimes when you win or lose...you actually tie.   .

At least they wouldn't have given up. Who's to say who would have won? That's not the point...they didn't even try.

12/28/09   |   masternate30   |   123 respect

The way I see it is that the end of the year is the worst time to start losing games. Great coaches are those who play to win regardless.  To say we let this one go because we want to rest our players is the excuse losers' make when they don't have real leadership skills to get the job done. Any coach could have taken the Colts to the playoffs with all that talent they have and with the competitive nature of Manning.  OK here is something to think about, " why did they let Manning stay in so he could break a record"?  Wasn't breaking a record more important to them than winning a Super Bowl?  It was clear to me that the Colts where the the best team and would have won that game with the first team in. They have made this mistake before and did not make it to the Super Bowl. They won't make it this year either.  The San Diego Chargers own them and will lay a good  spanking on them again and go on to the Super Bowl.  I don't think this rookie coach has the ability to lead them in a pressure situation like the playoffs.  They might not even make it past the first round. Think of this, wouldn't it be ironic if the team  they did not perform well against make the playoffs and defeat them to move on.  Records don't mean anything in the playoffs. Arizona went to the Super Bowl last year with an 8/8 record. Need I say more.  It's no doubt that the players wanted to win.  This game might be carry on into the playoffs.  Winning creates courage and confidence. Losing creates fear and doubt. When the Colts don't make it to the Super Bowl this will follow this coach through out his career. The Colts will not make the playoffs next year because I don't think this coach has the ability to inspire the winning instinct into the players.  He has taken a ready made team for the Super Bowl and immobilized them. The coaches not only let the starting players down, they embarrassed the back up QB and showed the rest of the teams that the Colts cannot win without Manning.  By looking at the faces of their starting players on the side lines as the second team players where getting their butts whip, I could see the sadness in their eyes. The coaches let them play into the third quarter so Manning could break the passing, yet would not let them go for the single season winning record.     What a let down for the players and the fans who pay for tickets that ultimately pay their salaries.  They seem to think the fans don't deserve to see their team go undefeated.  These players make millions a year to win games. Many people working for a living don't get a day off to rest unless they are sick. These people work everyday for a year.  These players only work four months out of the year at the most. What a privileged  life.

12/28/09   |   jjplynch   |   264 respect

If you want to cheer for a team that always wants to win and tries to do so, repent and worship the Patriots!

12/28/09   |   aos035   |   68 respect

"The ignorant might point out the fate of the 2007 Patriots"

Somebody's a wittle sore, aren't they?

12/28/09   |   thjacobsjr   |   38 respect

My thoughts are related to the psychological damage that was done to the team, because it was evident on the faces of all the starters it was not a con-census decision, they did the good soldier thing and they did what they were told, and I will guarantee that if the Colt's loose in the play-offs the coach will be held responsible for any debacle that occurs because of his decision to sit the starters.  This game has become very fickled also earlier today no one would have thought that the SAINT's would have loss to the BUCCANEER'S, nor would have anyone thought that the GIANT'S would have played with more intensity today however they did not, just like my RAIDERS they coasted as though they have a play-off spot clinched and home field advantage wrapped up, very dissappointing and piss poor game play.

12/27/09   |   coyotedances   |   23936 respect

duncand_94 wrote:
i think it is owed to the fan to put your best team on the field all the time. the fan pays good money to be at the games so they should get the best players on the team to watch.

especially at a sold out home game

12/27/09   |   duncand_94   |   5 respect

i think it is owed to the fan to put your best team on the field all the time. the fan pays good money to be at the games so they should get the best players on the team to watch.

12/27/09   |   coyotedances   |   23936 respect

(Edited by coyotedances)

As an avid Colts fan the game was perplexing, frustrating, and disgusting for me. If I live to be 100 years old I doubt  I'll ever understand why a coach would willingly throw away a chance for an unbeaten season.
We expect the players to play their best, and the coach to play to win.

12/27/09   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

Scott wrote:

Just how many times has Peyton Manning actually gotten hurt during a game?  Also, if you are the rookie head coach of an undefeated team, why wouldnt you want to go into history as being the 1st team to go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl?

 mercury morris must have emptied his bank account to them. oh and now i can break out this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZgxDj5q9hM








12/27/09   |   JBrenn   |   44 respect

Scott wrote:

Just how many times has Peyton Manning actually gotten hurt during a game?  Also, if you are the rookie head coach of an undefeated team, why wouldnt you want to go into history as being the 1st team to go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl?

No doubt - you'd be a God in Indiana, and you'd never have to pay for any meal ever again...Instead, the coaching staff has seemingly relegated themselves to dirty looks and scoffs, but more seriously still, will people ever again be able to believe the coaching staff's only mission is "win"?

12/27/09   |   Scott   |   53867 respect

DarkSexy wrote:

I think that was the best thing the coaches could have done because they want to make sure that Payton does not get hurt or injury before the play off start.  If I was a coach I would have done the same thing and I would not worry about going in history being undefeated because you are taking a risk.

Just how many times has Peyton Manning actually gotten hurt during a game?  Also, if you are the rookie head coach of an undefeated team, why wouldnt you want to go into history as being the 1st team to go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl?

12/27/09   |   blondie45044   |   5873 respect

The team did not blow it, the Coach did! 

12/27/09   |   guylake   |   321 respect

Dead. Solid. Perfect. Great take, Pat.

12/27/09   |   DarkSexy   |   56 respect

I think that was the best thing the coaches could have done because they want to make sure that Payton does not get hurt or injury before the play off start.  If I was a coach I would have done the same thing and I would not worry about going in history being undefeated because you are taking a risk.

12/27/09   |   Debi_L   |   11862 respect

EXCELLENT!!! I'll only add a small comment, cuz you really said it all.  They play for five-six months, once a week.  Hockey is played for about 9 months, and they play 3-5 times a week.  WHY would any player need rest?