PDA

View Full Version : Browns one step closer to playoffs



Pages : [1] 2

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-14-2007, 12:48 AM
With a Texans win over the Broncos tonight the Cleveland Browns need only a win over the Bills and a Titans loss to clinch the final wild card spot. They also still have an outside chance at the division, the Steelers play Jacksonville Sunday and no matter who wins it will help the Browns in some way shape or form. I know alot of you on here are Bengals fans but I thought it would be nice to have a spot for us Browns fans to share in the excitement that is Cleveland Browns football.:beerme:

BoydsOfSummer
12-14-2007, 01:31 AM
We could win out and be 11-5 very realistically. Buffalo is the toughest of what is left and that is very winnable. Not enough defense to go far, but the playoffs are the playoffss by golly.

i picked up Josh Reed in one of my leagues beacause he plays the Brownies. Hey! I'm trying to win playoff games also!

Do I have to turn in my Backers card?

Sea Ray
12-14-2007, 01:44 AM
We could win out and be 11-5 very realistically. Buffalo is the toughest of what is left and that is very winnable. Not enough defense to go far, but the playoffs are the playoffss by golly.

i picked up Josh Reed in one of my leagues beacause he plays the Brownies. Hey! I'm trying to win playoff games also!

Do I have to turn in my Backers card?


Tougher than the Bengals? Don't forget about that battle of Ohio II

Screwball
12-14-2007, 01:48 AM
Tougher than the Bengals? Don't forget about that battle of Ohio II

At Paul Brown Stadium no less. The Bengals might've had a terrible season so far, but you'd have to be a pretty big homer to think that that won't be a very tough game for the Browns to win.

GAC
12-14-2007, 09:10 AM
At Paul Brown Stadium no less. The Bengals might've had a terrible season so far, but you'd have to be a pretty big homer to think that that won't be a very tough game for the Browns to win.

I agree. The Bengals will be out for revenge and to do whatever they can to thow a monkey wrench in the Brown's season.

That Buffalo game will be a tough one too. The Bills are also playing for a possible play-off spot, and the team ahead of them is the Browns. ;)

The Brown's defense is downright terrible.

Yeah, it would be nice to make the post-season after many figured they'd be improved but nothing like what we have seen.

But nobody is gonna get past the Patriots and Colts IMO.

But again - nice to see the improvement in the Browns.

macro
12-14-2007, 10:20 AM
That Bengals loss in Cleveland in Week 2 is not so unforgiveable now.

Heath
12-14-2007, 10:23 AM
Well, the Texans did their part.

If the Chiefs can pull one out of their collective rears on Sunday and the Browns can take care of business against the Bills.........wow.......

After the pasting the Browns took on Opening Day against Pittsburgh, and the year this team has had with winning and losing close games......wow.......

But, as every good Cleveland fan knows, it ain't over until they say it's over.....

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-14-2007, 01:19 PM
We could win out and be 11-5 very realistically. Buffalo is the toughest of what is left and that is very winnable. Not enough defense to go far, but the playoffs are the playoffss by golly.

i picked up Josh Reed in one of my leagues beacause he plays the Brownies. Hey! I'm trying to win playoff games also!

Do I have to turn in my Backers card?
No, as far as I'm concerned he can catch 20 passes for 300 yards as long as he scores no touchdowns, and his play leads only to field goals.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-14-2007, 01:23 PM
At Paul Brown Stadium no less. The Bengals might've had a terrible season so far, but you'd have to be a pretty big homer to think that that won't be a very tough game for the Browns to win.Hopefully the Browns can clinch before that game. I do agree that it will be a tough game, but I also think that the Browns D has made some strides in recent weeks, if we can put some pressure on Carson I think it could be a good day for the Brownies.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-14-2007, 01:24 PM
I really wish there was a site as good as this one for Browns football.

blumj
12-14-2007, 03:32 PM
I really wish there was a site as good as this one for Browns football.
I've never seen a site for any NFL team as good as this site, and only a few for other MLB teams of the same general quality.

Heath
12-14-2007, 11:09 PM
Its hard, IMO, to keep momentum for football. The season, while highly intense, is still very short.

GAC
12-15-2007, 04:50 AM
I really wish there was a site as good as this one for Browns football.

I like this one. Has a great chat room for games, and several different forums inwhich former Browns player participate.

http://cle.scout.com/

mole44
12-15-2007, 02:51 PM
I spend most of my time on www.thebrownsboard.com and some on www.dawgtalkers.net tho I can't post there since I use free email.

I like the Browns chances of getting to the playoffs, but beyond that, IMO all the teams ahead of us are better that us. However I do feel that we can beat Pittsburgh. Like GAC said, the D is terrible. What the heck has happened to Bodden? Really makes ya miss Eric Wright. I saw him in there at the Jets on punts, so they must be saving him for the playoffs? Who knows.

I think we'll continue the hot streak at home and beat the Bills. But its going to be a tough game here in Cincy. We'll have to win another shootout if we want to win. Then we finish up, at home, versus the Niners, a team we should kill...I'd be pretty happy to finish 2-1 and go 10-6, and get to the postseason. If that happens, you gotta think Romeo is a lock for coach of the year.

TeamSelig
12-15-2007, 03:37 PM
I'm sure the Bengals will find a way to lose this game.

mole44
12-15-2007, 03:51 PM
I'm sure the Bengals will find a way to lose this game.
Lets hope ;)

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-15-2007, 11:17 PM
I'm sure the Bengals will find a way to lose this game.
You say that like they should win this game, The last game was close but it was only Anderson's first start and this is a very improved team since then.

Screwball
12-16-2007, 05:40 AM
If that happens, you gotta think Romeo is a lock for coach of the year.

If it was any other year, I'd agree with you. But the Patriots could very well go undefeated. Even if they lose their last 3 games this year (which they won't), given the Pats dominant performances in front of what normally is a national audience, it'd be tough to even imagine a scenario in which Belichek doesn't win it - "spygate" and all.

My hats off to the Browns though. As much as I hate the division rivals, it's nice to see all that offensive talent come together from a football perspective. You guys actually remind me of a Bengals team circa 2005.

GAC
12-16-2007, 07:40 AM
I'm sure the Bengals will find a way to lose this game.

I really can't figure out this year's Bengal team at all. I watched that game last night vs the 49ers and the Bengal's offense was just terrible. I can understand their defense making one of the NFL's worst offenses look good; but the Bengal's offense was totally out of sync and disheartened (Palmer and Johnson didn't appear to be on the same page on numerous plays).

The Browns-Bengals rematch should be interesting. Should the Browns win? Yeah. But when you have two of the worst defenses going at each other, then I'm not predicting a winner either way.

And besides - this game vs the Bills scares me. ;)

GAC
12-16-2007, 07:44 AM
You say that like they should win this game, The last game was close but it was only Anderson's first start and this is a very improved team since then.

The Brown's offensive line is downright impressive.

But I've been saying "FIX IT!" for the last three years, and you'd see the offensive talent on this team start to shine. ;)

But how has our defense improved? They've had their moments; but from a consistency aspect they still are terrible in the secondary.

A 90 yr old grandma on a Scooter could run a route that Bodden couldn't cover. :lol:

dsmith421
12-16-2007, 10:13 AM
I hope Mike Brown is happy this morning. Destroying your father's legacy is hard work.

Matt700wlw
12-16-2007, 11:15 AM
I hope Mike Brown is happy this morning. Destroying your father's legacy is hard work.

It makes one hell of a profit though...

MrCinatit
12-16-2007, 01:10 PM
The Browns-Bills game today could be a good ol' good one - blowing snow.



I love those types of games.




Mainly, because I'm not playing them.

Matt700wlw
12-16-2007, 01:15 PM
Whoda thunk the Browns vs Bills would actually have meaning?


The NFL...a strange machine sometimes.

sonny
12-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Seriously, watch the Browns game if you can. It's almost a white out.

Joseph
12-16-2007, 02:16 PM
Congrats Brownies fans. You guys have been through almost as much terrible football as we Bengal fans. I don't like your team, but you guys deserve some time to puff up your chests and be proud of being a fan again.

TeamSelig
12-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Easy Brownies, I wasn't insulting your team. Jeez. The Bengals should be alot better than what they are, is all I'm sayin.

Matt700wlw
12-16-2007, 02:53 PM
It's old school football in Cleveland today

KronoRed
12-16-2007, 02:55 PM
First team to 10? or maybe 8?

paintmered
12-16-2007, 03:06 PM
It's a bad day to be wearing white uniforms in Cleveland.

RedFanAlways1966
12-16-2007, 03:18 PM
Hopefully (for the Browns) it is not like a snowy & windy day back in 1981...

Red Right 88: the designation of a Cleveland Browns passing play that was most famously called during the January 4, 1981 American Football Conference playoff game against the Oakland Raiders.

Trailing 14-12 with less than a minute remaining in the contest, the Browns had moved into position for a potential game-winning field goal. After Browns quarterback Brian Sipe called a time out, and conferred with head coach Sam Rutigliano, he chose to force a pass to tight end Ozzie Newsome. However, the pass was intercepted in the end zone by Raiders defensive back Mike Davis and the Browns season ended.

Just wishful thinking from your good-natured Bengals friend! :p:

KronoRed
12-16-2007, 03:20 PM
Clank :lol:

BoydsOfSummer
12-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Man I love our OL. I've been screaming longer than GAC for them to fix it. That's how you win games like today. Control the ball with your OL and pound a 250 pound back at them all day. It was beautiful late season Browns football. I gtta go...I'm getting misty...

And the Stoolers lost. Life is good!

Joseph
12-16-2007, 06:13 PM
Eric Steinbach is a pretty good player huh?

Hear that Marvin? Willie was a good guy, but signing him instead of Eric hurt the Bengals and HELPED the rival Brownies.

Bip Roberts
12-16-2007, 08:22 PM
Cracks me up how all of a sudden there is a bunch of browns fans. :laugh:

mole44
12-16-2007, 09:15 PM
Cracks me up how all of a sudden there is a bunch of browns fans. :laugh:
What, like the 5 of us that are here? And would still be here if we were 0-14? You know what cracks ME up? One winning season in 5 seasons and Bengals fans think they're the best team in the league. That bandwagon filled up quick, bout as quick as people are leaping off of it this season.

GAC
12-16-2007, 09:17 PM
Cracks me up how all of a sudden there is a bunch of browns fans. :laugh:

All of a sudden?

Don't know what you mean by that. I've been a diehard Brown's fan just as long as I've been a Reds fan. Over 40 years. And most on this forum have known that about myself and the others for quite some time now.

Maybe it's a new revelation to you though. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
12-16-2007, 09:21 PM
Some of the most loyal fans I have ever seen. I am not one of them, but I must be honest. And the reason that Art Modell should go down as one of the most despicable owners in sports history.

GAC
12-16-2007, 09:25 PM
That was one heck of a game to watch.

So we found a way on how to drastically improve this defense..... pray for a blizzard! :lol:

Bodden plays up to expectations in a driving snow and wind. ;)

Andre Davis was all over the place today! And I have to give credit to not only this superb offensive line, who have allowed only 17 sacks all year; but to that runnin' fool named Lewis. I'm not his biggest fan, but I have to give the guy credit over these last few weeks for running with a reckless abandon. To run for 160+ yds in a blizzard, and the guy just wouldn't go down, was amazing.

And that second field goal by Dawson which barely cleared the post. A 49 yder in a blizzard!!!

GAC
12-16-2007, 09:37 PM
Some of the most loyal fans I have ever seen. I am not one of them, but I must be honest. And the reason that Art Modell should go down as one of the most despicable owners in sports history.

Thank you '66. You're a class act.

I was born and raised in Ohia where we worsh our clothes back at the crick. I was raised a Browns fan because the Bengals didn't exist at that time. But I have avidly followed the Bengals since the day Brown started them up in Cincy. I remember their first season when they played at Nippert Stadium, and Paul Robinson was the AFL ROY. And I fondly remember players like Ken Anderson, Virgil Carter, Bill Bergey, Ken Avery, Essex Johnson, and Bob Trumpy.

My younger brother was the Bengal fan, and I was the Browns fan. It was always fun in our household on Sundays during football season growing up.

In fact, I'm going down to his house next weekend for our family Christmas get-together. My one set of cousins from Cincinnati will be there,as well as my other set from Cleveland.

We'll be watching the game - and it will be fun!

Only this time it will adults trash talking and fighting on the living room floor! :lol:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 12:33 AM
Cracks me up how all of a sudden there is a bunch of browns fans. :laugh:Thats what I said when the Bengals started winning.:D

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 12:37 AM
Some of the most loyal fans I have ever seen. I am not one of them, but I must be honest. And the reason that Art Modell should go down as one of the most despicable owners in sports history.On behalf of Browns fans everywhere, thank you.

TeamSelig
12-17-2007, 12:48 AM
I think he said that because you guys have been in hiding for about 30 years. Now that Cleveland has won some games, there are a bunch of Brownies talking trash. It will be the same for the Reds, if we could ever get a decent team.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 01:02 AM
I think he said that because you guys have been in hiding for about 30 years. Now that Cleveland has won some games, there are a bunch of Brownies talking trash. It will be the same for the Reds, if we could ever get a decent team.If you think we have been in hiding for thirty years you havn't been going to the right places, try a Brownsbacker bar in your area. It doesn't matter where you live there will be one within walking distance. I don't know one Browns fan thats any more of a fan today than he was last year. On the other hand here in dayton I know plenty of Bengals fans that are not the fan today that they were last year.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 01:03 AM
There's a red moon rising
On the Cuyahoga river
Rolling into Cleveland to the lake

There's a red moon rising
On the Cuyahoga river
Rolling into Cleveland to the lake

There's an oil barge winding
Down the Cuyahoga river
Rolling into Cleveland to the lake

There's an oil barge winding
Down the Cyyahoga river
Rolling into Cleveland to the lake

Cleveland, city of light, city of magic
Cleveland, city of light, your calling me
Cleveland, even now I can remember
'Cause the Cuyahoga river goes smokin through my dreams

Burn on big river, burn on
Burn on big river, burn on
Now the lord can make you tumble
Lord can make you turn
The lord can make you overflow
But the lord can't make you burn

Burn on big river, burn on
Burn on big river, burn on

I will be in attendance for the last home game against the niners, I hope it isn't a win were in type of game and we take care of business this coming weekend, but I would love to be there for the game that gets us in. Trying to get a couple tickets on e-bay for the cinci game but it's not looking so good, Anybody got a couple tickets they are trying to unload?

TeamSelig
12-17-2007, 01:05 AM
Other than this board, I've never in my entire life came across a Browns fan.

I'd rather avoid Brownsbacker bars, and I'm not saying there are no fans or that you are more/less of a fan now. But you guys talk more now that you have won some games. It happens with any team.

TeamSelig
12-17-2007, 01:07 AM
Also, to clarify - I don't like to "look" for Browns fan. So I'm not looking in the wrong places, but actually in the right places. ;)

I avoid them at all costs, let alone socialize or befriend one of them.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 01:11 AM
Other than this board, I've never in my entire life came across a Browns fan.

