# Resting players and sportsmanship?



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This applies to all sports really, but came to the forefront again this past weekend with the NFL and Indy pulling players late in a game that they didn't need to win.

I remember the Lakers in the 1980s sometimes doing this late in the regular season as well... It's basically not a new thing and something that happens in most sports late in the season.

I'm torn on how to feel.

On the one hand, you earn the right to rest players for the playoffs if you play well and lock up your division/seeding. On the other hand, your resting players sometimes affects other teams seeding or even making the playoffs.

Consider Indy resting and "letting" the Jets win, means the Jets now can win-and-in themselves next weekend. Meanwhile, Indy beat lots of teams this year with a late 4th quarter drive (Houston for example) and effectively put those teams out of the playoffs.

The argument for "not getting someone hurt" comes up... but I remember Carson Palmer getting hurt in the playoffs so resting before that is no guarantee... and other players (like Tom Brady last season) get hurt and out for the year in the first game or sometimes even pre-season.

So... would you start a season playing the Raiders and figure they are going to be a bad team so you rest your starters early in the year?

I'm understanding of why you'd pull players when you have a big lead OR keep players out that are injured... but consider too that Indy, for example, says they pulled their starters because "going undefeated isn't a goal" because their goal is "the Superbowl"... but you can bet money that Manning will start next week anyway for a few plays to keep his consecutive-starter streak intact... and he might very well get sacked and injured in the first play of the game.

So some non-team goals are more important than others... or otherwise there would be no longevity streaks because guys like Favre and Manning wouldn't start that last "meaningless" game of the season.

While I'm using football examples... the topic really applies to every sport. So I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about resting players in "meaningless" games at the end of the season.


----------



## Dirac (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, these guys are professionals. How about I slack off at work for the next two months because we're having an audit in March and I'm really going to need to be at the top of my game?

I understand the risks are a little different for athletes, and I'm not trying to oversimplify things too much (I understand the counterargument) but most people I know expect professionals to give their best effort in every circumstance.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

At the pro level, coaches and assistants get paid a lot of money to make these decisions. Whatever the sport, their goal is to win the championship. If they want to rest 1st stringers, so be it. From one perspective, it helps the other players get better prepared so when they have to step in in a game day situation they're ready for prime time.

John


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm understanding of why you'd pull players when you have a big lead ...


That is exactly what the Colts did. Except their big lead was the season standings.

Also, coaches need to get snaps for second-tier players to give them game experience. What better time to do this than a "real" (not preseason) game, when they are probably more likely to face top-flight starters across the line, as opposed to games in July and August?

Plus, fans should understand that this season is an anomaly, where you a have a smattering of excellent teams and a whole host of mediocre or downright terrible teams. So the gap between division winner and also-rans is huge. But that's the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

What people forget is that the Jets could have possibly won the game even if the Colts starters remained in the game. Its not like Indy was blowing them out. It was 15-10 when Indy pulled its starters.


----------



## adunkle (Aug 19, 2006)

I think that if the Colts were not unbeaten going into the game then this would not be an issue for Colts fans. I read an article on Yahoo where only 1 team in NFL history has went undefeated. We wanted to make history. That's my take anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

How many other games this season did Indy pull their starters with less than a touchdown lead?

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is zero.

In a very real sense they cheated the paying fans by not playing a game to the end BUT charged the fans full price for the ticket. Also, they cheated themselves a chance at an undefeated season... and they cheated other teams in the playoff hunt by giving the Jets a game rather than forcing them to earn it.

Plus... IF Indy does not win the Superbowl, they will absolutely be creamed by the media for having made that decision to pull players and not keep their momentum... so they will have to answer the question again.

You also have a situation with Manning who has never missed a start in his career... so is there a real reason to assume he was going to get hurt? If so, isn't that indicative of a worse problem with the team that is likely to get exposed in the playoffs anyway?

I guess I'm just bothered in any sport where one team admittedly stops trying. How many times have you heard all the negatives about a team "quitting" and not putting forth effort in games? You hear all the time about how that is a very bad thing... but apparently not trying isn't the same as quitting?

I have to be honest... and as a fan... I'm not rooting as much for Indy now as I feel like it wasn't that important to them. I have the same feeling with the NBA as they talk about teams being "built for the post-season" and how the regular season doesn't matter to a team.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

> Plus, fans should understand that this season is an anomaly, where you a have a smattering of excellent teams and a whole host of mediocre or downright terrible teams. So the gap between division winner and also-rans is huge. But that's the exception rather than the rule.


