Weird taste in your mouth...

it's a Colts loss...that's what it is.

Personally I think it's GREAT! I got a kick out of one of the pregame shows asking/talking about them running the table complete with a SB win.

Just heard that Bill Polian announced Peyton Manning will sit out all of the playoff games so that he doesn't get hurt prior to next season...

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Just heard that Bill Polian announced Peyton Manning will sit out all of the playoff games so that he doesn't get hurt prior to next season...

...from a bungal fan. <facepalm>

Why do they continue this strategy? The owner says all they care about is a Superbowl. Well, the starters wanted to play and try for a perfect season. The fans wanted them to try for a perfect season. And then there's the integrity of the game. They just affected the playoff picture (again) by playing their scrubs. If the Jets had been playing the Rams and the Rams pulled all their starters to get the first draft pick everyone would be screaming. If it was all about keeping Peyton and company healthy then why start them in the first place?

Actually, in all honesty, I have no problem with what the Colts did (just razzin' ya all up is all). The goal is to win the Super Bowl. The Colts earned the right to rest their players in Sunday's game (and conceivably this weekend's game too) by doing so well in their first 14 games. If other teams want to cry about how it's not fair the Colts are resting their best players when they need Colts to win, well, maybe the teams crying about it should've tried a little harder in the games they lost so that they wouldn't have to depend on others to take care of business for them.

IF one of the main players gets hurt during a meaningless game before the playoffs, then you'd have people bitchin that the Colts should've pulled the players.

Whether or not this disrupts their momentum as they're heading into the playoffs remains to be seen. But I rather take that chance than head into the playoffs w/out my stud QB or stud WR, etc...

As a Bengals fan, I'd rather beat you in the playoffs with your best on the field instead of on the IR.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Actually, in all honesty, I have no problem with what the Colts did (just razzin' ya all up is all). The goal is to win the Super Bowl. The Colts earned the right to rest their players in Sunday's game (and conceivably this weekend's game too) by doing so well in their first 14 games. If other teams want to cry about how it's not fair the Colts are resting their best players when they need Colts to win, well, maybe the teams crying about it should've tried a little harder in the games they lost so that they wouldn't have to depend on others to take care of business for them.

IF one of the main players gets hurt during a meaningless game before the playoffs, then you'd have people bitchin that the Colts should've pulled the players.

Whether or not this disrupts their momentum as they're heading into the playoffs remains to be seen. But I rather take that chance than head into the playoffs w/out my stud QB or stud WR, etc...

As a Bengals fan, I'd rather beat you in the playoffs with your best on the field instead of on the IR.

I agree with everything here. But I'll add that as a fan, and a season ticket holder I wanted to see an effort for perfection. People put up lots of money to go see the Colts play, and we were lucky enough to see them get to 14-0. I think the orginization owed it to the fanbase to go for perfection. It's not the end of the world, I'm not changing my license plate, but I was a little pissed about it sitting in the stands.

If I remember correctly, when the Colts won the superbowl they were the 4th seed in the playoffs that year. That means they didn't have the option then of resting their starters the last game or two of the regular season or else their seeding could have been worse. Contrast that with other years they "rested" their starters they get beat in the first game of the playoffs.

Kroman wrote:If I remember correctly, when the Colts won the superbowl they were the 4th seed in the playoffs that year. That means they didn't have the option then of resting their starters the last game or two of the regular season or else their seeding could have been worse. Contrast that with other years they "rested" their starters they get beat in the first game of the playoffs.

That was going to be my next comment. And I remember in 2005 when the Bears won the NFC North, rested their starters, and promptly got beat my a wild card team in the first game. I think it affects the mentality of the team and they get more "comfortable" in the playoffs.

I just want Baltimore, Denver and New England to lose next week.