I'd rather avoid Brownsbacker bars, and I'm not saying there are no fans or that you are more/less of a fan now. But you guys talk more now that you have won some games. It happens with any team.
I think that comes across much better than claiming that fans have been in hiding for thirty years.

BuckWoody
12-17-2007, 10:14 AM
I gotta say that Browns fans are pretty consistent...especially the fellas on this board. It's just natural to see more fans wearing their gear when the team is doing well. Same with the Bengals fans. Just because you don't wear a jersey to the grocery store when your team's in the middle of a bad season doesn't mean that you are any less of a fan...not in my book anyway. Let's not turn this into a which-fans-are-better-than-which argument.

That game yesterday was quite entertaining. I love nothing more than watching football being played in nasty weather on grass (or at least what passes for grass these days). It's probably the old offensive lineman coming out in me but I do love the slop.

Congrats to the Brownies. Here's hoping that this next game is your only loss before the playoffs start. ;)

BoydsOfSummer
12-17-2007, 12:40 PM
My Backers club and any of the other places I watch Browns football don't seem to have any new influx of fans. However, the same die-hard, loyal, gluttons for punishment that have been there forever are still showing up like they have since 1999 (and Before). I think you would be hard pressed to find a more loyal bunch. There is a Browns Backer club in Iraq even.

Chip R
12-17-2007, 01:01 PM
That game yesterday was quite entertaining. I love nothing more than watching football being played in nasty weather on grass (or at least what passes for grass these days). It's probably the old offensive lineman coming out in me but I do love the slop.



That was fun to watch.

GAC
12-17-2007, 10:11 PM
I think he said that because you guys have been in hiding for about 30 years.

Give it a rest. No one has been hiding for 30 years. And you could say the same thing about some Bengal fans too. Where I've worked at, since the early 90's, I only saw a few diehards wearing their Bengal colors. Now they're all over the place! Where were they in the 90's?


Now that Cleveland has won some games, there are a bunch of Brownies talking trash.

Whose talking trash? Show me? You did use the plural too. Is being excited that your team is possibly going to make the post season talking trash to you?

The fact of the matter is, and IMHO it's laughable - neither one of these two team's fans have any justification to be talking trash or acting high n mighty looking at their history since the early 90's. ;)

We've both had 1 post-season appearance - the Browns in 2002, and the Bengals in 2006 - and we both got eliminated by our arch rival division foe Pittsburgh in the first round.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 10:25 PM
Just scored a pair of tickets for the wife and I in cinci sunday, I really hope:beerme: it snows like hell.

BoydsOfSummer
12-17-2007, 10:49 PM
They are getting cheaper all the time aint they Bro?:laugh: My Bengal buddy and I will be there. We have feelers out on several pairs of tix.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-17-2007, 10:53 PM
They are getting cheaper all the time aint they Bro?:laugh: My Bengal buddy and I will be there. We have feelers out on several pairs of tix.I probably overpaid for them on e-bay, bout 55 per ticket. I got tickets for the niners game for free at work so I figured I could overspend on this one a bit. Couldn't help myself I gotta be there. My dream is for Browns fans to pull a Cubs on the Bengals and have more fans in attendance.

BoydsOfSummer
12-17-2007, 10:59 PM
We're trying to get down in the lower bowl for cheap. My niece's in-laws have 4 season tix on the 30 lower level. I think we're getting those for face.

Yachtzee
12-18-2007, 12:12 AM
I probably overpaid for them on e-bay, bout 55 per ticket. I got tickets for the niners game for free at work so I figured I could overspend on this one a bit. Couldn't help myself I gotta be there. My dream is for Browns fans to pull a Cubs on the Bengals and have more fans in attendance.

Word to the wise. . . Don't be an ass at the game. Unlike baseball fans, NFL fans get a little punchy when you get all "in your face" on their turf. I've been to plenty of Browns-Bengals games in Cleveland, some of which seemed almost 50-50 with Bengals fans, especially toward the end of the game (I have plenty of photos with an empty "Dawg Pound" with 10 minutes left in the game to prove it :) ). I've never had a problem because I generally treat people with respect. But I've seen Bengals fans get a beat down, usually because they were being an ass and they deserved it. If you're expecting to go all "Cubs fan" in PBS, expect trouble. If you go to enjoy a football team and cheer your team on in a respectful manner, you'll have a good time (unless the Bengals win, of course ;) ).

Tommyjohn25
12-18-2007, 11:35 AM
Okay, lifelong Steelers fan here. I've gotta vouch for the Browns fans on this one, every Sunday for the last 8 or 9 years I have watched my Steelers play at a sports bar, the bars have varied as I have moved from place to place. One thing that remains constant though, 2-14 record or 14-2 record, is Browns fans, and they bark just as loudly regardless of the teams success or failure on the field. To me that is admirable, and something that alot of teams fans throughout all of sports cannot look you in the eye and say.

I say well played Browns and Browns fans, we may see you in the playoffs, that is, if we get in....:eek:

SunDeck
12-18-2007, 01:49 PM
Go Browns, the only professional football team left in Ohio.

There used to be a team in Cincinnati. I loved them. Too bad they are gone, but at least Cincinnati has a good college team.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-18-2007, 05:16 PM
Word to the wise. . . Don't be an ass at the game. Unlike baseball fans, NFL fans get a little punchy when you get all "in your face" on their turf. I've been to plenty of Browns-Bengals games in Cleveland, some of which seemed almost 50-50 with Bengals fans, especially toward the end of the game (I have plenty of photos with an empty "Dawg Pound" with 10 minutes left in the game to prove it :) ). I've never had a problem because I generally treat people with respect. But I've seen Bengals fans get a beat down, usually because they were being an ass and they deserved it. If you're expecting to go all "Cubs fan" in PBS, expect trouble. If you go to enjoy a football team and cheer your team on in a respectful manner, you'll have a good time (unless the Bengals win, of course ;) ).I was only refering to the cubs in a have more fans than the home team respect. If I ever caught myself acting like a cub fan please feel free to :bash:

Yachtzee
12-18-2007, 05:31 PM
I was only refering to the cubs in a have more fans than the home team respect. If I ever caught myself acting like a cub fan please feel free to :bash:

Fair enough. Well, the Browns certainly have suffered enough invasions from Steelers and Bengals fans. If they outnumber the Bengals fans, it will just make it all the more fun when the Bengals win. ;)

Reds Freak
12-18-2007, 06:53 PM
The Browns definately need a win on Sunday against the Bengals. If I have this figured out correctly, a Browns loss this Sunday and a Titans win over the lousy Jets at home puts the Titans back in the driver seat for the wild card. Can someone confirm that? Based on the tiebreaker, the Titans would only need a win at Indy (perhaps Indy's second string) to get the last spot regardless of what the Browns would do vs. San Fran.

The way the Bengals have been playing, the Browns should trounce up and down the field on them but crazier things have happened this football season...

GAC
12-18-2007, 09:22 PM
Okay, lifelong Steelers fan here. I've gotta vouch for the Browns fans on this one, every Sunday for the last 8 or 9 years I have watched my Steelers play at a sports bar, the bars have varied as I have moved from place to place. One thing that remains constant though, 2-14 record or 14-2 record, is Browns fans, and they bark just as loudly regardless of the teams success or failure on the field. To me that is admirable, and something that alot of teams fans throughout all of sports cannot look you in the eye and say.

And I know some Bengal fans, my brother being one of them, who are the same way about their allegiance to the Bengals. I got a friend at work who for the last 15 years comes in every day with his Bengal gear on. And in the mid-90s, when people would laugh at him for wearing the stuff, I commended him for his loyalty. You stick with your team - win, lose, or draw - and he has.

I'm obviously an old AFC Central guy, so I am no fan of the Steelers. But I have always admitted that the Rooney family has always done a fantastic job in running that organization. I hated the Steel Curtain, but man what a group of talent. Bradshaw was one of the best all-time IMO. 4 Super Bowls says it all.

Too bad the Browns and Bengals couldn't have been ran like that IMHO.

GAC
12-18-2007, 10:15 PM
The Browns definately need a win on Sunday against the Bengals. If I have this figured out correctly, a Browns loss this Sunday and a Titans win over the lousy Jets at home puts the Titans back in the driver seat for the wild card. Can someone confirm that? Based on the tiebreaker, the Titans would only need a win at Indy (perhaps Indy's second string) to get the last spot regardless of what the Browns would do vs. San Fran.

You are correct. But I don't see Indy, even with a post-season berth guaranteed, laying down for Tennessee.

The Browns (including their fans) realize just how important these next two games are. That is why Romeo won't let the players talk about the post-season. That is why I'm not, in any way, downplaying the game this weekend.

Should the Browns win? Looking at the way they have played this year compared to the Bengals, yeah.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bengals win this one. They are more then capable (and talented) to do so.

I remember just a few short years ago (2003) when the Browns destroyed any chance of the Bengals making the post-season on the last weekend of the season by beating the Bengals 22-14.

The tables are now turned.


The way the Bengals have been playing, the Browns should trounce up and down the field on them but crazier things have happened this football season...

Both of these defenses are still very lacking. Here's my synopsis.....

You've got two talented QBs in Anderson and Palmer... two stellar receiving corps in Edwards, Winslow, and Jurevicius vs Johnson, TJ, and Henry.

The running game? Two teams that have a hard time stopping the run.... Cleveland is 28th (128 yds/game), and Cincinnati is 24th (119 yds/game). Which RB will have the bigger game?..... Lewis (7th in the NFL with 1084 yds), or the tandem of Johnson/Watson (1061 yds total)?

With both of these coaches emphasizing slowing down these two receiving corps, I wouldn't be surprised to 100+ rushing/game from either side.

Offensive lines.....

This could be the key IMO.

Aren't the Bengals hurting (literally) in this area?

If the Brown's offensive line continues to play stellar ball and protect Anderson, while opening holes for Lewis, then I think the Browns will prevail. This line has only allowed 17 sacks this season. And 5 of those sacks came in that first week disaster vs the Steelers with Frye at QB.

Even as a Browns fan I've watched every Bengals game this year. And just like Bengal fans I've been shaking my head as to what is really wrong with this team which does, IMO, have a lot of talent. But watching that game last weekend vs the 49ers, I saw a team that was totally out of sync, maybe disheartened, and acted like they were just going through the motions.

They keep shooting themselves in the foot. If they can regroup then they can win this game next Sunday.

The question is - who, in the hearts of those players on both sides, is this game more important to?

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-22-2007, 11:32 PM
Saw the weather report, it is supposed to rain but the report says it will be about 72 degrees. I doubt that I sleep at all tonight, feels like I'm 8 years old on Christmas eve again. Go Brownies

Cedric
12-23-2007, 03:37 AM
Saw the weather report, it is supposed to rain but the report says it will be about 72 degrees. I doubt that I sleep at all tonight, feels like I'm 8 years old on Christmas eve again. Go Brownies

72? Did you mean 36? That is the forecast. 10% chance of rain with 25+ mph winds.

GAC
12-23-2007, 04:58 AM
72? Did you mean 36? That is the forecast. 10% chance of rain with 25+ mph winds.

Right now (4 AM) it's 55 degrees with light rain in Cincy; but as the day goes on the temps are suppose to fall into the high 30's with the rain stopping by late morning.

Hey! That's perfect football weather. :p:

Sea Ray
12-25-2007, 12:47 AM
The Brown's offensive line is downright impressive.




They didn't look too impressive vs that much maligned Bengal D who couldn't generate a pass rush prior to this game

Sea Ray
12-25-2007, 12:53 AM
You are correct. But I don't see Indy, even with a post-season berth guaranteed, laying down for Tennessee.


I disagree. Historically speaking, Indy does lay down in games like this one coming up. I'd be surprised if Peyton plays a quarter.

mole44
12-25-2007, 01:08 AM
I disagree. Historically speaking, Indy does lay down in games like this one coming up. I'd be surprised if Peyton plays a quarter.
You idiot, Dungy has already say the starters would play a half

Sea Ray
12-25-2007, 01:32 AM
You idiot, Dungy has already say the starters would play a half

Who's the idiot here? Why are you coming down on me? Dungy doesn't know for sure how long Peyton will play and neither do you. My point was merely that traditionally Peyton does not play much in games like this.

I got this from the Colts website 12-24-2007:


Peyton Manning, the Coltsí eight-time Pro Bowl quarterback, wonít play in the second half, Dungy said. Dungy also said backup Jim Sorgi could play in the first half. In the final games of the 2004 and 2005 seasons, with the Coltsí playoff seeding already clinched, Manning played one series before being replaced by Sorgi.

Now either show me what proof you have that Peyton will play the entire 1st half or post an apology for calling me an idiot. The ball's in your court.

GAC
12-25-2007, 05:26 AM
They didn't look too impressive vs that much maligned Bengal D who couldn't generate a pass rush prior to this game


So you base your evaluation on one game? I base it on what they've done all season. And yes, they have been impressive in only allowing 17 sacks going into this last game. And 6 of those sacks were in the first game, with Frye at QB.

And someone had to be blocking for Lewis to rush for almost 1500 yds. ;)

Sea Ray
12-25-2007, 12:56 PM
So you base your evaluation on one game? I base it on what they've done all season. And yes, they have been impressive in only allowing 17 sacks going into this last game. And 6 of those sacks were in the first game, with Frye at QB.

And someone had to be blocking for Lewis to rush for almost 1500 yds. ;)


My quote above is exactly what it says. They didn't look very good vs the Bengals. I can't comment on the other games as I only saw bits and pieces of them.

Versus the horrible pass rush of a Bengal defense, that will likely result in coaches getting fired, the Browns protected Anderson very poorly.

RedFanAlways1966
12-25-2007, 10:31 PM
History...

In the 2004 and '05 regular-season finales, when the Colts faced similar situations, Manning was a combined 2-of-4 for 11 yards and played just one series in each game.

Hoosier Red
12-26-2007, 12:20 AM
So can someone explain to me how last Sunday if Tennessee lost, Cleveland would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.
It said it was a Cleveland win OR a Tennessee loss.
Now this Sunday it's a Cleveland win AND a Tennesee loss that is needed for the Browns to get in.

OSUredsFAN
12-26-2007, 12:53 AM
So can someone explain to me how last Sunday if Tennessee lost, Cleveland would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.
It said it was a Cleveland win OR a Tennessee loss.
Now this Sunday it's a Cleveland win AND a Tennesee loss that is needed for the Browns to get in.

Because of the tie-breakers.

blumj
12-26-2007, 01:09 AM
History...

In the 2004 and '05 regular-season finales, when the Colts faced similar situations, Manning was a combined 2-of-4 for 11 yards and played just one series in each game.
I honestly don't get the purpose of having someone play one series. It seems like one series would be just enough to pose some small risk of injury and not enough to do anything helpful with 3 weeks between games.

LoganBuck
12-26-2007, 01:40 AM
So can someone explain to me how last Sunday if Tennessee lost, Cleveland would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.
It said it was a Cleveland win OR a Tennessee loss.
Now this Sunday it's a Cleveland win AND a Tennesee loss that is needed for the Browns to get in.

If they both lose Cleveland goes because they will have a better conference record. If they both win Tennessee goes because they have a better record versus common opponents.

Last week Cleveland would have clinched the conference record and common opponent edge.