While that may be somewhat true this year, the scenario of sitting players in NFL games at season end due to not needing the win to affect playoff standings is something that happens every year. This year, I think we'll have a larger number of teams that will sit players because they can't move up in playoff standings. The Colts, Saints, Chargers, Bengals, & Patriots will probably all sit their players (other than for Manning needing the start to continue his streak). However, if the argument is to rest your best players to save them or to give your second string a chance in a "real" game, then why don't the teams that are out of the playoffs do the same thing. Why risk a career-ending injury in what is also a meaningless game? Give the rookies a chance at some experience.

As a fan of the NFL, I want every game to matter & have every game played by the best players available. I hate that some teams slide into the playoffs over another team because of other teams sitting their players. However, I also admit that first, any team needing a win at the end of the season could have won more teams during the season & not been in this situation, second that players do get hurt as the season goes on & that can cost a team dearly, and third that the ultimate goal IS the Super Bowl. Everything else is meaningless. Just ask the Patriots -- I'll bet any one of them would gladly trade that one loss for a regular season game as opposed to it being the Super Bowl -- they'd give up that perfect regular season for the Super Bowl win.

What's conflicting for me is that when the Patriots played their players the last games in order to get that 16 - 0 record, I thought they were dicks. But I hate them anyway. When the Colts pulled their players & then lost the game, I thought they were idiots. So, you can't win for losing . I feel the same as Stewart, though -- having Indy pull their players & then lose has taken the shine off of them for me. I'm a Saints fan first & a Manning fan second (well, Favre is above all of them but I think that's not a popular opinion these days :-0) but now I will probably root for whoever the NFC team is in the Super Bowl, even if Indy is the AFC team. Unless it is the Cowboys -- I hate them, too.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> How many other games this season did Indy pull their starters with less than a touchdown lead?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the answer to that is zero.
> 
> ...


Colts fans won't feel cheated if they go on the win the Super Bowl. The Colts goal is to win the Super Bowl not go 16-0 in the regular season. I'm sure Patriots fans would trade in that 16-0 season for a Super Bowl win in a heartbeat.
Jim Caldwell was looking out for the best interest of his team. How would fans feel if one of their top players got injured at the end of that Jets game?


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

If my team was close to a perfect season record and the coach sat the stars and regulars near the end of the season, I would be mad too.


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

I'm not a Colts fan by no means, but I was even mad seeing them bench starters. I understand winning the championship is more important than an undefeated season but why not go for it? I would think Indy would realize benching there starters is probably a bad thing since every other time they've done it they lose in the playoffs. The only time they did win it all was when they had to play all there starters straight through the playoffs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The problem, as I see it... is sports like the NFL are even considering expanding their season to 18 games... but if we have teams tanking games late in the season because they "don't matter"... maybe we actually need to contract and play 14 or less games so that there are no meaningless games.

What's the difference, for example, between that last preseason game vs a week 15 game where you pull your starters? Fans pay full price for a ticket, but don't get a full effort from their team.

The same can be said for other sports... like the NBA's 82 game season where most teams consider a good year to be 50-60 wins and a playoff birth... so there are lots of "meaningless" games played without effort during a season.

Also, guys get hurt in practice... and even teams that take a game off to "rest" go full-out in practice so they don't get out of shape at the end of the season... so who is to say when a player might get hurt in practice and be out for the playoffs as well.

It's really just a silly notion that people fear an injury in the last game of the season enough to not try and win the game.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

My problem with any professional team resting it's best players for any reason is that the fans _*pay*_ to see the best players. Do the teams give the fans who paid the same price for the game played by backups a refund?

To me they're cheating the fans , no matter what the reason is for sitting out the marque players people have paid to see.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I was more upset because it impact play off implications. Teams have been doing this for years but because a team on the bubble gets the luck of playing a team that will rest starters doesn't make it fair to the other teams on the bubble who are fighting it out for 60 minutes. Other than that I could care less.


Disclaimer: I'm a Bears fan and our team wasn't even a reflection on the bubble looking in.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

But in the same vein, is it fair for the Broncos who are fighting for a wildcard to get 4 games against the Raiders and Chiefs vs. the Ravens and Steelers who have to beat on each other for that same wildcard berth.

It is just the luck of the draw that the Jets got Indy in week 16 vs. week 4.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> But in the same vein, is it fair for the Broncos who are fighting for a wildcard to get 4 games against the Raiders and Chiefs vs. the Ravens and Steelers who have to beat on each other for that same wildcard berth.
> 
> It is just the luck of the draw that the Jets got Indy in week 16 vs. week 4.


