41 replies to this topic

[MapleLeafs]

Last night on the Monday Night Football pregame show, Michael Irvin said he would trade all 3 of his Super Bowl rings for a chance to go 16-0 in the regular season. His reasoning was that no matter what, there is a Super Bowl winner every year, but there has only been 1 perfect team in all of football, EVER.So answering as a fan of the game, which would you rather see/is the better choice? Indianapolis rest and protect their starters for the playoffs? Or play each game 100% and try to go down in history, as chances like this come around seemingly once every 30 years?

[digitalmonkey]

My definition of "perfect" would be to go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl! But if I had to choose, I'd go with the Super Bowl. That's what it's all about!

[matthew r]

irvin was obviously high on crack when he made that comment.

[24fanatics]

matthew r said:

irvin was obviously high on crack when he made that comment.

[Hobbes]

You still have to play your starters or they will be extremely rusty when the playoffs start. If you tell them ahead of time that they will only play one half, it will get treated like a preseason game and they will lose their focus and intensity. If a player is banged up and could use the rest, then obviously you rest him. But if he is otherwise healthy, play him like you would any other game. Remember, just because you rest your starters doesn't guarantee anything. And they have the bye week anyway.

[KowboyKoop]

Isn't Irvin the guy who said Reggie Bush would be the second best RB in the league (behind LT) RIGHT NOW!!!! What a dumba$$.

[kers2]

This whole situation is pissing me off. People are fuckin retarded. Many analysts are talking about it as if going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl are mutually exclusive... THEY'RE NOT!!Why can't the Colts go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl. They are obviously the best team in the league and have the best shot at it since the 98 Broncos.Also, the argument I still dont understand is that "The Colts have nothing to play for, so why would they play their starters..." ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? 16-0 GIVES THEM A REASON to play their starters and make sure they are in rhythm. The only starter I would bench/rest for an entire game is Edge. The others can get rest in the 4th quarter of games they are leading, and will have played enough to "keep them in rhythm."

[Jadaki]

digitalmonkey said:

My definition of "perfect" would be to go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl! But if I had to choose, I'd go with the Super Bowl. That's what it's all about!

I was listening to sports talk radio this morning and they had a pop quiz.2 questions...1. who won the 1984 superbowl2. what team has had a perfect seasonOnly 3 people in the 15 they took calls from got the first question right, everyone got the second. Kind of sheds light on which might be more important in the long run. I'd try to be the first team to go 19-0.

[Jadaki]

KowboyKoop said:

Isn't Irvin the guy who said Reggie Bush would be the second best RB in the league (behind LT) RIGHT NOW!!!! What a dumba$$.

Considering he has played in the league, his opinion means infinatly more than yours.

[KowboyKoop]

kers2 said:

This whole situation is censored me off. People are fuckin retarded. Many analysts are talking about it as if going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl are mutually exclusive... THEY'RE NOT!!Why can't the Colts go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl. They are obviously the best team in the league and have the best shot at it since the 98 Broncos.Also, the argument I still dont understand is that "The Colts have nothing to play for, so why would they play their starters..." ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? 16-0 GIVES THEM A REASON to play their starters and make sure they are in rhythm. The only starter I would bench/rest for an entire game is Edge. The others can get rest in the 4th quarter of games they are leading, and will have played enough to "keep them in rhythm."

noone is saying that they are mutually exclusive. They are pondering the HYPOTHETICAL situation of which one you would RATHER HAVE IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE. They are saying that if you KNOW that playing your starters will cause them to be not quite as rested for the playoffs as you would like, thus making it LESS likely that they will win throughout the entire playoffs, what would you do? This is a very real question...noone is saying they can't do both, but will Dungy risk not being quite as rested in order to go for 16-0? That is the question. Ideally, he'd go 16-0 and have his starters 100 percent rested, but you can't have both....so what does he choose. Noone is saying they can't do both, they probably will....