GAC
12-26-2007, 03:10 AM
Versus the horrible pass rush of a Bengal defense, that will likely result in coaches getting fired, the Browns protected Anderson very poorly.

They didn't do the best of jobs, as compared to what I've seen all year; but I don't think they protected him poorly. You only registered one sack all day. And even the INTs were the result of very poor decision making on Anderson's part in trying to finesse/force passes into areas he had no business trying to do.

Where the Bengals did an excellent job was not so much in the pass rush department (Anderson threw for 251 yds), but in your secondary covering our receivers, and forcing them from their routes. Joseph and company did an excellent job. And when they do that, then any offensive line can only protect and buy your QB so much time. Anderson was not able to sit in that pocket and throw.

Neither one of these two teams was having much of a problem moving the ball. Total yds for the Browns was 380. The Browns were either inside your 30 or the redzone 6 times in this game and came away with nothing due to our own miscues and bad decision-making.

The turnovers definitely hurt us, yet we almost overcame those. IMHO, we not only played poorly on the field, but also on that sidelines.

But I commend the Bengal's defense. It was just like that Monday night game vs the Ravens. The Ravens made the mistakes; but it was still up to the opposition to capitalize on them.... on the Bengals did just that.

WMR
12-31-2007, 12:21 AM
Browns miss playoffs.

RedFanAlways1966
12-31-2007, 12:29 AM
You idiot, Dungy has already say the starters would play a half

I hope some have learned not to believe Coach Dungy in the future. Manning, 2 series. Addai, 4 carries.

jimbo
12-31-2007, 12:29 AM
I have a new team to hate more than the Patriots. Thanks for taking the day off Dungy, in a game with playoff implications. Fisher should be taking you out for a nice steak dinner.

WMR
12-31-2007, 12:30 AM
The only responsibility Dungy has is to the Indianapolis Colts.

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:30 AM
You idiot, Dungy has already say the starters would play a half

Way to step out there and call someone names when you're absolutely sure that you're right. Well except that you were wrong.

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:32 AM
I hope some have learned not to believe Coach Dungy in the future. Manning, 2 series. Addai, 4 carries.

Dungy never said the starters would play a half. He said he wasn't sure.

RedFanAlways1966
12-31-2007, 12:33 AM
Dungy never said the starters would play a half. He said he wasn't sure.

Oh, I know. My comment was in the same vein as your post made to the know-it-all making the comment. :thumbup:

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:34 AM
I have a new team to hate more than the Patriots. Thanks for taking the day off Dungy, in a game with playoff implications. Fisher should be taking you out for a nice steak dinner.

Yeah I would have been super happy to see Peyton out there risking injury in the second half of a meaningless game (for the Colts). That's what happens when you have to rely on other teams for your playoff future.

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:34 AM
Oh, I know. My comment was in the same vein as your post made to the know-it-all making the comment. :thumbup:

My bad.

jimbo
12-31-2007, 12:35 AM
The only responsibility Dungy has is to the Indianapolis Colts.

I simply do not agree. In a game with playoff implications, you owe it to the fans and the game to play to win, not lay down. That was a mockery of an NFL game because the Colts only suited up because they had to.

Just my opinion.

RedFanAlways1966
12-31-2007, 12:36 AM
My bad.

No problem, Razor. I had to edit my post regarding that name-calling message a few times so I wouldn't break any rules. You did it much better! :)

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:38 AM
No problem, Razor. I had to edit my post regarding that name-calling message a few times so I wouldn't break any rules. You did it much better! :)

haha. I also re-wrote my several times to "tone it down".

WMR
12-31-2007, 12:40 AM
I simply do not agree. In a game with playoff implications, you owe it to the fans and the game to play to win, not lay down. That was a mockery of an NFL game because the Colts only suited up because they had to.

Just my opinion.

:shrug:

It comes across as sour grapes...

The only person Tony Dungy owes anything to is the owner of the Colts from whom he is receiving an enormous salary to deliver Super Bowl victories.

Razor Shines
12-31-2007, 12:42 AM
I simply do not agree. In a game with playoff implications, you owe it to the fans and the game to play to win, not lay down. That was a mockery of an NFL game because the Colts only suited up because they had to.

Just my opinion.

Who says they didn't play to win? There's just no reason for big money players to be out there in the second half. You may think he owes it to the fans and the game, but if one of Indy's main players had gotten hurt I don't think the excuse "I felt I owed it to the game" would have gone over very well.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 12:42 AM
I simply do not agree. In a game with playoff implications, you owe it to the fans and the game to play to win, not lay down. That was a mockery of an NFL game because the Colts only suited up because they had to.

Just my opinion.

I love the Browns...but I agree with another poster. This is sour grapes.

WMR
12-31-2007, 12:44 AM
You idiot, Dungy has already say the starters would play a half

Directions:
1) Locate foot
2) Locate mouth
3) Apply super-glue to foot
4) Insert foot into mouth

Sea Ray
12-31-2007, 12:49 AM
Way to step out there and call someone names when you're absolutely sure that you're right. Well except that you were wrong.


Yep, as the recipient of that name calling, I'm still waiting for an apology. And people wonder why Browns fans have the rep they do...:rolleyes:

jimbo
12-31-2007, 12:50 AM
:shrug:

It comes across as sour grapes...

The only person Tony Dungy owes anything to is the owner of the Colts from whom he is receiving an enormous salary to deliver Super Bowl victories.

If it comes across as that, then so be it.

Tom Coughlin gets paid big money for the same things that Dungy does, yet he went out yesterday and played to win in a meaningless game for them simply because the game had historic implications.

The Browns also played a meaningless game today, didn't see them resting starters.

You play to win, that's all I'm saying. Sitting for fear of getting hurt just seems like a cowardly way out to me.

Now, back to my sour grapes. :D

jimbo
12-31-2007, 12:54 AM
I love the Browns...but I agree with another poster. This is sour grapes.

I really don't care what it perceives to be. I would have been just as critical of the Browns if they had gone out today and played Quinn and rested their star players, even though it had no playoff implications.

smoke6
12-31-2007, 12:56 AM
Yep, as the recipient of that name calling, I'm still waiting for an apology. And people wonder why Browns fans have the rep they do...:rolleyes:

What rep do Browns Fans have? I am a Browns Fan and have been to many games in Cincinnati. I have been called just about whatever you can think of. Browns Fans are Browns Fans in good years and bad. That brings me to the reputation that Bengals Fans have...:D

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 12:57 AM
I really don't care what it perceives to be. I would have been just as critical of the Browns if they had gone out today and played Quinn and rested their star players.

So under no circumstance is a team ever to rest their starters???

Sea Ray
12-31-2007, 01:00 AM
What rep do Browns Fans have? I am a Browns Fan and have been to many games in Cincinnati. I have been called just about whatever you can think of. Browns Fans are Browns Fans in good years and bad. That brings me to the reputation that Bengals Fans have...:D

My point is that that person did not represent Browns fans in a flattering light.

jimbo
12-31-2007, 01:01 AM
So under no circumstance is a team ever to rest their starters???

If I spent the money NFL tickets cost today and drove 3 hours to watch the Browns, I'd be pretty upset watching backups.

But that's just me.

guttle11
12-31-2007, 01:05 AM
Great stepping stone year for the Browns. Hopefully my Bengals and the Ravens can improve and make for a fun division race next year.

As far as the Colts resting starters, it didn't have to get to that point for the Browns. They let their playoff destiny slip out of their own hands and into the Titans'. There's nothing to complain about.

GoReds33
12-31-2007, 01:08 AM
What rep do Browns Fans have? I am a Browns Fan and have been to many games in Cincinnati. I have been called just about whatever you can think of. Browns Fans are Browns Fans in good years and bad. That brings me to the reputation that Bengals Fans have...:DI have been to many games in Cincinnati. I consider myself a big Bengals fan. I went to games when they were bad, and when they were good. The difference with Bengals fans is that there aren't enough "Die Hards." When they were terrible they still got 40k in the stands most games, if not more. Now that they are reasonably good, the bandwagoners have jumped on, and filled PBS up. It's the same with most organizations, they all bave the bandwagon jumpers... it's just the ones with established fanbases that can still sell out games when bad. Quite frankly, the Bengals havn't earned that big fanbase.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 01:09 AM
If I spent the money NFL tickets cost today and drove 3 hours to watch the Browns, I'd be pretty upset watching backups.

But that's just me.

So are you upset at the Colts/Seahawks/Steelers/Bucs/Cowboys???

It is very wise to rest and protect your stars the last week if you have clinched. See Rodney Harrison 2006.

Unfortunate for fans, yes. Smart for teams, yes.

Sea Ray
12-31-2007, 01:51 AM
I have been to many games in Cincinnati. I consider myself a big Bengals fan. I went to games when they were bad, and when they were good. The difference with Bengals fans is that there aren't enough "Die Hards." When they were terrible they still got 40k in the stands most games, if not more. Now that they are reasonably good, the bandwagoners have jumped on, and filled PBS up. It's the same with most organizations, they all bave the bandwagon jumpers... it's just the ones with established fanbases that can still sell out games when bad. Quite frankly, the Bengals havn't earned that big fanbase.

I couldn't disagree more. You may think that the Bengals are reasonably good but the fact is this franchise has had one winning season in the past decade and a half. Given that futility, this team is still selling so many tickets that there's a waiting list. You can't ask for more die hards than that. If anything the Bengal fans are loyal to a fault but that's another thread.

Bengal fans may be a lot of things but the fact that they still support their team to that extent after all that losing on the field says a lot about them.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 02:10 AM
I couldn't disagree more. You may think that the Bengals are reasonably good but the fact is this franchise has had one winning season in the past decade and a half. Given that futility, this team is still selling so many tickets that there's a waiting list. You can't ask for more die hards than that. If anything the Bengal fans are loyal to a fault but that's another thread.

Bengal fans may be a lot of things but the fact that they still support their team to that extent after all that losing on the field says a lot about them.

Fans of the Packers,Steelers,Browns,Eagles,Bears have a problem saying the Bengals's fans are just as big diehards as them.

No way, no how, are Bengals fans as a whole as diehard as any of the above teams.

LoganBuck
12-31-2007, 02:21 AM
Fans of the Packers,Steelers,Browns,Eagles,Bears have a problem saying the Bengals's fans are just as big diehards as them.

No way, no how, are Bengals fans as a whole as diehard as any of the above teams.

Ah yes the old mine is bigger than yours debate. Wallow in your own sorrows and leave the poor Bengals fans alone. The true Bengals fans are mushrooms, they are kept in the dark and fed crap.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 02:23 AM
Ah yes the old mine is bigger than yours debate. Wallow in your own sorrows and leave the poor Bengals fans alone. The true Bengals fans are mushrooms, they are kept in the dark and fed crap.

What am I supposed to say...I stumble into this thread and I read someone spouting no fan base is as/more diehard than the Bengals. Are you kidding me???

sonny
12-31-2007, 03:21 AM
Well, I still have my Akili Smith Jersey. That should count for something!

jimbo
12-31-2007, 03:55 AM
It is very wise to rest and protect your stars the last week if you have clinched. See Rodney Harrison 2006.

Unfortunate for fans, yes. Smart for teams, yes.

Call me old-fashioned, call it not smart, call it sour grapes, call it whatever, but I respect the fact that Romeo came out on Sunday and played no holds barred football and gave the Browns fans a 110% effort and didn't lay down to risk injury. The Titans were given a playoff birth.

And I've been a big critic of Romeo ever since he came on board, but he earned some respect from me today.

GAC
12-31-2007, 06:12 AM
I simply do not agree. In a game with playoff implications, you owe it to the fans and the game to play to win, not lay down. That was a mockery of an NFL game because the Colts only suited up because they had to.

Just my opinion.


Call me old-fashioned, call it not smart, call it sour grapes, call it whatever, but I respect the fact that Romeo came out on Sunday and played no holds barred football and gave the Browns fans a 110% effort and didn't lay down to risk injury. The Titans were given a playoff birth.

And I've been a big critic of Romeo ever since he came on board, but he earned some respect from me today.

I thoroughly agree with you jimbo. And I say that not as "sour grapes" because the Browns didn't make it. It's sad that you're eliminated from the post-season mainly because a team decided to rest it's starter in a so-called "meaningless" game that they most likely would have won had they played.

But anytime your playoff hopes are dependent upon what another team does (needing to lose), then you're putting yourself in a bad position.

It just goes to show just how important every game is during the season. And it brings me back to that loss to Oakland as one example.

I under stand the logic today that once you have a playoff spot locked up you're not going to "risk" your starters in that last game, which many say is meaningless.

I just don't agree with it.

Head Coach: "Gee! I don't want to risk the possibility of getting any of my starters hurt in meaningless games!" :rolleyes:

Injuries are a part of the game and can happen at any time (ex - Palmer in the 1st round a couple years ago).

What about those fans that had bought tickets to those games? I guess they should shy away from buying tickets for the 16th and final week because those could very well be deemed meaningless games. Did they get their money's worth? ;)

Back in foregone days you wouldn't have seen it regardless of the scenario. There was no such thing as meaningless games. Where did that ever come from?

Coaches like Lombardi, Allen, Landry, Stram, Dikta, Madden, and even older "greats" like Paul Brown and George Halas, would have never entertained the idea of resting their starters simply due to their competitive nature, wanting to win and beat the opposition. Any loss put a bad taste in their mouths.

But this is what football has become since the addition of wild card teams, and the current playoff system.

BIG MONEY.... that's what it's all about anymore.

But if the Browns had been in the same position as an Indy, they would have done the same thing. That's the nature of the beast anymore.

My Brownies did good and I'm proud of them this year regardless. But they got one heck of a brutal schedule next year.

And maybe now we'll get to see them on MNF next year!!!! :lol:

traderumor
12-31-2007, 09:31 AM
Dungy has historically done this with the game(s) after clinching. He obviously thinks it is the right way to approach such games. I really do not think he is at fault for taking this approach when Cleveland did not take care of business at PBS last week. His team earned the right to practice risk avoidance, and the fact that Cleveland lost last week to set up the scenario that it did should have no bearing on how he approached this week's game. Imagine explaining to fans when Peyton gets a knee taken out that he was playing in a meaningless game for his team because the Browns needed the Colts to win.

And it is always a risk to buy a ticket in advance to a sporting event that certain players might not play or the game turns out to be a dud. In fact, if someone did buy a ticket to this game, they would have had every opportunity to know that it might be a meaningless game for the Colts and that Dungy sits key players when that is the case.

Sea Ray
12-31-2007, 09:41 AM
What am I supposed to say...I stumble into this thread and I read someone spouting no fan base is as/more diehard than the Bengals. Are you kidding me???

It must be the late night hour. I don't think you read that statement. This was as close as I could find:


You can't ask for more die hards than that.

I wouldn't venture a guess as to who has the most die hard fans. Such a discussion would have no end and serve no purpose.

I do know that franchises like Pittsburgh, Green Bay and Dallas have not forced their fans to endure such futility as here in Cincinnati. Given that reality, Cincinnati has its fair share of die hards.