Are these the same Raiders and Chiefs that Pittsburgh lost to? If the Steelers miss the playoffs, they have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Luck of the draw is one thing... there is no such thing as a "balanced" schedule really... but one does assume that at least both teams will be trying to win.

Imagine if they played the whole season not to get hurt and resting.

I've speculated before... if you have the Raiders in week 1, why not rest your players and not try that game because you figure it won't matter by the end of the season.

To me it is just a bad precedent that was started many years ago that some games are of practically no value. If that is true, then we really need to be playing (and charging fans for) less games each season.


----------



## sorentodd45 (May 12, 2009)

But any NFL team can win on any given Sunday. The Bucs won in the Superdome this season, and Drew Brees was still on the field.

I'm a bit bummed that the Colts lost, but at least the pressure is now off.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

You can't rest your players at the beginning of the season because you don't know yet whether you will need that win or not. You might end up like the Colts where you know in Week 14 that you don't need any more wins, or you might end up like the Saints who, for many weeks, were just one game ahead of the Vikings. It could have ended with the Saints needing to go 16 - 0 just to keep the Number 1 seed, if the Vikings (and Saints) hadn't imploded the last few weeks.

The point is -- you can't know at the beginning of the season how many wins you need so you need them all. At the end of the season, you do know how many MORE you need, if any.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Not sure there will ever be a solid "rule of thumb" even on this....

It would appear that the timing, team circumstances, and team consequences all come into play....so in the end....each case is slightly different to assess.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It does point to the season being too long, though...

Each team has 6 in-division games + 10 other games, 4 of which come from matchups with a specific team in the other conference (AFC or NFC as the case may be).

If we find teams in the last 2 weeks who don't need to win those games to affect getting into the playoffs or even seeding... then maybe we need to back-off to a 12-14 game season again.

I'd much rather see a shorter season where all games matter and starters play the whole way through... rather than 16-18 games and have 2 or more late-season games where many teams don't even try.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I get what you are saying, but I don't want 2-4 less weeks of NFL. That is why they are looking at expanding it to 18.

Baseball teams do it all the time bringing up minor leaguers to get a taste of major league actions. Sometimes that 21 year old pitcher goes up against a team trying to make the playoffs and they tag him for 6 runs in the first. Is that fair to the team they are in contention with who has to play another team in contention.

Just the luck of the draw.

Cheryl10,

Yes you are right about that. Forgot about those losses.


----------



## lefatman (Jan 2, 2010)

Why don't they just seed the teams by record and continue reseeding after each week. That way the best record gets the home field and therefore the record, and thus every game, counts.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Two words...Wes Welker.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

The NFL may offer incentives so teams will play their starters:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34673861/ns/sports-nfl/


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the one hand, you earn the right to rest players for the playoffs if you play well and lock up your division/seeding. On the other hand, your resting players sometimes affects other teams seeding or even making the playoffs.


If those other teams would have done their job a little better (and won more games) they wouldn't need to worry about backing into the playoffs based on someone else loosing, which is why I feel they should get rid of letting scrubs (wild card) teams in playoffs at all, if you can't win your division you shouldn't even be in the playoffs.

I heard them talking this morning about linking draft picks somehow so this doesn't happen. What they should do is go back to division leaders playing division leaders and loosers playing loosers when teams play out of division games, instead of superbowl champs playing the Oakland Raiders and KC Chiefs, which by the way beat the Squealers....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> If those other teams would have done their job a little better (and won more games) they wouldn't need to worry about backing into the playoffs based on someone else loosing, which is why I feel they should get rid of letting scrubs (wild card) teams in playoffs at all, if you can't win your division you shouldn't even be in the playoffs.


Except that division winners aren't necessarily good teams either.

Consider a division with a lot of teams with essentially the same record so that it comes down to tie-breakers vs common opponents. Then, 3 weeks ago you needed to win, so you played to win... but this week you don't play to win because you don't need to, and a different team from that same division gets a "gimme" from you and wins their division as a result of you not playing against them like you did their other divisional rivals.

In the above case, it isn't about you not doing your best the rest of the year... it's purely about your opponent trying some games but not others.

I really hate these throwaway games, and it always sours my taste going into the playoffs each year.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In a very real sense they cheated the paying fans by not playing a game to the end BUT charged the fans full price for the ticket.