[kers2]

KowboyKoop said:

kers2 said:

This whole situation is censored me off. People are fuckin retarded. Many analysts are talking about it as if going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl are mutually exclusive... THEY'RE NOT!!Why can't the Colts go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl. They are obviously the best team in the league and have the best shot at it since the 98 Broncos.Also, the argument I still dont understand is that "The Colts have nothing to play for, so why would they play their starters..." ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? 16-0 GIVES THEM A REASON to play their starters and make sure they are in rhythm. The only starter I would bench/rest for an entire game is Edge. The others can get rest in the 4th quarter of games they are leading, and will have played enough to "keep them in rhythm."

noone is saying that they are mutually exclusive. They are pondering the HYPOTHETICAL situation of which one you would RATHER HAVE IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE. They are saying that if you KNOW that playing your starters will cause them to be not quite as rested for the playoffs as you would like, thus making it LESS likely that they will win throughout the entire playoffs, what would you do? This is a very real question...noone is saying they can't do both, but will Dungy risk not being quite as rested in order to go for 16-0? That is the question. Ideally, he'd go 16-0 and have his starters 100 percent rested, but you can't have both....so what does he choose. Noone is saying they can't do both, they probably will....

No actually all the talk I hear in the media is about that. I havent seen anyone outline how to go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl (as far as a plan to rest players, and still play to win). All the talk is about they should "either" rest their players for the Super Bowl "or" play for 16-0.That's all I meant. I guess it was a bad post for this topic, because it doesnt answer his question at all. It was a rant about why they dont discuss the ways to do both. So for that misunderstanding I apologize.Do you see what I mean Koop?

[KowboyKoop]

kers2 said:

KowboyKoop said:

kers2 said:

This whole situation is censored me off. People are fuckin retarded. Many analysts are talking about it as if going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl are mutually exclusive... THEY'RE NOT!!Why can't the Colts go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl. They are obviously the best team in the league and have the best shot at it since the 98 Broncos.Also, the argument I still dont understand is that "The Colts have nothing to play for, so why would they play their starters..." ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? 16-0 GIVES THEM A REASON to play their starters and make sure they are in rhythm. The only starter I would bench/rest for an entire game is Edge. The others can get rest in the 4th quarter of games they are leading, and will have played enough to "keep them in rhythm."

noone is saying that they are mutually exclusive. They are pondering the HYPOTHETICAL situation of which one you would RATHER HAVE IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE. They are saying that if you KNOW that playing your starters will cause them to be not quite as rested for the playoffs as you would like, thus making it LESS likely that they will win throughout the entire playoffs, what would you do? This is a very real question...noone is saying they can't do both, but will Dungy risk not being quite as rested in order to go for 16-0? That is the question. Ideally, he'd go 16-0 and have his starters 100 percent rested, but you can't have both....so what does he choose. Noone is saying they can't do both, they probably will....

No actually all the talk I hear in the media is about that. I havent seen anyone outline how to go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl (as far as a plan to rest players, and still play to win). All the talk is about they should "either" rest their players for the Super Bowl "or" play for 16-0.That's all I meant. I guess it was a bad post for this topic, because it doesnt answer his question at all. It was a rant about why they dont discuss the ways to do both. So for that misunderstanding I apologize.Do you see what I mean Koop?

I see what you mean, yes, but I think you are just misunderstanding the issue a little bit. You aren't really WRONG in anything you say, but they aren't saying you can "play for 16-0" AT THE EXPENSE of winning the Super Bowl, they are saying that "playing for 16-0" will risk winning the Super Bowl a little bit, and Dungy must decide if going for perfection is worth that risk. I think it is worth the risk b/c the risk is very small, I can't see INDY losing to any team EXCEPT the Seahawks b/c of their ability to control the game with their O-line, but even then, Seattle would have to nearly play perfect...whatever though.

[kers2]

Yup, definitely agree with youThat was the part that "pisses me off" because I feel like its a no-brainer that you go for both, because there is definitely a way that they can rest some of their players that need rest, while still playing to win the games and keep their "rhythm."I'd rather see some of the talking heads discuss that question than the "either/or" question because I feel the either/or question is a no brainer.Sorry for the mini hijack guys

[gkunit20]

If you go 16-0, you better win the Super Bowl.You play to win championships. Thats what defines the best.