Sea Ray
12-31-2007, 09:47 AM
It's a very unusual year in which 10-6 does not get you into the playoffs. That's another unlucky bounce for Cleveland. A lot of playoff teams laid down this weekend. The players Indy did play played hard. My bet is Tenn loses to SD by at least 3 TDs next weekend.

As a Bengal fan, here's hoping that the schedule makers give us Indy in week 17 next year...

GAC
12-31-2007, 10:34 AM
Dungy has historically done this with the game(s) after clinching. He obviously thinks it is the right way to approach such games. I really do not think he is at fault for taking this approach when Cleveland did not take care of business at PBS last week. His team earned the right to practice risk avoidance, and the fact that Cleveland lost last week to set up the scenario that it did should have no bearing on how he approached this week's game. Imagine explaining to fans when Peyton gets a knee taken out that he was playing in a meaningless game for his team because the Browns needed the Colts to win.

For me, it's not about Cleveland. That is not the reason as to why the Colt starters (or any team's starters) should be in there.... i.e. because the Browns needed the Colts to win.

Which is why I stated this....


But anytime your playoff hopes are dependent upon what another team does (needing to lose), then you're putting yourself in a bad position.

It just goes to show just how important every game is during the season. And it brings me back to that loss to Oakland as one example.

I guess I'm just "old school" because this "mentality" that we are seeing now, concerning meaningless games and coaches afraid of playing players because of the possibility of injury... which I understand, so don't get me wrong.... is something that didn't use to exist and has been fostered and promoted over the last decade. And the fans have bought into it.

So what about a team that has a play-off spot and home field advantage locked up after week 13? Do they blow off those remaining games, and hold back their starters from injury risk?

Why would that be any different? I mean, after all, aren't those remaining games also "meaningless"?

If Manning then goes out on week #14 and blows a knee out, when those remaining games aren't going to affect anything as far as the post-season goes, then should the fans be upset at the coach for having him in there?



And it is always a risk to buy a ticket in advance to a sporting event that certain players might not play or the game turns out to be a dud. In fact, if someone did buy a ticket to this game, they would have had every opportunity to know that it might be a meaningless game for the Colts and that Dungy sits key players when that is the case.

And that is what is sad about it. That we've now came to the point in the NFL where there is such an "animal" as a meaningless game, and fans had better plan accordingly when buying their tickets.

There's a lot of coaches who are probably turning over in their graves when they see it. Even when they had the division or conference locked up, they played their guys and didn't see ANY game as meaningless (they existed back then too). If you got hurt, then you got hurt. It has always been an acceptable risk that is a part of the game.

But now we have found a way (method) of eliminating that risk.

We've created a whole new category.... the meaningless game. ;)

Lets call it what it is.... THROWING A GAME.

But it's legal and within the rules (I guess)... as well as acceptable..... because they are meaningless games.

BuckWoody
12-31-2007, 10:52 AM
Sitting out your key players on the last week of the season when you have the playoffs wrapped up is not a new trend. Having played fantasy football since about 1993, I know that it has happend every single year because guys are always trying to figure out what to do with thier stud fantasy players who are in such a situation for the last week. A lot of fantasy leagues have gone to playing their championship games during week 16 for this very reason.

I understand the sentiment but I'd hardly call it "throwing a game"...that's a little overboard, imo. If you, as a coach or a fan, want your team to make the playoffs then your team should take care of business on the field and not have to count on someone else doing it for you.

Limiting your stars action in the last game like this is the "safe" and "smart" thing to do. Coaches are on a lot shorter leash today than they were back in the 50's and 60's. They can't afford to take the risk of having a big name player hurt playing in a game that has no bearing on the season for their team.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 10:59 AM
We've created a whole new category.... the meaningless game. ;)

Lets call it what it is.... THROWING A GAME.

But it's legal and within the rules (I guess)... as well as acceptable..... because they are meaningless games.

That's what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth about these teams that "rest the starters" after they've clinched their playoff spot. I have no problem with pulling starters once a game is in hand. However, when a team does not put forth its best effort to win a game by playing second and third stringers the entire game, you've made a mockery of the game. It's little more than an exhibition at that point. I'm amazed that, with all the money involved with these games, the NFL hasn't stepped in to require teams to play the games on the level. If playoff-bound teams are free to "rest their starters," what's to stop bad teams from "resting their starters" to get a better draft position? Does the NFL really want to encourage teams to throw games?

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 11:01 AM
Sitting out your key players on the last week of the season when you have the playoffs wrapped up is not a new trend. Having played fantasy football since about 1993, I know that it has happend every single year because guys are always trying to figure out what to do with thier stud fantasy players who are in such a situation for the last week. A lot of fantasy leagues have gone to playing their championship games during week 16 for this very reason.

I understand the sentiment but I'd hardly call it "throwing a game"...that's a little overboard, imo. If you, as a coach or a fan, want your team to make the playoffs then your team should take care of business on the field and not have to count on someone else doing it for you.

Limiting your stars action in the last game like this is the "safe" and "smart" thing to do. Coaches are on a lot shorter leash today than they were back in the 50's and 60's. They can't afford to take the risk of having a big name player hurt playing in a game that has no bearing on the season for their team.

I don't think calling it "throwing a game" is overboard. It is what it is. If a playoff team can try to improve it's performance in the playoffs by failing to put forth its best effort to win a regular season game, then, by that logic, why can't a non-playoff bound team take out it's starters to improve draft position? They've got nothing to gain by winning at that point either.

Reds Freak
12-31-2007, 11:01 AM
The Titans were given a playoff birth.



I fail to see how a team that goes 10-6 in a given season while beating Jacksonville and Indianapolis is "given" a playoff birth. If the Titans were handed anything, it was from the Browns who lost to Oakland, Arizona, and Cincinnati, any of those wins getting them to the playoffs.

Unfortunately, the way star players are paid today in professional sports it is foolish to risk injury when your playoff fate is set. Your star players are paid to win you championships, not meaningless week 17 games. It wasn't like Indy threw in the towel either, their players were playing very hard.

A question for jimbo and GAC..if the roles were reversed, let's say the Browns were 13-2 with a 2nd seed locked up and were playing the Bengals in the last game of the year who needed a win to make the playoffs. With a Bengals loss, the Titans would advance. Would you want Romeo playing Braylon and Winslow and Lewis and DA the whole game?

Tom Coughlin chose to not rest his starters this week and three of them are questionable for his playoff game because of injuries against the Pats...

GAC
12-31-2007, 11:09 AM
Sitting out your key players on the last week of the season when you have the playoffs wrapped up is not a new trend.

I never said it was a new trend; but in the last decade or so a practice that has become more widely acceptable and popularized.


I understand the sentiment but I'd hardly call it "throwing a game"...that's a little overboard, imo.

Maybe so; but it's how I see it. We've just found a new name to call it by and justify it.


If you, as a coach or a fan, want your team to make the playoffs then your team should take care of business on the field and not have to count on someone else doing it for you.

Teams should have to "take care of business on that field" every week. And not sub-dividing up games/opponents into classifications of being important and meaningless.

But that is not the reason for my position though BW, and has nothing to do with the Browns.

I blame you Bengal fans darn it! You guys should have laid down for us last week...... we're loyal OHIOANS! :lol:

Back in 2003, when the Browns beat the Bengals in the last game of the season, and kept the Bengals from making the playoffs - believe it or not - my brother who is a Bengal fan actually stated, as we watched that game, that the Browns should have laid down for the Bengals since the Browns had nothing on the line and the Bengals did.

I looked at him and laughed! :lol:


Limiting your stars action in the last game like this is the "safe" and "smart" thing to do.

Yes, we've convinced ourselves of this necessity. Gotta protect that investment. ;)


Coaches are on a lot shorter leash today than they were back in the 50's and 60's. They can't afford to take the risk of having a big name player hurt playing in a game that has no bearing on the season for their team.

That risk has always existed. It is no greater today then back then. And teams then also played in games that had no bearing when it came to the post-season. But they didn't carry this mentality of "we can't afford to take the risk."

GAC
12-31-2007, 11:15 AM
That's what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth about these teams that "rest the starters" after they've clinched their playoff spot. I have no problem with pulling starters once a game is in hand. However, when a team does not put forth its best effort to win a game by playing second and third stringers the entire game, you've made a mockery of the game. It's little more than an exhibition at that point.

Thank you for exactly expressing the sentiment that I possibly didn't adequately do up to this point of the discussion.


If playoff-bound teams are free to "rest their starters," what's to stop bad teams from "resting their starters" to get a better draft position?

You don't think that has never happened? I know of fans who, when their team's season was toast, would get upset when their team did win any games towards the end - and wish they'd intentionally throw them - just to get a high draft pick.

Just read where the Jets though dropped three draft positions by winning yesterday. You don't think there aren't some fans upset over that today?

A meaningless win! ;)

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 11:28 AM
I fail to see how a team that goes 10-6 in a given season while beating Jacksonville and Indianapolis is "given" a playoff birth. If the Titans were handed anything, it was from the Browns who lost to Oakland, Arizona, and Cincinnati, any of those wins getting them to the playoffs.

Unfortunately, the way star players are paid today in professional sports it is foolish to risk injury when your playoff fate is set. Your star players are paid to win you championships, not meaningless week 17 games. It wasn't like Indy threw in the towel either, their players were playing very hard.

A question for jimbo and GAC..if the roles were reversed, let's say the Browns were 13-2 with a 2nd seed locked up and were playing the Bengals in the last game of the year who needed a win to make the playoffs. With a Bengals loss, the Titans would advance. Would you want Romeo playing Braylon and Winslow and Lewis and DA the whole game?

Tom Coughlin chose to not rest his starters this week and three of them are questionable for his playoff game because of injuries against the Pats...

No regular season game is meaningless. All games have meaning. Otherwise we'd just call them exhibition games. Why should Tennessee get the benefit of playing Indy on the last day of the season? If you're going to make it to the playoffs, it should be because you played all the teams on your schedule and those teams were playing to win. I'm a Bengals fan and in your scenario, I would expect nothing more than Browns at full strength.

BuckWoody
12-31-2007, 11:40 AM
Well, GAC, I'll chalk this up as another thing that we will just never agree on. This time I'll be following my own advice and just let it lie.

traderumor
12-31-2007, 12:12 PM
It's funny you mention "what if a team clinches in Week 13" GAC, because that did happen to Indy in a prior season. They clinched early, and I believe they had either the 1 or 2 seed locked up, so Dungy played his regulars sparingly the rest of the season. Now, while this has become a common practice, I really do not agree with it, because while it does avoid the risk of injury in a game, I think the jury is still out on whether the reward might be diminished by guys getting off track and thrown off their routine. There has been some anecdotal evidence of the teams who clinched early struggling or getting upset in their first round game because of it. Indy has been one of those that people have questioned this strategy.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable for Indy or any other team in that position to first be concerned about not losing any key players in the final game of the season that, win or lose, has no impact on their position. I think it is easier to make the case that Coughlin was irresponsible than it is that Dungy "threw" the game.

MWM
12-31-2007, 12:37 PM
Anything keeping the Browns out of the playoffs is a welcomed present for me? :evil:

WMR
12-31-2007, 01:23 PM
No regular season game is meaningless. All games have meaning. Otherwise we'd just call them exhibition games. Why should Tennessee get the benefit of playing Indy on the last day of the season? If you're going to make it to the playoffs, it should be because you played all the teams on your schedule and those teams were playing to win. I'm a Bengals fan and in your scenario, I would expect nothing more than Browns at full strength.

I'm quite surprised you're taking this position, considering your analytical, lawylerly mind, Yacht. If you were employed by an NFL team in a risk assessment role, what would be your advice to them as far as playing star players after they had clinched their playoff seed and berth?

Yes, for the Indianapolis Colts, that game last night WAS meaningless.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 01:34 PM
I'm quite surprised you're taking this position, considering your analytical, lawylerly mind, Yacht. If you were employed by an NFL team in a risk assessment role, what would be your advice to them as far as playing star players after they had clinched their playoff seed and berth?

Yes, for the Indianapolis Colts, that game last night WAS meaningless.

I'm thinking more from the perspective of the league as a whole. Teams should be expected to put forth their best effort in every game. Indy's tactic is a "me first" attitude thinking only of the short term. However, how does Indy feel in a future season when they have an off year and someone else decides to tank for a better draft position and it moves Indy down a few slots? For the integrity of the game, teams need to put forth their best efforts in regular season games. To put it in lawyer terms, it would be like a lawyer taking a big payday in a settlement now without regard to the potential long term effects on his client.

Now, if Indy had taken a quick lead and was up by 3 scores at the half, I have no problem with Indy taking out their star players to avoid injury. At that point, they've secured a solid lead and have every right to change their tactics. But to sit them the whole game or put them in for a token appearance and essential play 2nd and 3rd string the whole game is akin to throwing the game in my opinion. If someone like the Jets had pulled that to improve draft position, I guarantee you Roger Goddell would have been all over that. If it would be throwing the game for someone like the Jets to do that, then it's the same for the Colts. You can't have different rules for different teams.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 01:38 PM
I'm thinking more from the perspective of the league as a whole. Teams should be expected to put forth their best effort in every game. Indy's tactic is a "me first" attitude thinking only of the short term. However, how does Indy feel in a future season when they have an off year and someone else decides to tank for a better draft position and it moves Indy down a few slots? For the integrity of the game, teams need to put forth their best efforts in regular season games. To put it in lawyer terms, it would be like a lawyer taking a big payday in a settlement now without regard to the potential long term effects on his client.

Now, if Indy had taken a quick lead and was up by 3 scores at the half, I have no problem with Indy taking out their star players to avoid injury. At that point, they've secured a solid lead and have every right to change their tactics. But to sit them the whole game or put them in for a token appearance and essential play 2nd and 3rd string the whole game is akin to throwing the game in my opinion. If someone like the Jets had pulled that to improve draft position, I guarantee you Roger Goddell would have been all over that. If it would be throwing the game for someone like the Jets to do that, then it's the same for the Colts. You can't have different rules for different teams.

I'd like to add...it is more than resting starters for the playoffs. It gives Indy a chance to evaluate youngsters in true game experience. They earned the chance to do that.

It's comparing apples and oranges I know, but just think of the slop that goes on the diamond when the 40 man rosters start in Sept. Kind of the same deal when it comes to late season players in each sport.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 01:43 PM
I'd like to add...it is more than resting starters for the playoffs. It gives Indy a chance to evaluate youngsters in true game experience. They earned the chance to do that.

It's comparing apples and oranges I know, but just think of the slop that goes on the diamond when the 40 man rosters start in Sept. Kind of the same deal when it comes to late season players in each sport.

You can evaluate the youngsters by rotating them in more often, but I don't think that legitimizes treating this game like a meaningless exhibition when it is not.

blumj
12-31-2007, 01:51 PM
I think it is easier to make the case that Coughlin was irresponsible than it is that Dungy "threw" the game.
The easiest case to make is that Coughlin and Dungy did the same thing, which is, what they believed was best for their own teams.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 02:15 PM
You can evaluate the youngsters by rotating them in more often, but I don't think that legitimizes treating this game like a meaningless exhibition when it is not.