They do this already with preseason games.

Sports teams owe the fans nothing more than to place a squad on the field. Sports is a buyer-beware business. The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we'll have hundreds more dollars in our pockets.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

No one has yet mentioned the elephant in the room -- gambling. Even though it is illegal in 49 states (or is it 48 now?), everyone knows it goes on and is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is the real reason teams have to publish injury reports, so why is this different? When a team rests their first-string players, it will affect the point spread at minimum. The opportunity for tampering is HUGE! If a player is caught shaving points, he can be suspended, or even go to prison. But if a coach does essentially the same thing, he is not punished at all?

There has been talk of draft picks. The NBA solved the problem of teams "dogging it" late in the season to get a better draft position by implementing the lottery. Now, one star on an NBA team makes a much bigger difference than an NFL team where there are 22 starters, but I could see something similar. Maybe a supplemental draft of players who leave school early (likely to be the best players) where picks are determined by longevity of starters somehow (percentage of plays by player not on IR?)

Another option might be to reward teams that "go all out" the entire season with an expanded roster. Afraid your star QB might get hurt? No problem, we'll let you carry an extra one, exempt from the salary cap, so you can have _two_ Pro Bowl-caliber QBs.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

4HiMarks said:


> No one has yet mentioned the elephant in the room -- gambling....... The opportunity for tampering is HUGE! If a player is caught shaving points, he can be suspended, or even go to prison. But if a coach does essentially the same thing, he is not punished at all?


But if anyone betting on the Colts/Jets didn't take into account the fact the Colts could rest their starters, please quit gambling and just give me your money.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

What the Colt's couch did-was to take away something (possible undefeated season -including the super bowl) from the players, they will never again be the age or health they are in this season to have made a run at it, that goal is just as hard to make as any NFL palyer getting to the souper bowl.

It is possible for the colts lose in the play off''s as it is a different kind of player that shows up than during the regular season, when it's a game being played that is ONE loss and your out.


As with most PRO-Players they can turn it on or turn if off anytime during a season or a game.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

The Vikings beating the Giants affected the Cardinals lineup. Since the #2 seed was no longer possible, Coach Whisenhunt played second stringers on defense after DRC got banged up on GB's first possession, and pulled Warner after the cards first series. GB played their starters for the 9/10 of the game. The play selections were also affected by the fact that GB and AZ will play again in the wild card round. (as will Dal/Phil and NYJ/Cin).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am glad to see/hear the NFL commissioner is looking into this topic... I agree that you can't punish teams, but trying to reward/provide incentive to teams that play all the way might be the way to go.


----------



## ThunderRoad (May 13, 2006)

The thing is, is a draft pick in the future all that important when the big picture is winning a Super Bowl in the current season? And I'm not sure the league wants to get into the business of telling teams which players they have to play. 

All a person can hope for is this practice bites enough teams in the butt that it's no longer an incentive. Would think a team like the Colts would learn. Anytime they've been the #1 or 2 seed they've yet to win a playoff during this current run of theirs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, draft picks don't make a whole lot of sense.

Owners want to win now, not later... so losing a pick next year to win this year is, frankly, a choice most owners make during free agency to win now!

Also... no current player is going to want to play to earn his replacement player in next year's draft!

"Winning should be its own reward" is a truism that I really wish applied here... Athletes have those commercials where they tell kids to "go out and play" and "always try your best"... but then when the rubber hits the road, they sit out.

Also lots of controversy on the talk shows today where a team like Indy says they rest players to avoid injury and get ready for the playoffs... but in a snowstorm started Manning to keep his streak intact AND started a couple of wide receivers and let Manning throw to them to get their 100 catches on the season. So, apparently rest & risk of injury is trumped by individual records.

Interesting... Team record (going undefeated) is not the goal... but individual records apparently are the goal! Mixed signals being sent.

Another interesting scenario... lots of players have incentive-laden contracts... so that if they meet certain plateaus they get more money... but resting them in the last 1-2 games of the season could cause problems... so you'll have players playing for incentives while other players rest and you might open yourself up to more injuries than if you just played the game straight-up like the rest of the season.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I agree that you can't punish teams, but trying to reward/provide incentive to teams that play all the way might be the way to go.


But is this really any more fair?

Team A has clinched HF, but gave away a bunch of draft picks for players. They play all thier starters to get an extra pick in Round 3. They play Team B in Week 16.

Team C has also clinched, but don't care about the draft picks so they rest their starters. They play Team D in Week 16.

