Maybe it's just me but this doesn't make any sense. You're from here yet you root against us. I would rather be a homer over a hater any day of the week.
one and done as usual? they've won a superbowl and been to numerous championship games, people are making waaay to big a deal out of this. this whole, "you can't turn it on" thing is such a stupid issue in football. you only play one game a week anyway. you're off one game before the playoffs start anyway if you're in the top two.
This may not have been Caldwell's decision. In fact, seeing as he's a first year head coach, I doubt it was. Bill Polian and Jim Irsay might have told him what to do. If Dungy was still coach, it probably would have been his call alone.
In three of the past four years, the Colts have been one and done. In two of those three (San Diego and Pittsburgh), they lost at home in the second round when they basically sleepwalked through the first half and built up a deficit. This, of course, came after they took all or parts of the final regular season weeks off and had a bye. No, people aren't making too big of a deal out of this. This is the exact situation in which the Colts have burned themselves before, and they refuse to learn from past mistakes. It's incredible, really. And yes, it will happen again in three weeks.
Yeah it is huge and it could be even bigger depending on what happens in tonight's game and next week's games involving the Vikings and Packers. The Dallas-Philadelphia game could be for the 2nd seed and a first round bye. We'll see.....
and when they colts won the superbowl, they didn't have a bye week. either way they will have a week off thus having to "turn the switch on", the point is moot
There's a difference in taking one week off and going more than a month without playing a full, competitive four-quarter game.
What's the difference between playing a competitive half vs. a competitive 4-quarters? They still have to practice full speed, they still go out there and play full speed, etc. I think taking the full game off is problematic, but playing all-out for a half seems just as good as playing all-out for a full game, as far as keeping players sharp goes.
Pittsburgh Steelers won the superbowl last season resting the starters of its last game in the second half of that game. there is no reason run the risk of getting your starters hurt.
i would equate having 3 weeks off in the NFL to something like taking a month's vacation at your job. when you get back to work, you don't just jump right in where you left off. it takes you a good full day for you to get accustomed to your normal routine. before you left, you probably were on automatic. well, you can't just expect to do that on your first day back. sure, the colts will be practicing but you can never underestimate the value of real live game week in and week out.
I'm fine with it in the last week of the season in one half. But when you go beyond that - especially coming off a Thursday game the week before - it becomes excessive, imo.
The colts are ripping off the texans stratagy only playing a half of football. I think resting is bad for the colts because they seem to be more about timing.
Except the colts tend be 1 and done way too often considering how good a regular season team they are. In any case you are screwing over 5 other teams and its not like an NFL ticket is cheap. If you looked at the peyton on the sidelines he didn't look too happy. Peyton could get hurt walkin out of the stadium or the 1st snap of the playoffs. The fact is he just does't get hurt. Does anyone remember the 1974 suberbowl champs? They had a chance to go for history and they just gave up. If that was jordan or farve you think they would even listen to the coach.
If you are sharp, it might be just as good. The problem yesterday is the Colts weren't sharp in the first half. The timing from Manning and his receivers was a split-second off, and burned them on three different occasions. If ever there was a situation in which players needed additional reps, yesterday was it. Instead, Caldwell took them out on a low. I also think there's a certain way you condition yourself if you're going through a four-quarter game that you might not do if you're playing for a half. For example, I noticed on at least two occasions yesterday that Manning went for the home-run ball on a 3rd and 3, and missed both times. In both spots, a simple short route would have moved the chains. But when players know they aren't going to play the full game, they have a way of trying to get the most bang for their buck and don't treat game situations the same as they would if it were a normal outing. Again, I know I can't quantify this - but it's a trend I've noticed over the years. A few friends of mine called me crazy yesterday when I said in the first half that Manning would come out in the third, but I sensed it based on how he was approaching certain situations (in ways that were very atypical for him).
thank you for addressing the real concern do people care about the 07 patriots or the pats that won superbowls if peyton isn't sharp because he's whining, well that's on peyton, he makes enough money to get over it
that's my concern. in other sports, there is a sense that, in games with playoff implications, teams aren't gonna lay down...no matter their own situation. you hear them talk about it openly. i realize injuries are a far bigger concern in football than other sports...but i wish that attitude were more prevalent in football. i think there's lots more integrity in that. because the colts team we played 2x this season is a helluva lot better than the one that showed up on the Jets schedule yesterday.
on the flip side of the integrity issue (which I believe is a legit concern) the colts are supposedly preparing for bigger success than regular season games, whether people agree with that strategy or not.