In football...you can't just give Peyton Manning a day off like Jr. gets a day off in baseball. These players can often use some rest if possible...especially with the playoffs in sight. If a game of rest has been earned, by all means, take it off if you want. One NFL game makes up more than 5 percent of a teams schedule. Why risk injury to your stars if you can avoid it. This isn't like a 4-12 team playing scrubs in the final game just because they can, but rather a playoff bound Superbowl contender being intelligent. One ill shot to Manning and Jim Sorgi is leading the Colts in the playoffs...you think they would like to avoid that if they could. You are essentially saying you would like the league to dictate what players should play and when.

The Colts are the last team I am upset with today being a huge Browns fan. It sickens me to say this but the Browns did this to themselves. The other team that bothers me, the Titans, yes the Titans. They didn't earn a 10-6 record...they earned a 9-6 record with a win tacked on against the Colts backups. If their fans acknowlege that for what it is, its cool. Like I said I have no problem with what the Colts did...but the Titans did luck into last night's scenario.

Thats just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, and I accept that. Others don't.

WMR
12-31-2007, 02:37 PM
I'm thinking more from the perspective of the league as a whole. Teams should be expected to put forth their best effort in every game. Indy's tactic is a "me first" attitude thinking only of the short term. However, how does Indy feel in a future season when they have an off year and someone else decides to tank for a better draft position and it moves Indy down a few slots? For the integrity of the game, teams need to put forth their best efforts in regular season games. To put it in lawyer terms, it would be like a lawyer taking a big payday in a settlement now without regard to the potential long term effects on his client.

Now, if Indy had taken a quick lead and was up by 3 scores at the half, I have no problem with Indy taking out their star players to avoid injury. At that point, they've secured a solid lead and have every right to change their tactics. But to sit them the whole game or put them in for a token appearance and essential play 2nd and 3rd string the whole game is akin to throwing the game in my opinion. If someone like the Jets had pulled that to improve draft position, I guarantee you Roger Goddell would have been all over that. If it would be throwing the game for someone like the Jets to do that, then it's the same for the Colts. You can't have different rules for different teams.

I guess I see a big difference between resting players after having clinched a playoff berth and "throwing" games to get a better draft position.

However: Would I have an issue with a team "getting a look" at their younger talent if they have no shot of making the playoffs? Not at all.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm thinking more from the perspective of the league as a whole. Teams should be expected to put forth their best effort in every game. Indy's tactic is a "me first" attitude thinking only of the short term. However, how does Indy feel in a future season when they have an off year and someone else decides to tank for a better draft position and it moves Indy down a few slots? For the integrity of the game, teams need to put forth their best efforts in regular season games. To put it in lawyer terms, it would be like a lawyer taking a big payday in a settlement now without regard to the potential long term effects on his client.

Now, if Indy had taken a quick lead and was up by 3 scores at the half, I have no problem with Indy taking out their star players to avoid injury. At that point, they've secured a solid lead and have every right to change their tactics. But to sit them the whole game or put them in for a token appearance and essential play 2nd and 3rd string the whole game is akin to throwing the game in my opinion. If someone like the Jets had pulled that to improve draft position, I guarantee you Roger Goddell would have been all over that. If it would be throwing the game for someone like the Jets to do that, then it's the same for the Colts. You can't have different rules for different teams.

You are failing to see the difference between tanking and resting up for the playoffs.

Not one team in the NFL is allowed to tank...although I'm sure it happens...just difficult to prove. That rule is the same for everyone. Indy did not tank.

wolfboy
12-31-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm thinking more from the perspective of the league as a whole. Teams should be expected to put forth their best effort in every game. Indy's tactic is a "me first" attitude thinking only of the short term. However, how does Indy feel in a future season when they have an off year and someone else decides to tank for a better draft position and it moves Indy down a few slots? For the integrity of the game, teams need to put forth their best efforts in regular season games. To put it in lawyer terms, it would be like a lawyer taking a big payday in a settlement now without regard to the potential long term effects on his client.

Now, if Indy had taken a quick lead and was up by 3 scores at the half, I have no problem with Indy taking out their star players to avoid injury. At that point, they've secured a solid lead and have every right to change their tactics. But to sit them the whole game or put them in for a token appearance and essential play 2nd and 3rd string the whole game is akin to throwing the game in my opinion. If someone like the Jets had pulled that to improve draft position, I guarantee you Roger Goddell would have been all over that. If it would be throwing the game for someone like the Jets to do that, then it's the same for the Colts. You can't have different rules for different teams.

It took one play to knock Carson Palmer out of the game, and to knock the Bengals out of the playoffs. If I'm an NFL GM, I just can't get around that. I wouldn't leave Manning in there through the half just to say we put forth a good effort. I wouldn't have played him at all. If he goes down in a meaningless game and the team suffers, people are calling for the GM/coach's head.

If I'm a GM or coach, I make the decisions that help my team and secure my job. Fairness to third parties doesn't even enter the equation. It's not fair for the Browns, but they didn't take care of business when they could have. You can't blame Indy for not doing it for them.

jimbo
12-31-2007, 02:52 PM
I guess I'm just "old school" because this "mentality" that we are seeing now, concerning meaningless games and coaches afraid of playing players because of the possibility of injury...

I think "old school" is exactly the type of mentality as to why I feel the way I do. It's probably old-fashioned, but it just isn't the way football was meant to be played. If your lacing them up for four quarters of football, you play to win no matter what. Sitting for fear of injury is just cowardly in my eyes.


Lets call it what it is.... THROWING A GAME.

That's exactly what it was. The fix was on and the Titans got a late Christmas gift.

And for the record, I also understand the fact that the Browns did not take care of business in Cincinnati last week when they controlled their own destiny. I realize they have nobody to blame but themselves and I am not blaming them not reaching the playoff on the Colts. But at the same time, the Titans did not take care of business in Cincinnati three weeks ago, but they backed in because Dungy mailed one in.

GAC
12-31-2007, 02:56 PM
A question for jimbo and GAC..if the roles were reversed, let's say the Browns were 13-2 with a 2nd seed locked up and were playing the Bengals in the last game of the year who needed a win to make the playoffs. With a Bengals loss, the Titans would advance. Would you want Romeo playing Braylon and Winslow and Lewis and DA the whole game?

I stated this prior......


But if the Browns had been in the same position as an Indy, they would have done the same thing. That's the nature of the beast anymore.

But again, and at least with me, this is not about the Browns.

I have never agreed with this, so NO, I wouldn't like or agree with it if Romeo did it.

If I think it's wrong, then it's wrong.


You can't blame Indy for not doing it for them.

No one is.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 02:56 PM
By the way...Billick just got canned. :beerme::beerme::beerme:

Edit...it is on foxsports.com as I'm sure some are searching this now.

GAC
12-31-2007, 03:03 PM
You are failing to see the difference between tanking and resting up for the playoffs.

Not one team in the NFL is allowed to tank...although I'm sure it happens...just difficult to prove. That rule is the same for everyone. Indy did not tank.


Ok. They laid down.

A pig in a tuxedo still Oinks. ;)

jimbo
12-31-2007, 03:14 PM
I'm quite surprised you're taking this position, considering your analytical, lawylerly mind, Yacht. If you were employed by an NFL team in a risk assessment role, what would be your advice to them as far as playing star players after they had clinched their playoff seed and berth?

Yes, for the Indianapolis Colts, that game last night WAS meaningless.

Are you sayaing I'm not lawylerly? ;)

It was only meaningless to the Colts. It definitely had meaning considering the playoffs is every team's goal that's what was on the line for two teams.

WMR
12-31-2007, 03:15 PM
Hehehe, jimbo. ;)

jimbo
12-31-2007, 03:21 PM
A question for jimbo and GAC..if the roles were reversed, let's say the Browns were 13-2 with a 2nd seed locked up and were playing the Bengals in the last game of the year who needed a win to make the playoffs. With a Bengals loss, the Titans would advance. Would you want Romeo playing Braylon and Winslow and Lewis and DA the whole game?


Absolutely, without a doubt. I stated in an earlier post that the Browns could have easily layed down yesterday because their game had no playoff implications for either team, but I gained a lot of respect for Romeo because he played everyone and he played to win. He gave every Brown fan in attendance exactly what they payed for and I think the fans there showed their appreciation as it looked like the place was really buzzing.

WMR
12-31-2007, 03:22 PM
What happens if Derek Anderson's knee gets speared by a D-lineman and he tears his ACL?

I just don't get it, I guess.

jimbo
12-31-2007, 03:28 PM
What happens if Derek Anderson's knee gets speared by a D-lineman and he tears his ACL?

I just don't get it, I guess.

That's football. People get hurt. That's why it's important to have a quality backup.

And I've said my peace so I'm going to let it die and let others chime in. Fun discussion though.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 03:31 PM
What happens if Derek Anderson's knee gets speared by a D-lineman and he tears his ACL?

I just don't get it, I guess.

Then the OL should have done a better job of protecting him. Injuries are a fact of life in football and you do your best to avoid them. However, there were a lot of so-called "meaningless" games played yesterday by teams either already in the playoffs or already eliminated. Some teams chose to put forth their best effort. Some teams did not.

My problem isn't even with resting one or two guys. I would have no problem with a team sitting a star player who is banged up or need the rest. Even resting your starting QB is fine, considering that you can't really rotate a QB in and out of the game. But to rest the vast majority of your starters just doesn't seem kosher. It's like you've decided that you only need to play a 15 game season while everyone else is in it for 16 games.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
12-31-2007, 04:58 PM
I think what needs to be looked at is the tie-breaker system. Imo there should never be a situation where you have the same record as another team and winning does nothing in your favor. Cleveland played 16 games and Tenn only played about 15 1/3. That should be your tie-break.er

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:07 PM
Browns fans: win one more game (like at Cincy) and you don't need to worry about what the Colts do, which has been done for years and years.

It wasn't a surprise, it's what Dungy should have done, and get over it.

Imagine Manning missing the playoffs with an injury sustained in the name of having the Titans make the playoffs fair and square. Can you imagine that press conference?

"I know this game meant nothing to us, but we wanted to make sure we were fair to the Cleveland Browns, who couldn't even beat the Bengals last week and are just a game shy of shoring up a spot."

The teams who are already in the playoffs shouldn't have to change their plans becuase of teams who are trying to get in.

Wah, wah, wah. Have you guys ever watched football before? Week 16 is a weird week. It just is. You guys were one game short of having to worry about it. It's your own fault.

How is this even debatable?

WMR
12-31-2007, 05:08 PM
I'm with you, Dom. I find it quite flabbergasting.

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:13 PM
you play to win no matter what.

And you aren't going to win any playoff games with Manning sitting on the sidelines with a torn ACL sustained in a game that meant something to another team.

What Dungy did was all about winning- winning a playoff game, not an incidental end of the year game that could have implications for a team in Cleveland.

Reds Freak
12-31-2007, 05:17 PM
Let's compare this to baseball. Every year some teams in the playoff hunt benefit from playing teams in August and September who are already out of the race and are most likely fielding AAA teams. On the other hand, some teams are at a disadvantage because they played teams that were at full strength at the beginning of the year and if they would have played them in September they would have been playing their scrubs.

Tennessee benefited from playing Indy at half strength. That's the way the scheduled fell into place. Should we somehow adjust teams records based on when they played certain teams and who played for those certain teams? Is it wrong for a playoff team to skip a top starter's start late in September to give him some rest even though the game may mean something to the other team?

Fair analogy?

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:19 PM
You do what's best for your own team. Period.

11larkin11
12-31-2007, 05:19 PM
What happens if Derek Anderson's knee gets speared by a D-lineman and he tears his ACL?

I just don't get it, I guess.

Then we finally get to play the better of our QBs.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 05:20 PM
And you aren't going to win any playoff games with Manning sitting on the sidelines with a torn ACL sustained in a game that meant something to another team.

What Dungy did was all about winning- winning a playoff game, not an incidental end of the year game that could have implications for a team in Cleveland.

Why bother playing the game then? Why not just forfeit to Tennessee and rest your whole team? 16 games on the schedule means play 16 games. Hey, if Dungy wants to sit Manning, fine. As I said before, sitting one or two players who need a rest is acceptable. The problem is when you take the majority of the starting roster off the field, then you aren't really playing the game to win, you're playing it to just get by until the playoffs. If that's the case, why not just forfeit and stop wasting everybody's time and money?

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 05:21 PM
You do what's best for your own team. Period.

What's best for your team in the short run isn't necessarily best for your team in the long run. Teams need to get a handle on that or risk making NFL game look like the WWE.

WMR
12-31-2007, 05:21 PM
Let's compare this to baseball. Every year some teams in the playoff hunt benefit from playing teams in August and September who are already out of the race and are most likely fielding AAA teams. On the other hand, some teams are at a disadvantage because they played teams that were at full strength at the beginning of the year and if they would have played them in September they would have been playing their scrubs.

Tennessee benefited from playing Indy at half strength. That's the way the scheduled fell into place. Should we somehow adjust teams records based on when they played certain teams and who played for those certain teams? Is it wrong for a playoff team to skip a top starter's start late in September to give him some rest even though the game may mean something to the other team?

Fair analogy?

WMR
12-31-2007, 05:22 PM
Then we finally get to play the better of our QBs.

Who's your third stringer?

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:29 PM
Why bother playing the game then?

Are you seriously- with a straight face- suggesting that the Indianapolis Colts should play their starters in a game that has no effect on their own playoff destiny out of fairness to the Cleveland Browns, who were one game short by their own doing?

Pardon me, but what do the Colts owe the Cleveland Browns? Should Peyton Manning risk his legacy because the Browns are 10-6 and not 11-5? Are you kidding me?

Why would Manning, Dungy, etc. risk contract incentives of advancing through the playoffs and a possible Super Bowl victory in the name of the Cleveland Browns?

You must also be arguing that had the Browns been 11-5 and already in, that the Colts should suit up and play their best, too, because it's all about that regular season win-loss record.

I tell ya, I'm old school , too, and if it gives my team a better shot at winning it all if I sit 'em down, I sit 'em down.

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:37 PM
Tennessee benefited from playing Indy at half strength. That's the way the scheduled fell into place. Should we somehow adjust teams records based on when they played certain teams and who played for those certain teams? Is it wrong for a playoff team to skip a top starter's start late in September to give him some rest even though the game may mean something to the other team?


Here's my advice to all professional teams: A win is a win, but you place yourself in a better situation by shoring up that playoff spot early, because there isn't a sports league alive where as the season gets closer to an end, mathematical elimination becomes a problem.

And who's playing in those games is anybody's guess, so keep your fate in your own hands by winning as many as you can early.

This isn't some big secret. We have years of data to show that this sort of things happens evry year. Learn from it. Or at least accept that it happens.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 05:41 PM
Are you seriously- with a straight face- suggesting that the Indianapolis Colts should play their starters in a game that has no effect on their own playoff destiny out of fairness to the Cleveland Browns, who were one game short by their own doing?

Pardon me, but what do the Colts owe the Cleveland Browns? Should Peyton Manning risk his legacy because the Browns are 10-6 and not 11-5? Are you kidding me?

Why would Manning, Dungy, etc. risk contract incentives of advancing through the playoffs and a possible Super Bowl victory in the name of the Cleveland Browns?

You must also be arguing that had the Browns been 11-5 and already in, that the Colts should suit up and play their best, too, because it's all about that regular season win-loss record.