[MapleLeafs]

Obviously the ideal situation would be for the Colts to go 16-0, and win the Super Bowl. But like kers said, I don't hear anybody talking about the possibility of both happening. It's as though they think the Colts play their starters now and go 16-0, and automatically forfiet their chance to win the SB.It's an interesting situation in that Indy has wrapped up everything they need to at such an early date. Dungy has said he'll play all his starters this week, so they don't show any disrespect to the AFC, as San Diego is still in the wildcard race.The Colts will have plenty of chances to win the Super Bowl in the future, but only 3 other teams have gone 13-0 to start a season. How many chances do teams get at perfection this late in a season? As a fan of the Colts, winning the Super Bowl is the obvious choice, but as a fan of the game, seeing a team have a perfect season could quite possibly be the popular choice. Since 1967, we have seen 39 teams win the big game, but we have only seen 1 team be perfect. It's something you may never see in your lifetime.

[KowboyKoop]

MapleLeafs said:

Obviously the ideal situation would be for the Colts to go 16-0, and win the Super Bowl. But like kers said, I don't hear anybody talking about the possibility of both happening. It's as though they think the Colts play their starters now and go 16-0, and automatically forfiet their chance to win the SB.It's an interesting situation in that Indy has wrapped up everything they need to at such an early date. Dungy has said he'll play all his starters this week, so they don't show any disrespect to the AFC, as San Diego is still in the wildcard race.The Colts will have plenty of chances to win the Super Bowl in the future, but only 3 other teams have gone 13-0 to start a season. How many chances do teams get at perfection this late in a season? As a fan of the Colts, winning the Super Bowl is the obvious choice, but as a fan of the game, seeing a team have a perfect season could quite possibly be the popular choice. Since 1967, we have seen 39 teams win the big game, but we have only seen 1 team be perfect. It's something you may never see in your lifetime.

Again, NOONE is saying they CAN'T do both. Jesus, get over it. They are saying that IF Dungy plays his starters like usual, there is SOME risk of INJURY or FATIGUE being a factor in the playoffs, both of which COULD make it tougher to win a Super Bowl. NOBODY is saying if they play their starters that they CAN'T win a Super Bowl. Quit trying to paint some "disrespect" picture or something, the team is by far the best in the league, quit bitchin.

[matthew r]

MapleLeafs said:

Obviously the ideal situation would be for the Colts to go 16-0, and win the Super Bowl.  But like kers said, I don't hear anybody talking about the possibility of both happening.  

http://fullcontactpo...0935&highlight=hopefully they can put enough TDs on the board in the first half to buffer the 2nd halves of their upcoming games.

[princeof56k]

The Colts should go for the 16-0. My reasons for saying this are very similar to what people have said above.The chance of them going for 16-0 actually hurting their Super Bowl bid are extremely low or non-existant. People are making way too much out of that. They keep assuming and exaggerating 2 possiblities:1. An important player will get injured when going for 16-0.2. They will get extremely tired going for 16-0First, even if they take it easy in a game a key player can still get injured. The only solution would be for him not to play at all. I dont think a player sitting on the bench getting rusty is benificial. And lets not forget that the same player could get injured in practice as well (unless you sit him down for that too). But the player has to play in the playoffs where still has the same chance of getting injured (or perhaps higher if he's sitting on the bench collecting dust). Injuries happen. Just deal with it.Second, these guys arent out there running a marathon one night and then playing the Super Bowl the next day. The rest thing is way off base. They have a full week between games to rest up. And I think the Colts are going to get an additional week off before their first playoff game. Isnt that the time to get rest? How much rest do they need?Personally I think the only reason the sports writers are talking about this is because they are trying to make it look like the Colts actually have tough decisions to make. Like they are actually competing against themselves. Otherwise there's not much to talk about this season.

[digitalmonkey]

Jadaki said:

digitalmonkey said:

My definition of "perfect" would be to go 16-0 AND win the Super Bowl!  But if I had to choose, I'd go with the Super Bowl.  That's what it's all about!

I was listening to sports talk radio this morning and they had a pop quiz.2 questions...1. who won the 1984 superbowl2. what team has had a perfect seasonOnly 3 people in the 15 they took calls from got the first question right, everyone got the second. Kind of sheds light on which might be more important in the long run. I'd try to be the first team to go 19-0.

This is not really a fair question as one happened more than 20 years ago and the other is mentioned numerous times every season until every team has a loss.

[Oziumrules]

I would rather have the ring....everything else is icing on the cake