Team C and D are tied for the last wildcard spot. C wins in a walk while D loses in OT. C goes to the playoff and D's coach gets fired.

Not any more fair than what we have now.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Great thread

Like many others, I'm conflicted about it as well. But for me, it's more about my FFL lineup. These last few games are also playoff time for FFL. So if I make it to the playoffs in my FFL league, I'm always hoping my opponent will have players from one of the teams that are taking a week off. However, I also hate it when I get blown out because my starters are sitting on the bench after the 1st qtr in weeks 13, 14 and 15. Over the past 5 or 6 years, I've been hit by both sides.

It definitely makes the waiver wire and last minute pickups more interesting come playoff time.


----------



## ThunderRoad (May 13, 2006)

Getteau said:


> Great thread
> 
> Like many others, I'm conflicted about it as well. But for me, it's more about my FFL lineup. These last few games are also playoff time for FFL. So if I make it to the playoffs in my FFL league, I'm always hoping my opponent will have players from one of the teams that are taking a week off. However, I also hate it when I get blown out because my starters are sitting on the bench after the 1st qtr in weeks 13, 14 and 15. Over the past 5 or 6 years, I've been hit by both sides.
> 
> It definitely makes the waiver wire and last minute pickups more interesting come playoff time.


It's interesting you mention that.....I used to play fantasy football, I don't have as much time to do so anymore. But I played in Yahoo leagues, and I always wondered why they set it up where the regular season went 14 weeks, and then the playoff semifinals were held on week 15 and the championship on week 16 and didn't do anything on week 17. But then I figured it out....it's because they didn't want anyone going for the championship to be impacted by starters being pulled in week 17 games.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

I would be shocked if the NFL does anything about this. NFL teams have been resting starters after clinching home field for many years now. This is nothing new. So why are people making such a big deal about it now? How would Colts fans feel if Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, or Reggie Wayne got injured in one of those meaningless games at the end of the season? Indy had every right to rest their starters and protect them from injury. Their goal is to win the super bowl not meaningless regular season games.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Here is my question? Why is nobody complaining about the Colts resting their starters vs. Buffalo, but there was a ton of whining when they rested them versus the Jets? And why is nobody complaining that the Saints resting Brees vs the Panthers or the Chargers vs the Redskins?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The ironic thing about Manning, though... is that he hasn't missed a start in his career!

Which means... they do still start him in those "meaningless" games. I could respect their choice to "avoid injury" more IF they didn't start him just to keep his streak alive.

Similarly, starting receivers to get them to 100 smacks of hypocrisy too...

Rest 'em or play 'em... not trying to have it both ways.

Meanwhile... one would argue that IF Manning hasn't missed a start his entire career thus far... what is the reason for the paranoia about playing him of week 16 in any particular season?

Tom Brady got hurt in the first series of the first game last season. Joe Montana back in the day got hurt before the season started. Carson Palmer, after resting, got injured in the first game of the playoffs a few years back.

I'm finding evidence of more players being hurt in other games earlier in the season than I am injuries due to playing in the last game.

Wes Welker this year is something of a fluke as he torn up his knee without being hit by anyone.. it was a planting of his foot wrong that did it... and that could happen in practice just as easily as it happened in that game.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> Here is my question? Why is nobody complaining about the Colts resting their starters vs. Buffalo, but there was a ton of whining when they rested them versus the Jets?


Because the Colts were 14-0 when they played the Jets and they were 14-1 when they played the Bills. See the difference?



cheryl10 said:


> And why is nobody complaining that the Saints resting Brees vs the Panthers or the Chargers vs the Redskins?


The Saints had already lost to the Cowboys on the 19th of last month and had home field advantage sewn up. IOW, they had no motivation to play the game out. And since you bring up the Chargers, their 2nd and 3rd stringers *beat* the Redskins, which to a lot of those who follow the NFL makes them the team to watch in the playoffs.

Fact is your Jets were 7-7 going into the Indy game. Their last game, a home game, lost to the Falcons with your "#1 Defense" allowing a 4th and goal touchdown, something "#1 Defenses" don't do. After the game, your coach professed his team "out of the playoffs". He wasn't aware at that time that all the teams that were also on the verge of the AFC playoffs would duplicate that. Prior to the Indy game, that same coach responding as to what he'd like for Christmas read a list of Indy starters, Peyton Manning included, to sit the game out. To not a lot of surprise for those who've seen it happen before, Bill "Santa" Polian, the Colts president, complied. Manning, along with a slew of other starters on offense and defense, was pulled after scoring a touchdown with 10:13 remaining in the 3rd Quarter.