I tell ya, I'm old school , too, and if it gives my team a better shot at winning it all if I sit 'em down, I sit 'em down.

By being a part of the NFL, they owe each of the other team in the league their best efforts. There is no moral, ethical or business distinction between sending in your scrubs to rest starters in the playoffs and sending in your scrubs to get a better shot at draft position. In both instances you are failing to put forth your best effort in a way that does better for your own team, but hurts the legitimacy of the games being played on the field. If the Bengals, once they were eliminated from playoff contention, decided to sit down and mail in the rest of the season to improve their draft position, there would be an uproar. Why should this be any different?

To me, it doesn't matter what your record is, you play 16 games to win and you put forth your best effort to do so. If not, you might as well go back to the early days of the NFL, when teams were suiting up high school kids just to finish out the season.

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 05:56 PM
By being a part of the NFL, they owe each of the other team in the league their best efforts. There is no moral, ethical or business distinction between sending in your scrubs to rest starters in the playoffs and sending in your scrubs to get a better shot at draft position.

There is a distinction, though.

The Colts are not sitting their players in an effort to lose the game. For goodness sake, the Colts backups nearly beat the Titans. The Colts weren't trying to win or lose that game, because it didn't matter to them one way or the other (though in their defense, again, the backups were trying to win).

They sat them for the sake of having the best chance in the playoffs.

The difference there is huge. One is an effort to have a better shot at winning a known playoff game, while the other is trying to lose to secure a better draft pick.

In the scenario you are presenting, trying to lose betters your situation, which isn't a good thing, I agree.

But the Colts weren't doing that in any way, shape or form.

"Best efforts" does not mean putting your best players on the field in a situation that can only hurt your team.

The Colts should not be put in the position of losing their star players because the team in Cleveland failed to win one more game.

smoke6
12-31-2007, 06:03 PM
Who's your third stringer?

Ken Dorsey

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 06:16 PM
To me, it doesn't matter what your record is, you play 16 games to win and you put forth your best effort to do so.

Checkers, yes. Football, no. There is too much of a chance of injury to say, "No matter what, I put my best players on the field."

Everything is conditional.


If not, you might as well go back to the early days of the NFL, when teams were suiting up high school kids just to finish out the season.

You know, I'd put my grandmother on the field before I'd put Peyton Manning out there against the Titans Sunday night.

Seriously- let me ask you this. If Cleveland was 11-5 and had secured a playoff spot along with the Colts, should Tony Dungy have played his best players?

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 07:07 PM
By being a part of the NFL, they owe each of the other team in the league their best efforts. There is no moral, ethical or business distinction between sending in your scrubs to rest starters in the playoffs and sending in your scrubs to get a better shot at draft position. In both instances you are failing to put forth your best effort in a way that does better for your own team, but hurts the legitimacy of the games being played on the field. If the Bengals, once they were eliminated from playoff contention, decided to sit down and mail in the rest of the season to improve their draft position, there would be an uproar. Why should this be any different?

To me, it doesn't matter what your record is, you play 16 games to win and you put forth your best effort to do so. If not, you might as well go back to the early days of the NFL, when teams were suiting up high school kids just to finish out the season.

So if Harang and Arroyo are throwing well they should throw until their arms fall off on games 1 and 2 (actual game numbers subject to change pending a Bedard trade:D)of next season...because you play to win the current game, not take adequate risk control measures with your teams top assets. Is that right....

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 07:11 PM
Memory here...

Remember back in 02 when the Browns made the playoffs...

Do you know a huge reason why...

Browns vs Falcons (Run William Run game)

Because in an "and goal" situation going for the win, the Falcons (playoffs clinched) handed off rather than send Mr. Vick scrambling in for the win. It was obvious to anyone watching the game they were protecting him. I believe if you give Vick a few shots there...the Falcons win and the Browns currently have a 13 year playoff drought.

Were the Falcons poor sports???

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 07:39 PM
So if Harang and Arroyo are throwing well they should throw until their arms fall off on games 1 and 2 (actual game numbers subject to change pending a Bedard trade:D)of next season...because you play to win the current game, not take adequate risk control measures with your teams top assets. Is that right....

I'm not saying that at all. If the Reds were in a pennant race, I'm sure they'd limit the inning that Harang and Arroyo pitch in order to save their arms for the playoffs. That's something different than sitting your starting lineup and sending a bunch of scrubs out there for the last week of the season.

The Colts didn't just sit Manning, they sat many of their starters at other positions too. There's a difference.

WMR
12-31-2007, 07:45 PM
You would honestly want our starters playing in game 16 if we had the playoffs and a first round bye all wrapped up??

Glad you don't coach the Bengals.

I would be livid if we lost ANY starter in a game that was meaningless for US.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 07:51 PM
There is a distinction, though.

The Colts are not sitting their players in an effort to lose the game. For goodness sake, the Colts backups nearly beat the Titans. The Colts weren't trying to win or lose that game, because it didn't matter to them one way or the other (though in their defense, again, the backups were trying to win).

They sat them for the sake of having the best chance in the playoffs.

The difference there is huge. One is an effort to have a better shot at winning a known playoff game, while the other is trying to lose to secure a better draft pick.

In the scenario you are presenting, trying to lose betters your situation, which isn't a good thing, I agree.

But the Colts weren't doing that in any way, shape or form.

"Best efforts" does not mean putting your best players on the field in a situation that can only hurt your team.

The Colts should not be put in the position of losing their star players because the team in Cleveland failed to win one more game.

"Best Efforts" doesn't necessarily mean throwing every starter out there and running them into the ground. No team does that until the Super Bowl, because everybody knows they might have another game to play. "Best efforts" does mean trying to win, and I don't think the Colts really cared whether they won or lost. Taking Manning out is one thing, taking out your starting lineup early in the game is another.

How many games Cleveland won or lost doesn't figure into it in my mind. It's the integrity of the game. You play to win 16 games in the regular season and . If you're not in it to win the game, then get off the field. Every team in the league deserved the best efforts of their opponent to win the game. No one deserves a walkover because someone else clinched a playoff spot, just as no one deserves a walkover because someone else wants a better draft position. Teams are expected to play 16 games, not 15 and an extra exhibition game.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-31-2007, 07:53 PM
"Best Efforts" doesn't necessarily mean throwing every starter out there and running them into the ground. No team does that until the Super Bowl, because everybody knows they might have another game to play. "Best efforts" does mean trying to win, and I don't think the Colts really cared whether they won or lost. Taking Manning out is one thing, taking out your starting lineup early in the game is another.

How many games Cleveland won or lost doesn't figure into it in my mind. It's the integrity of the game. You play to win 16 games in the regular season and . If you're not in it to win the game, then get off the field. Every team in the league deserved the best efforts of their opponent to win the game. No one deserves a walkover because someone else clinched a playoff spot, just as no one deserves a walkover because someone else wants a better draft position. Teams are expected to play 16 games, not 15 and an extra exhibition game.

Well said.

WMR
12-31-2007, 07:56 PM
Well said.

All of the back-ups gave 100% effort.

remdog
12-31-2007, 07:57 PM
Somehow I think that, had the situation had been reversed and the Browns had beaten the Colts in a similar situation to get into the playoffs, this thread wouldn't even exsist.

Rem

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 07:58 PM
You would honestly want our starters playing in game 16 if we had the playoffs and a first round bye all wrapped up??

Glad you don't coach the Bengals.

I would be livid if we lost ANY starter in a game that was meaningless for US.

If it's a regular season game, it's not meaningless. Meaningless games end with the season opener. If I were the coach of the Bengals, I'd have my team out there trying to win every game. Doesn't mean I'm going to do something stupid like having Carson and Chad and TJ out there in a rout, but it does mean I'm going to put players on the field who I believe will win the game. And as a coach, I'd expect fans of my team to want me to win every game.

In fact, I personally believe that teams that sit all their starters tend to do poorly in the playoffs. I guess we'll see what happens to the Colts in a few weeks.

WMR
12-31-2007, 07:59 PM
What did the Colts have to tangibly gain from that game last night versus the Titans?

Asides from emerging from the game without major injuries.

guttle11
12-31-2007, 08:03 PM
All of the back-ups gave 100% effort.

Exactly. Every player that played for the Colts and other teams in similar situations played hard. Heck, in most cases those guys are fighting for a job next year. Some of the younger guys are fighting for a promotion/raise (Except for Sorgi...he seems to have a lofty, tenured spot as the backup). You could argue they played with more passion and energy than the starters would have.

It says nothing about the integrity of the game, or that you're not trying to win, if you rest your starters in that, or any, circumstance. Suggesting otherwise is absurd, bordering on laughable to be honest.

WMR
12-31-2007, 08:38 PM
LMAO- Jim Sorgi: Luckiest man in the NFL.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 08:56 PM
"Best Efforts" doesn't necessarily mean throwing every starter out there and running them into the ground. No team does that until the Super Bowl, because everybody knows they might have another game to play. "Best efforts" does mean trying to win, and I don't think the Colts really cared whether they won or lost. Taking Manning out is one thing, taking out your starting lineup early in the game is another.

How many games Cleveland won or lost doesn't figure into it in my mind. It's the integrity of the game. You play to win 16 games in the regular season and . If you're not in it to win the game, then get off the field. Every team in the league deserved the best efforts of their opponent to win the game. No one deserves a walkover because someone else clinched a playoff spot, just as no one deserves a walkover because someone else wants a better draft position. Teams are expected to play 16 games, not 15 and an extra exhibition game.

What about the Clev/Atl game I referenced where the Falcons didn't risk running Vick at the end of the game...what is your opinion on that.

I think that in all these posts one thing is clear. Everyone draws a line on this matter in someway. Some say you can rest players before the playoffs. Some say your starters need to go all out every game. Everyone has an opinion and thats fine. Whats not fine is when one opinion keeps saying it is immoral/poor sportsmanship about the other side. To all those who wanted the Colts starters in there all game...fine thats your opinion. But to bash those who disagree (Tony Dungy) is not ok. It is a matter of opinion on this issue...that does not make those who disagree poor sports/bad guys. All I've been doing in this thread is defending what Indy did...if you disagree thats fine...but that sure doesn't make you unethical.

This is a matter of opinion everyone...no one side will ever win this issue. That does need to be acknowedgled...I'm seeing too many opinions stated as fact in this thread (myself probably included if I would scroll back up).

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 08:59 PM
What did the Colts have to tangibly gain from that game last night versus the Titans?

Asides from emerging from the game without major injuries.


Nothing other than individual goals and getting a chance to see some backups in game action. Thats it. Some on here will say they owe it to the NFL/fans to play all their starters. My opinion is they first and foremost owe it to their fans and players to put them in the best position to win the Superbowl.

Danny Serafini
12-31-2007, 09:30 PM
The backups for the Colts are likely as good as the starters for the Dolphins. Had Tennessee beaten Miami this week to get in the playoffs I doubt there would be any complaining about how they got in.

Dom Heffner
12-31-2007, 09:37 PM
If it's a regular season game, it's not meaningless.

See, the argument really isn't whether the game is meaningless or not. It's that the game had no playoff implications for the Colts, so they benched all their starters so none would get hurt before their upcoming playoff game which they secured by having a terrific record.

The goal of a team in the NFL is to get to the playoffs, and once that is secured, go as far as they can once there.

That's more important than beating the Titans in week 17 of a game that does not improve their standing in the playoffs.

And "best efforts" to me means doing what is most important for your own team to win a playoff game.


Doesn't mean I'm going to do something stupid like having Carson and Chad and TJ out there in a rout, but it does mean I'm going to put players on the field who I believe will win the game.

That isn't a "best effort" if your "best" players aren't out there. You seem to be arguing in favor of a middling one.


And as a coach, I'd expect fans of my team to want me to win every game.


Your fans expect you to have your team intact when the playoffs begin. If they don't understand that, then fine, because you aren't running a popularity contest.


In fact, I personally believe that teams that sit all their starters tend to do poorly in the playoffs.

And they would do even worse with someone sitting on the bench with a torn ACL caused in a game with no playoff implications for themselves.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 10:32 PM
See, the argument really isn't whether the game is meaningless or not. It's that the game had no playoff implications for the Colts, so they benched all their starters so none would get hurt before their upcoming playoff game which they secured by having a terrific record.

The goal of a team in the NFL is to get to the playoffs, and once that is secured, go as far as they can once there.

That's more important than beating the Titans in week 17 of a game that does not improve their standing in the playoffs.

And "best efforts" to me means doing what is most important for your own team to win a playoff game.



That isn't a "best effort" if your "best" players aren't out there. You seem to be arguing in favor of a middling one.



Your fans expect you to have your team intact when the playoffs begin. If they don't understand that, then fine, because you aren't running a popularity contest.



And they would do even worse with someone sitting on the bench with a torn ACL caused in a game with no playoff implications for themselves.

"Best Efforts" doesn't mean something ridiculous like running everybody out there and throwing bombs when the game is well in hand. I don't see how my position is a middling one. You play to win every game. Once you have the win in hand, I have no problem with calling off the dogs. But I see games in and of themselves as individual competitive events which should be played on the level.

As far as what teams owe who, the NFL is not a collection of individual enterprises. It is a group of franchises in one business that have allied themselves for the good of the game. Therefore, every team owes all the customers equally of a fair game in which each team endeavors to win the game. This isn't the early days, when NFL teams could fill out their schedules by playing college and semi-pro teams. It's a league in which 32 teams play 16 games each and the fans, players and owners of every team deserve and should expect the best efforts of every other team on the field. You can argue about individual Joe Colts fan all you want, but I'm talking about, as a principle, all games should be played with each team putting forth its best effort until victory is in hand. Its the only way to ensure the health and success of the league long term. You can argue that the NFL is tremendously successful now. But that doesn't guarantee it will stay that way. I believe it won't if you have teams not willing to play the game on the level with their best players.

Folks around here seem to think I'm a Browns fan, but I assure you, I am not. I just feel that professional sporting events should be played on the level, meaning that each team is doing what it needs to do to win the game. I say that as a consumer of professional sports. And as far as injuries go, they happen. Its a fact of life in sports. I hate to see anyone injured in a game, but other teams are out there risking their guys too when they don't even have the playoffs to play for. They have nothing but next season. Yet for some reason, they still feel the need to win football games. Why should a playoff team be any different?

You argue the "what's best for my team" position? Where do you draw the line on that? Is it best for my team to lose to secure a better draft position? Is it better for my team to opt out of broadcasting games on CBS and FOX in favor of my own cable deal? Is it best for my team to opt out of revenue sharing? Each team's success is due to the fact that they play in a league with 31 other teams. Without those 31 teams, that one team is nothing. So to go with a "me first" attitude, at least to me, is far more destructive long term than any perceived short term playoff gains might be.

As an aside, I suspect the Patriots are in a better position to win in the playoffs than the Colts. Their starters had to be mentally sharp for 16 games. The Colts' starters only 15.

Yachtzee
12-31-2007, 10:45 PM
What about the Clev/Atl game I referenced where the Falcons didn't risk running Vick at the end of the game...what is your opinion on that.

I think that in all these posts one thing is clear. Everyone draws a line on this matter in someway. Some say you can rest players before the playoffs. Some say your starters need to go all out every game. Everyone has an opinion and thats fine. Whats not fine is when one opinion keeps saying it is immoral/poor sportsmanship about the other side. To all those who wanted the Colts starters in there all game...fine thats your opinion. But to bash those who disagree (Tony Dungy) is not ok. It is a matter of opinion on this issue...that does not make those who disagree poor sports/bad guys. All I've been doing in this thread is defending what Indy did...if you disagree thats fine...but that sure doesn't make you unethical.

This is a matter of opinion everyone...no one side will ever win this issue. That does need to be acknowedgled...I'm seeing too many opinions stated as fact in this thread (myself probably included if I would scroll back up).

I'm not bashing anyone here. Tony Dungy is a public figure in a business of which I am a consumer, so I feel I can comment on his actions. As far as the Michael Vick play goes, the difference is that Michael Vick was still on the field, which indicates to me that the Falcons still intended to win the game. To get into haggling about individual plays is of no use because we have no idea what the Falcons coaching staff was thinking by calling someone else's number other than Vick. And there's still the chance for Vick to audible if the defensive alignment was favorable. But at least Vick was out there.

WMR
12-31-2007, 10:48 PM
I know where your allegiances lie, Yacht. C'mon now.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 10:51 PM
"Best Efforts" doesn't mean something ridiculous like running everybody out there and throwing bombs when the game is well in hand. I don't see how my position is a middling one. You play to win every game. Once you have the win in hand, I have no problem with calling off the dogs. But I see games in and of themselves as individual competitive events which should be played on the level.

As far as what teams owe who, the NFL is not a collection of individual enterprises. It is a group of franchises in one business that have allied themselves for the good of the game. Therefore, every team owes all the customers equally of a fair game in which each team endeavors to win the game. This isn't the early days, when NFL teams could fill out their schedules by playing college and semi-pro teams. It's a league in which 32 teams play 16 games each and the fans, players and owners of every team deserve and should expect the best efforts of every other team on the field. You can argue about individual Joe Colts fan all you want, but I'm talking about, as a principle, all games should be played with each team putting forth its best effort until victory is in hand. Its the only way to ensure the health and success of the league long term. You can argue that the NFL is tremendously successful now. But that doesn't guarantee it will stay that way. I believe it won't if you have teams not willing to play the game on the level with their best players.

Folks around here seem to think I'm a Browns fan, but I assure you, I am not. I just feel that professional sporting events should be played on the level, meaning that each team is doing what it needs to do to win the game. I say that as a consumer of professional sports. And as far as injuries go, they happen. Its a fact of life in sports. I hate to see anyone injured in a game, but other teams are out there risking their guys too when they don't even have the playoffs to play for. They have nothing but next season. Yet for some reason, they still feel the need to win football games. Why should a playoff team be any different?

You argue the "what's best for my team" position? Where do you draw the line on that? Is it best for my team to lose to secure a better draft position? Is it better for my team to opt out of broadcasting games on CBS and FOX in favor of my own cable deal? Is it best for my team to opt out of revenue sharing? Each team's success is due to the fact that they play in a league with 31 other teams. Without those 31 teams, that one team is nothing. So to go with a "me first" attitude, at least to me, is far more destructive long term than any perceived short term playoff gains might be.

As an aside, I suspect the Patriots are in a better position to win in the playoffs than the Colts. Their starters had to be mentally sharp for 16 games. The Colts' starters only 15.

I asked before...what is your opinion on this game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=221229005

On the drive that is mentioned about the Browns' goalline stand...should the Falcons have risked sending Vick into the pile. For anyone watching the game/paying attention that year...it was known they did not do it to prevent possible injury.

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 10:57 PM
I'm not bashing anyone here. Tony Dungy is a public figure in a business of which I am a consumer, so I feel I can comment on his actions. As far as the Michael Vick play goes, the difference is that Michael Vick was still on the field, which indicates to me that the Falcons still intended to win the game. To get into haggling about individual plays is of no use because we have no idea what the Falcons coaching staff was thinking by calling someone else's number other than Vick. And there's still the chance for Vick to audible if the defensive alignment was favorable. But at least Vick was out there.

They didn't go 100 percent for the win though...Vick was the most/one of the most dangerous men in the NFL that year. It was obvious what the Falcons were doing. Just to be clear...you are ok with that???

kaldaniels
12-31-2007, 10:59 PM
I'm not bashing anyone here. Tony Dungy is a public figure in a business of which I am a consumer, so I feel I can comment on his actions. As far as the Michael Vick play goes, the difference is that Michael Vick was still on the field, which indicates to me that the Falcons still intended to win the game. To get into haggling about individual plays is of no use because we have no idea what the Falcons coaching staff was thinking by calling someone else's number other than Vick. And there's still the chance for Vick to audible if the defensive alignment was favorable. But at least Vick was out there.

"The subliminal message must have rung in Atlanta coach Dan Reeves' ears. For on the next four plays, Reeves did not allow Vick to win the game with his celebrated legs. The Falcons tried three handoffs to Warrick Dunn sandwiched around a Vick pass."

http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?/browns/more/history/20021229BROWNS.html

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 01:17 AM
I know where your allegiances lie, Yacht. C'mon now.

You should know I'm a Bengals fan then. Always have been. While I'd debating with you about whether the Colts actions were legit, you can bet I was over at my friend's earlier this evening giving him crap about his team sitting at home with the Bengals for the playoffs. Some of my best friends are Browns fans, but some of the biggest a-holes in the world I've met I've met at Browns games.

From childhood, I've always learned and always believed that you do your best in sporting endeavors, play fair, and play to win every game. I feel this is especially true in professional sports, where people are being paid to put on a sporting event.

Does that mean go out and get Peyton Manning killed? No. Does it mean putting the majority of your starters out there and trying to win? Yes.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 01:36 AM
They didn't go 100 percent for the win though...Vick was the most/one of the most dangerous men in the NFL that year. It was obvious what the Falcons were doing. Just to be clear...you are ok with that???

So you're going to equate the Falcons rushing Warrick Dunn on a goal line series starting at 1st and goal at the 4 with benching the starters at the beginning of the game? Warrick Dunn, who rushed for over 900 yards and averaged 4 yards per carry in 2002? Vick and Dunn were both starters and were both out on the field, along with the Falcons' first string O-line. If they couldn't get 4 yards in 4 downs, well that's on them. I don't know how often the Falcons ran Vick on runs up the gut in the first place. He always seemed more dangerous on long yardage plays where he could drop back, scan the field and then take off if there wasn't anything there. Granted, I've never seen much of the Falcons, being more of an AFC person myself, so I don't know. How often did the Falcons run Vick up the gut in short yardage and goal line situations?

In any case, the starters were still out there and the Falcons were still trying to score with their best team on the field. But say, if for some odd reason, Dan Reeves came out and said, "I called the plays I did because I didn't care about winning anymore," well then I'd say that's wrong.

GAC
01-01-2008, 06:22 AM
It wasn't a surprise, it's what Dungy should have done, and get over it.....Wah, wah, wah..... "I know this game meant nothing to us, but we wanted to make sure we were fair to the Cleveland Browns."

And for the umpteenth time Dom, this is not about the Browns, sour grapes, etc. It's obvious that you haven't been following this thread or you would have seen that. Go back and do some review. ;)

I can direct you to two Brown's forum where the fans aren't on there whining and complaining about what happened. An overwhelming majority, including myself, understood the situation, and the subsequent consequences, so there is no reason to rehash that. And while every Browns fan is proud of what the Browns accomplished this year, they also realized the reality that due to the Brown's defense they would have probably been fodder in the first round of the playoffs. Just as the Titans will be.

So again - it's not about the Browns.


Browns fans: win one more game (like at Cincy) and you don't need to worry about what the Colts do

Again. We already know that Dom, and agree. Every game during the season is important. Just not week #16. ;)

It's funny how some are saying that the Browns should have taken care of business when they had to (which is true); but the Titans didn't either. They didn't have to when their opponent is expected to lay down for them and gift wrap a playoff spot.


Have you guys ever watched football before? Week 16 is a weird week. It just is..... How is this even debatable?

You're debating it. :lol:

What we are debating is this "environment" or mentality that has evolved in the NFL that week 16 has become a week of meaningless games for a lot of teams. So you "lay down" all for the sake of avoiding a possibility of injury to a key player.

Everyone understands the reality, and that this practice has become the "norm" in the NFL. Many are saying they simply dislike the practice.


Imagine Manning missing the playoffs with an injury sustained in the name of having the Titans make the playoffs fair and square. Can you imagine that press conference?

Then why did he even play the entire 1st quarter then? I guess the risk is minimal during the 1st quarter?

The Colts had a playoff spot and bye locked up after week 14. Why was Manning & company in there the following week? Was it foolish and risky for Dungy to be playing them when it was meaningless?

Was Belichek an idiot for continuing to play his starters when he didn't need to, just for the sake of an unbeaten season?

While the Packers already were locked in as the NFC's No. 2 playoff seed, and they did rest some of their starters, Favre played until almost the midway point of the 2nd quarter. They removed him when they were up 21-3. When asked about it, Brett said there's no such thing as a meaningless game.... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271230009

I guess Favre and the coach McCarthy are fools huh? Especially since they did suffer some injuries in that game.

And what about this scenario?.....

Lets say a team has the division and playoff spot locked up after week 12 or 13 due to the fact they are in a weak division. They know they don't have a shot at a bye, so they decide to either not play or only sparingly play a majority of their starters for the next 2-3 weeks. Why risk it?

All I'm saying Dom is that IMO it cheapens the game of football, it's integrity, and what the game is all about.

GAC
01-01-2008, 06:36 AM
Somehow I think that, had the situation had been reversed and the Browns had beaten the Colts in a similar situation to get into the playoffs, this thread wouldn't even exsist.

Rem


But anytime your playoff hopes are dependent upon what another team does (needing to lose), then you're putting yourself in a bad position.

It just goes to show just how important every game is during the season. And it brings me back to that loss to Oakland as one example.

But if the Browns had been in the same position as an Indy, they would have done the same thing. That's the nature of the beast anymore.

My position on this "laying down" in week 16 because of so-called meaningless games has been consistent for many years now. Not about the Browns rem. They wouldn't have made it out of the 1st round with that defense. ;)

GAC
01-01-2008, 06:39 AM
Exactly. Every player that played for the Colts and other teams in similar situations played hard.

So does Juan Castro and Tony Womack. They were scrappy; but I didn't see you expressing much love for them or that our chances of winning were better with them in there. :lol:

Lets quit kidding ourselves. These guys are backups for a reason.... they aren't good enough to be starters, or they would be.

GAC
01-01-2008, 06:47 AM
What about the Clev/Atl game I referenced where the Falcons didn't risk running Vick at the end of the game...what is your opinion on that.

We were asked this before, in a similar situation....


I stated this prior......

But again, and at least with me, this is not about the Browns.

I have never agreed with this, so NO, I wouldn't like or agree with it if Romeo did it.

If I think it's wrong, then it's wrong.

I simply don't believe there are meaningless games during the regular season. And my position has been consistent on this issue for many years now, concerning teams "laying down" in week 16 (basically conceding the game) just because you don't want to risk injury.

It would be no different for me if Cleveland did it.

WMR
01-01-2008, 10:29 AM
What about in the English Premier League when Manchester United has clinched the points championship with a game or two remaining and decide to play ALL of their youngsters in the final two games that mean nothing for them when one of their final opponents needs a win to avoid relegation?

Razor Shines
01-01-2008, 11:14 AM
And for the umpteenth time Dom, this is not about the Browns, sour grapes, etc. It's obvious that you haven't been following this thread or you would have seen that. Go back and do some review. ;)

I can direct you to two Brown's forum where the fans aren't on there whining and complaining about what happened. An overwhelming majority, including myself, understood the situation, and the subsequent consequences, so there is no reason to rehash that. And while every Browns fan is proud of what the Browns accomplished this year, they also realized the reality that due to the Brown's defense they would have probably been fodder in the first round of the playoffs. Just as the Titans will be.

So again - it's not about the Browns.



Again. We already know that Dom, and agree. Every game during the season is important. Just not week #16. ;)

It's funny how some are saying that the Browns should have taken care of business when they had to (which is true); but the Titans didn't either. They didn't have to when their opponent is expected to lay down for them and gift wrap a playoff spot.



You're debating it. :lol:

What we are debating is this "environment" or mentality that has evolved in the NFL that week 16 has become a week of meaningless games for a lot of teams. So you "lay down" all for the sake of avoiding a possibility of injury to a key player.

Everyone understands the reality, and that this practice has become the "norm" in the NFL. Many are saying they simply dislike the practice.



Then why did he even play the entire 1st quarter then? I guess the risk is minimal during the 1st quarter?

The Colts had a playoff spot and bye locked up after week 14. Why was Manning & company in there the following week? Was it foolish and risky for Dungy to be playing them when it was meaningless?

Was Belichek an idiot for continuing to play his starters when he didn't need to, just for the sake of an unbeaten season?

While the Packers already were locked in as the NFC's No. 2 playoff seed, and they did rest some of their starters, Favre played until almost the midway point of the 2nd quarter. They removed him when they were up 21-3. When asked about it, Brett said there's no such thing as a meaningless game.... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271230009

I guess Favre and the coach McCarthy are fools huh? Especially since they did suffer some injuries in that game.

And what about this scenario?.....

Lets say a team has the division and playoff spot locked up after week 12 or 13 due to the fact they are in a weak division. They know they don't have a shot at a bye, so they decide to either not play or only sparingly play a majority of their starters for the next 2-3 weeks. Why risk it?

All I'm saying Dom is that IMO it cheapens the game of football, it's integrity, and what the game is all about.
My view on the situation is that good teams have EARNED the right to do whatever the heck they want once they've locked up their playoff fate. I'd have been fine if Dungy ran the Pacers out there in the second half, in fact I might have watched it then. I wouldn't have watched that game even if the starters had played the entire game, it was a meaningless game. If you want to change the fact that there are meaningless games in the NFL then petition the league to use rules similar to Rook and make the last game worth 2 or 3 games.

If Brett Favre and the Packers see the situation different than the Colts do that's fine, they've earned the right to decide how they want to use their last game.

Even with the backups they held a pretty good Titans team to 16 points, I'm sure Dungy got some valuable insight on how certain players would react to extended playing time, perhaps something that will help him in the playoffs. Unfortunately for the Colts (and the Browns) we could possibly have the worst 2nd string QB in all of football, I honestly don't think that the Colts would have won that game even if they had left in all the starters minus Manning and Addai. Jim Sorgi is terrible.

And that brings me to another point: As injury riddled as the Colts have been this year (and still are) there is no way Dungy could risk any other injuries. Addai has been banged up, our receiving core has been terribly injury plagued this year (they've run Devin Aromashadu and Craphonso Thorpe out there as regulars this year) , everybody but Saturday has been in and out with injuries on the O-line, Freeney and Robert Mathis are injured on the D-line, all of the line backers have been in and out with injuries. If Dungy doesn't win coach of the year something is wrong.