After the game, the Jets were humble acknowledging the break they were given, but by Tues. that all changed and they wanted credit for the win. Jets fans bristled on sports talk radio when they were reminded that Manning had been pulled from the game early in the 3rd Quarter and wanted to believe that a 7-7 team, beaten at home the week before by a team already knocked from the playoffs, would have easily disposed of a 14-0 team, Manning or no Manning. Contrast that with what was happening in Indy were fans were calling it a forfeit. Polian was unable to finish his weekly call-in show due to the drubbing he was taken, once again exhibiting his tendency of "not playing through".

The final Jets home game was against the Bengals, who clinched their playoff spot the week before. The best that could happen for them with a win against the Jets was a 3 seating, home field, buy no bye week. The Steelers players asked the Bengals to show some integrity and play the Jets for real. Yeah right, like the Bengals would want to help out Pittsburgh.  Seems the Steelers wanted them to forget the playoff game where defensive tackle Kimo von Oelhoffen rolled up on Carson Palmer's leg, causing a knee injury that knocked Carson out of the game on the very first drive. The Steelers went all the way that year, winning a sloppy SB against the Seahawks and the Bengals thought it could have been them instead, if Carson hadn't gotten knocked out. It's an awful lot to expect another team in your Division to give you a hand up, especially if it won't gain that team much. Cincinnati knew the difference between a 3 or 4 wasn't much and approached the game that way. For the Jets it was win or go home and that's how they played.

The Jets didn't back into the playoffs since that would mean they lost and the other teams they were contending for the final playoff spots lost too, but the Jets were one game better, so they got in. But, starters that would have played on the opponent's team if they wanted to be competitive either sat or played limited time. That's happened before, but it was unprecedented two weeks in a row, and that's why the Competition Committee got involved.

But, it all starts fresh today. If the Jets win, and they don't match up badly against the Bengals except at QB, they show the previous game wasn't a fluke. Then it's on Indy and the same thing applies and the team will be lauded as achievers. Right now, they're a 9-7 team who did what they had to do to get into the Playoffs, but were given advantages other teams wish they had been given.

The notion is to play it smart, if you have something to achieve, play all out. An undefeated season is something to play for because it lists your team as immortal, if you finish it out. Polian said that the Colts weren't about records and that was contradicted when Manning started in Buffalo to keep his consecutive starts record intact and allowed Reggie Wayne to have 100 receptions. Team records are irrelevant, but personal records are valid.  That sounds like a recipe for success. Bottom line is if you're resting players while there's still things for your team to achieve because you don't want them to get hurt, that's playing scared and that's not Football. Right, Mr. Lombardi?

Contrast that to the final NFL Network game for the 2007 Season, Pats @ Giants. Both teams could have rested, both were already guaranteed playoffs spots, but both had motivations. For the Giants it was playing a game against a known playoff caliber team, and for the Pats it was continuing a perfect Season. We all now how that played out. Returning to San Diego, Norv Turner dangled a carrot to his 2nd and 3rd stringers before that game in that if they played like they were motivated, it would earn them slots in the Playoffs, maybe not starting, but all aspects of the team matter, especially then. Smart move on his part. Apologies for going on this long.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

bidger said:


> But, it all starts fresh today. If the Jets win, and they don't match up badly against the Bengals except at QB, they show the previous game wasn't a fluke. Then it's on Indy and the same thing applies and the team will be lauded as achievers.


Kudos Jets, step 1 completed. You looked like the playoff team today and the Bungles...well, looked like a team that hasn't won a playoff game since 1991. And Sanchez answered the bell in a big way looking like an All-Pro QB and Palmer looked like the rookie. Revis had Ochocino covered like wallpaper most of the game. Yup, Jets you looked good. Let's see what happens next week.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For disclosure...

I picked the Jets to win today... and I was rooting for them to win. (I also picked the Eagles, and that is NOT working so well).

That said...

I still don't feel like the Jets earned their playoff spot.

Consider...

You wait in line all night for tickets to get into the poker tournament for the remaining slots... while I know a guy who gets me one of the spots (without breaking any rules) by reserving a ticket for me and I don't have to wait in line.

I end up winning the poker tournament, but you watch on TV because you didn't get in since I took a ticket that would have been yours as they just ran out giving the guy in front of you the last one.

Nobody broke any rules... and my winning doesn't prove I'm better than you... and no one could argue I earned my spot more than you did.

So the Jets get in and win.. heck, they might win again next week depending on who they play... but while I'll be happy for them (they did nothing wrong)... I'll still feel like they didn't earn the spot as much as Houston, for example, who played teams that still were trying to win.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

bidger said:


> Because the Colts were 14-0 when they played the Jets and they were 14-1 when they played the Bills. See the difference?
> 
> The Saints had already lost to the Cowboys on the 19th of last month and had home field advantage sewn up. IOW, they had no motivation to play the game out. And since you bring up the Chargers, their 2nd and 3rd stringers *beat* the Redskins, which to a lot of those who follow the NFL makes them the team to watch in the playoffs.
> 
> ...


So it is ok to rest players if the game means nothing for both teams? But not ok, if someone is in the playoff hunt? Isn't your logic too subjective?


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart,
The NFL is not going to be able to enforce this cause it is too subjective. Also, the NFL does not want its star players injured in a meaningless regular season game at the end of the season. They want them to play in the playoffs.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> So it is ok to rest players if the game means nothing for both teams? But not ok, if someone is in the playoff hunt? Isn't your logic too subjective?


Where did I say anything about "both" teams?

Again, if the team has an obtainable goal, such as playoff spot, higher seed in the playoffs that allows for home field and bye, or undefeated Season, that team should try to achieve that goal. For the Saints on the final week, they had achieved everything that was still possible at that point. They were no longer undefeated, the Vikings losing the previous Monday night in OT against the Bears assured New Orleans the #1 seed and home field advantage throughout. The Vikings, however, did have something to play for; the #2 seed, which if they lost would mean no bye week and possibly no home game. They played accordingly and achieved their goal. I didn't watch the whole game becasue it was a blowout, but at some point I'm sure they started sitting their starters when they were certain of the victory because that's a strategy that makes sense.

I'm not sure why you're struggling with that. Is this your first Season watching the NFL?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> Stewart,
> The NFL is not going to be able to enforce this cause it is too subjective. Also, the NFL does not want its star players injured in a meaningless regular season game at the end of the season. They want them to play in the playoffs.


That's not likely a real concern of the NFL because they play 4-5 pre-season games where injuries happen in meaningless games AND the NFL is looking to expand to playing even more regular season games, which might lead to even more meaningless games at the end of the season.

Imagine if the colds had 4 meaningless games instead of just 2!

Also... Indy risked Manning, Clark, and several other players in their final game just to get some individual records that had nothing to do with the playoffs... but somehow thought that there wasn't any value in risking those players in the previous games to finish it out?

Plus, that whole paranoia about injuries makes no sense. These players can and have been hurt in off-season, playoffs, regular seasons, practice, driving to the mall, and who knows how many other things. Manning has not missed starting a game his entire career (and they keep starting him in meaningless games to keep that streak alive) so where is the history that says Manning will get hurt playing in the final games of the season?

It's just a slap in the face of fans who pay for tickets and sportsmanship where you're supposed to respect your opponent, the game, and play to win.

Do the players who don't play those games due to fear of injury give back some or all of those games' paychecks?


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Bidger, No I have been watching the NFL for over 30 years. Teams have been resting players for many years now and it is not going to change. After a team clinches home field advantage, they are going to rest their starters and get ready for the playoffs. There is nothing the NFL will be able to do to stop it. If a team needs to rely on another team to help them make the playoffs then they never deserved to make it in the first place. Get over it!


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> Bidger, No I have been watching the NFL for over 30 years.


OK, well asking what the difference was between the Colts resting their players in the Jets game when an undefeated Season was still on the table vs. against the Bills the next week made me wonder.



cheryl10 said:


> Teams have been resting players for many years now and it is not going to change. After a team clinches home field advantage, they are going to rest their starters and get ready for the playoffs. There is nothing the NFL will be able to do to stop it.


Where did I say it would? I'm well aware the NFL has no real recourse in these instances. I also wrote that if a team has no more obtainable goals that I can understand resting or giving limited playing time to starters.



cheryl10 said:


> If a team needs to rely on another team to help them make the playoffs then they never deserved to make it in the first place. Get over it!


Uh, what did I write about the Steelers asking the Bengals to "play out" the final week against the Jets? Right here: "It's an awful lot to expect another team in your Division to give you a hand up, especially if it won't gain that team much."

But, if you're going to try to sell me that your team was given a hand up by the Colts decision to not play out, then sorry, no sale.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> If a team needs to rely on another team to help them make the playoffs then they never deserved to make it in the first place. Get over it!


Sorry, but that statement applies just as much to the Jets who NEEDED the Colts and Bengals to play dead those last two weeks in order for the Jets to win both of those games.

To me, that says the Jets needed the help too. Also, the Jets needed (and got) the help of some other teams losing games in order to win the tie-breakers.

Bottom line... come the end of the season, almost every year someone needs "help" from someone else to get into the playoffs.

I can't think of a year when ALL the included teams were decided by week 14. Almost always there are a bunch of teams who need a bunch of different things to happen in order to make it those final weeks.

Sure, we can say "you should have won that game early in the season" to them... but why does that early game matter more than a late game? The strong implication is that week 15-16 don't matter as much as week 1-2... where I'd argue the opposite.

IF anything, week 15-16 games are played by teams on a roll who have grown and adapted over the course of a season. Consider the Chargers at 13-3 who were once 2-3 on the season. Clearly those last 5 games played are more indicative of the team the Chargers are now vs who they were at the beginning of the season.

Also consider the Saints... who started 13-0, but finished 13-3... and virtually everyone is panning them for having lost those last 3 games, and yet none of those last 3 games mattered as they still had the top seed in the playoffs. So, if those games don't matter why pan them for losing 3 in a row to end the season?

There's a lot of inconsistency on how those "meaningless" games are perceived, depending upon what side of the fence you are on.

Ultimately, I argue if the games have no meaning... then we should be playing less games.

As an alternative... I'd settle for expanding to an 8 team per conference (instead of the current 6) so that nobody gets a first week bye. That might help curb some of the extra resting a bit when you have to play that first weekend.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Well, here is where karma comes in. Indy vs. the Jets. If Indy loses to the Jets, it could be because they laid down and 1) Let the Jets in the playoffs and 2) let the Jets start to believe they were a good team.

It will be interesting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Some semblance of "final" commentary could happen this weekend.

Had Indy actually played to win, they might very well have put the Jets out of the playoffs with a win a few weeks back... But meanwhile the Jets have gained confidence and are in the AFC title game.

While I'll be rooting for Indy, it would be a form of "just desserts" if the Jets beat them to go to the Superbowl.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I heard a "Frankenstein" analogy yesterday in which the Colts are "Dr. Frankenstein" by allowing the Jets "Playoff life" and confidence in having "beaten" a previously undefeated team. Now the Doctor must face the "Monster" he helped create. The Doctor can't just move up and down the field and only have 7 on the board at halftime, like the Chargers did. The Monster must be beaten down with "fire power". If not, a lot of villagers in Indy will come looking for Bill Polian with torches in their hands.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm sure Colts fans could care less if they went 16-0 or not. Their goal was to make the Super Bowl not win all 16 regular season games. I happen to think that Jim Caldwell knows more about preparing an NFL team for the playoffs than Stewart Vernon.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> I'm sure Colts fans could care less if they went 16-0 or not. Their goal was to make the Super Bowl not win all 16 regular season games. I happen to think that Jim Caldwell knows more about preparing an NFL team for the playoffs than Stewart Vernon.


Actually, the Colts fans cared quite a bit. They were booing quite loudly during that game when the Colts' players were yanked in the 3rd quarter... and the fans let them know about it the whole next week.

Colts fans cared so much, in fact, that Peyton Manning made a public plea to the fans that he hoped they would forgive them when the playoffs started.

I happen to like Caldwell... but until this season I had as much head coaching experience in the NFL as he did  And it wasn't his decision to pull the players... it was the owner & general manager really.

'Course I'm sure lots of folks know more about the NFL than either you or I do.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

If the Colts win the SB -- and make no mistake, that *is* the goal of every NFL franchise -- maybe they will enjoy their rings and their title of champions, but I suspect that almost to a man, they'll be left wondering, "what if...."

Maybe they'd finish 19-0 and finally make the '72 Dolphins shut their pieholes. Maybe Peyton breaks his leg in the 4th quarter of the Jets game. 

In short, they will have achieved what they set out to do. But I suspect in hindsight there will always be a part of them that wonders it if might have been a little more special.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... IF Indy wins, they would finish the season 17-2 overall record.

2 years ago New England finished 18-1, losing the Superbowl.

So, after the fact... I'm sure you'd rather be 17-2 with a win than 18-1 with a loss...

But ask anyone if they'd like to be 19-0, and I daresay you'd find anyone who would want to pass on that.


----------