With all the injuries and putting yourselves in Dungy's shoes anyone still want to say the "fix was on" or Dungy "took the day off" or Dungy "threw the game" or basically Dungy is a cheater?

traderumor
01-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Essentially, what the critics of not playing regulars in this situation are saying is that a MLB playoff bound team playing in the last game of the season against a team in a must-win situation should start their best available starting pitcher in that game if he was available to pitch, even though that would have the potential of eliminating him from being used by that team in the postseason the way they wanted.

And I'm sorry, but twist it anyway you want, but this game had as much motivation for winning to the Indy Colts as the traditional last exhibition game against the Bengals. It is not as easy as "well, they should put their best team on the field for the sake of the NFL and rules of fair play" in a football environment. There is risk of injury on every single play, and having players on the field who are not entirely focused is even more dangerous. "But they're professionals, they should always be focused on the field." I think we know human nature better than that.

If anyone knows this, its a Bengals fan, where it all blew up on the first play of a game, and there could not have been a more focused individual at that point than Carson Palmer.

I'd say Dungy was foolish for letting Manning play at all in the game.

traderumor
01-01-2008, 12:43 PM
If Brett Favre and the Packers see the situation different than the Colts do that's fine, they've earned the right to decide how they want to use their last game. That's the crux of it. Favre is a rough neck and that response is very much in line with his personality.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Essentially, what the critics of not playing regulars in this situation are saying is that a MLB playoff bound team playing in the last game of the season against a team in a must-win situation should start their best available starting pitcher in that game if he was available to pitch, even though that would have the potential of eliminating him from being used by that team in the postseason the way they wanted.

And I'm sorry, but twist it anyway you want, but this game had as much motivation for winning to the Indy Colts as the traditional last exhibition game against the Bengals. It is not as easy as "well, they should put their best team on the field for the sake of the NFL and rules of fair play" in a football environment. There is risk of injury on every single play, and having players on the field who are not entirely focused is even more dangerous. "But they're professionals, they should always be focused on the field." I think we know human nature better than that.

If anyone knows this, its a Bengals fan, where it all blew up on the first play of a game, and there could not have been a more focused individual at that point than Carson Palmer.

I'd say Dungy was foolish for letting Manning play at all in the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080101&sportCat=nfl


In other football news, it's almost midnight on the final day of the regular season and one playoff slot remains undetermined. If Tennessee can hold on to defeat the Indianapolis practice squad -- Clint Session and Michael Toudouze are among Colts who have been on the turf most of the game -- the Flaming Thumbtacks are in. If the Colts' practice squad rallies, the Browns are in. With Tennessee leading 16-10, Indianapolis faces fourth-and-11 at the two-minute warning. Jim Sorgi throws deep to an uncovered Devin Aromashodu, and all across Ohio, people must have gasped as the ball flew and the Titans' end zone beckoned. Aromashodu dropped the pass as if it were a live ferret, and the clock struck midnight on the Browns' almost-magical season.

The NFL has a rule saying teams must make a "bona-fide effort" to win, even if the game has no impact on the standings. The Giants surely honored that rule by going all-out against the Patriots, although Jersey/A already had locked into its seeding; the Giants' all-out effort was extremely impressive, and bodes well for their postseason. Most season-finale games don't matter, so no one cares about the bona fide effort rule. But Indianapolis, which also had locked up its seed already, did not make a bona fide effort to defeat Tennessee -- Peyton Manning played two series; starters sat out the second half -- and Tony Dungy's decision to field his practice squad had the effect of keeping Cleveland out of the postseason. There's no conspiracy here since Indianapolis, as the second seed, couldn't play the sixth seed (whether Tennessee or Cleveland) before the AFC championship and the sixth seed reaching the championship is unlikely. Still, the rule stipulates that NFL teams must try to win, and, in a consequential game, Indianapolis did not try to win.

Cleveland has a grievance -- and the football gods might wax wroth against the Colts. (Dallas did not try to beat Washington, either, but as Minnesota and New Orleans both lost, neither can complain about the Cowboys.)

League rules are league rules. If you're going to argue for selective enforcement for Indy, then you have to argue for selective enforcement against a team that tanks for better draft position. Or what about the rule against performance enhancers? Or videotaping the sidelines? They're just trying to win a Super Bowl, right? I've never seen a rule where it said "Follow these rules, unless you are trying to win a Super Bowl. Then it's okay to break them."

While I doubt the league will do anything about Indy (or Dallas for that matter), it should. I don't think it's much different than the Pats videotaping the sidelines. They're just trying to win a Super Bowl too, right?

blumj
01-01-2008, 01:53 PM
I thought Dallas actually played their starters, but they just happened to play like practice squad guys?

kaldaniels
01-01-2008, 02:17 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080101&sportCat=nfl



League rules are league rules. If you're going to argue for selective enforcement for Indy, then you have to argue for selective enforcement against a team that tanks for better draft position. Or what about the rule against performance enhancers? Or videotaping the sidelines? They're just trying to win a Super Bowl, right? I've never seen a rule where it said "Follow these rules, unless you are trying to win a Super Bowl. Then it's okay to break them."

While I doubt the league will do anything about Indy (or Dallas for that matter), it should. I don't think it's much different than the Pats videotaping the sidelines. They're just trying to win a Super Bowl too, right?

#1...Throwing up a blurb from Gregg Easterbrook as if it is gospel...now thats uncool. (Simmer down Yatz...not a shot at you, a shot at Easterbrook).

#2...If rules are rules...do you find it unethical when the leadoff batter wipes out the chalk around the batters box in the 1st inning. Cause thats a league rule. However we all know with a wink and a nod it is allowed.

I really do wish the Colts had played their starters during the game...cause the Browns would probably be in the playoffs. However, it was their right to make the decisions they did, and as a fan who sees the big picture I agree with what they did.

I see no answer to the post from above though. To rephrase, it is game 162 and the Reds have already won the division. They have Harang availble on full rest. All the other starters are not rested. Is is ok to throw your #6 starter out there on game 162 with the division in hand. Because if you do not...the Reds are not playing to win game 162 because they are resting up for the playoffs. Sure you will bring up the points that pitchers need rest while it is not required for QBs...save that. The simple fact is that in that situation the Reds would not be putting their complete top roster out there in the final game...is that ok??? I could even complicate that scenario by saving another team's wildcard shot depended on the outcome of the Reds game...field that one if you wish.

blumj
01-01-2008, 02:23 PM
#1...Throwing up a blurb from Gregg Easterbrook as if it is gospel...now thats uncool. (Simmer down Yatz...not a shot at you, a shot at Easterbrook).
Just for fun, he was completely wrong about the 2 passes to Moss in the NYG-Pats game, those were not the same play at all, and the 2nd one wasn't even intended to go to Moss. But, to be fair, I've seen plenty of others make the same assumption just because of the result being a long attempt to Moss in the about the same place.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 03:09 PM
#1...Throwing up a blurb from Gregg Easterbrook as if it is gospel...now thats uncool. (Simmer down Yatz...not a shot at you, a shot at Easterbrook).



Just pointing out that not everyone thinks what Indy was doing is proper. I realize many of Easterbrook's comments are meant in jest, but he also includes a lot of valid criticism about the league.




#2...If rules are rules...do you find it unethical when the leadoff batter wipes out the chalk around the batters box in the 1st inning. Cause thats a league rule. However we all know with a wink and a nod it is allowed.


I have always felt umpires need to enforce the rules about the batter's box. It's unfair to pitchers that batters should be allowed to erase the lines so that they can sit on top of the plate or stand as far back or forward in the box they wish.




I really do wish the Colts had played their starters during the game...cause the Browns would probably be in the playoffs. However, it was their right to make the decisions they did, and as a fan who sees the big picture I agree with what they did.



One team's selfish choice for one season's playoff run is hardly the big picture. The big picture is that, for the NFL to continue its success on into the future, every game must be played on the level, with each team putting forth a bona-fide effort to win each game. I imagine that, if this trend continues, the biggest complaint will come from TV networks and advertisers. They pay big money to the NFL for the rights to broadcast and advertise during games. If people stop watching those game because they are "meaningless," the networks and advertisers lose money. The rule that teams make a bona fide effort is there because, if fans and advertisers lose faith that the games are played to win, then that money goes away. Do you think the NFL wants to start giving refunds because teams stopped playing after 15 games?



I see no answer to the post from above though. To rephrase, it is game 162 and the Reds have already won the division. They have Harang availble on full rest. All the other starters are not rested. Is is ok to throw your #6 starter out there on game 162 with the division in hand. Because if you do not...the Reds are not playing to win game 162 because they are resting up for the playoffs. Sure you will bring up the points that pitchers need rest while it is not required for QBs...save that. The simple fact is that in that situation the Reds would not be putting their complete top roster out there in the final game...is that ok??? I could even complicate that scenario by saving another team's wildcard shot depended on the outcome of the Reds game...field that one if you wish.

If the Reds have no other pitchers available that they think can win the game, then I say the Reds have to pitch Harang. They have to put a team on the field with the bona fide intent to win the game. Of course, teams build a pitching staff under the belief each one of those starters can win a game, so there's a vast difference in degrees with skipping the start of one starter on a staff of five for one game and taking out your entire starting lineup for the last 1/16th of the season. Baseball teams skip starts for starters all the time, either to give a guy extra rest or to get a better matchup in a subsequent game. The difference is that they still put up a starter they believe can win the game and they still put the rest of their starting lineup out there. If the Reds sat their starting lineup and put some rag-armed long reliever out there to save their starters AND bullpen, then yes, I would feel they weren't putting forth a bona fide effort to win the game and I would be against that.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 03:40 PM
The big picture is that, for the NFL to continue its success on into the future, every game must be played on the level, with each team putting forth a bona-fide effort to win each game.

The NFL has never been more popular. If it ever does fail, it won't be due to teams giving their players the day off in week 17. It's really laughable that you think the success of the entire league rests on games where the outcome is irrelevelant for at least one of the opponents. Yeah, this has been a really big issue all the time. If I hear one more time about how somebody is going to quit watching football because the Jaguars and Texans didn't play their starters on Sunday, I'm going to jump off a bridge. :)

You've also argued on here that the Bengals should sit Chad, Carson, and TJ, but not everybody because on one hand you shouldn't be stupid and play your best players yet on the other hand you should give a best effort by playing most of the other best players. I can't follow this logic.

Your entire argument is flawed at its base because you are saying that each game is equal in weight.

They are not. Games at the end of the season are inherently not necessarily relevant for all opponents involved. The goal of a team in the NFL is not to have the best regular season record it can. It isn't. It is to go as far as one can in the playoffs.

You are equating deliberately throwing a game with holding out the best players in an effort to win a championship. The former is what would sink the league, and the the latter is what should be the goal of every NFL team.

You keep arguing about what is best for the league.

Well here's a thought: Why would somebody want to watch a playoff game or pay money to see one where Peyton Manning isn't playing because he got hurt in a week 17 matchup where it didn't affect anything? Who would watch that game?

Seriously- how would the survival of the league fare if during the playoffs we got to see a bunch of backups playing becuase teams were forced to play their players in games that did not affect their playoff seeding?

The only thing selfish about this is your argument. You think that the Colts should risk their own playoff chances because the Browns didn't win enough games. That's really what you are saying.

Your argument is drawn in black and white terms, which if applied, would actually hurt the league.

What you are saying is that all regular season games should be played with the exact same zeal, even if it comes at the expense of the postseason, which is really why we even play 16 games to begin with. The postseason is what is about. Not the difference between 11-5 and 10-6.

You call that selfish. Well, if wanting to win it all is selfish, then every team to step on a football should be found guilty.

Winning it all is the point- not winning every single regular season game.

And that my friend is where your argument fails.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 04:05 PM
The NFL has never been more popular. If it ever does fail, it won't be due to teams giving their players the day off in week 17. It's really laughable that you think the success of the entire league rests on games where the outcome is irrelevelant for at least one of the opponents. Yeah, this has been a really big issue all the time. If I hear one more time about how somebody is going to quit watching football because the Jaguars and Texans didn't play their starters on Sunday, I'm going to jump off a bridge. :)

You've also argued on here that the Bengals should sit Chad, Carson, and TJ, but not everybody because on one hand you shouldn't be stupid and play your best players yet on the other hand you should give a best effort by playing most of the other best players. I can't follow this logic.

Your entire argument is flawed at its base because you are saying that each game is equal in weight.

They are not. Games at the end of the season are inherently not necessarily relevant for all opponents involved. The goal of a team in the NFL is not to have the best regular season record it can. It isn't. It is to go as far as one can in the playoffs.

You are equating deliberately throwing a game with holding out the best players in an effort to win a championship. The former is what would sink the league, and the the latter is what should be the goal of every NFL team.

You keep arguing about what is best for the league.

Well here's a thought: Why would somebody want to watch a playoff game or pay money to see one where Peyton Manning isn't playing because he got hurt in a week 17 matchup where it didn't affect anything? Who would watch that game?

Seriously- how would the survival of the league fare if during the playoffs we got to see a bunch of backups playing becuase teams were forced to play their players in games that did not affect their playoff seeding?

The only thing selfish about this is your argument. You think that the Colts should risk their own playoff chances because the Browns didn't win enough games. That's really what you are saying.

Your argument is drawn in black and white terms, which if applied, would actually hurt the league.

What you are saying is that all regular season games should be played with the exact same zeal, even if it comes at the expense of the postseason, which is really why we even play 16 games to begin with. The postseason is what is about. Not the difference between 11-5 and 10-6.

You call that selfish. Well, if wanting to win it all is selfish, then every team to step on a football should be found guilty.

Winning it all is the point- not winning every single regular season game.

And that my friend is where your argument fails.

Some of the greatest victories in NFL playoff history have been achieved when the lowly backup has had to step into the breach when the starter went down.

Sorry, it's not the PMFL, its the NFL. Dom, I don't really understand why you feel the need to consistently twist my argument. I said it's okay to sit Carson, Chad and TJ once they have put up a sufficient lead in the game to ensure victory. I see nothing wrong with that because they've put forth the effort to win the game. That's an entirely different situation than removing all your starters in a competitive game. And if they took everyone out with a big lead and the other team started coming back, I'd argue that the Bengals have to put them back in.

I'm not arguing that the Browns didn't make the playoffs because they didn't win enough games. I'm arguing that the Colts didn't play with a bona fide effort to win their game. What the Browns did is irrelevant. It's others here who keep inserting the Browns into the equations. I don't care about what the Browns did or didn't do. I'm a Bengals fan. Have been since 1978 or so and have gotten more crap from Browns fans than you'll ever know. I can empathize with friends who are Browns fans, but I couldn't give a monkey's butt whether the Browns or Titans are playing this weekend. (You might as well cruise Bengals boards for a user named tibor75 and insist he's a Steelers fan [inside joke from Bengals boards])

The rule states that you play 16 games and you play each game with a bona fide effort to win the game. The NFL instituted that rule because it obviously felt that if teams didn't do that, then the integrity of games would come into question. Fortunately, even though the offseason hopes of most teams in the NFL were set before this past weekend's games, most teams felt it necessary to come out and play their starters in an effort to win. If every team followed the Colts example, then only 5-6 teams would have put in a bona fide effort to win and I guarantee you that would have been a serious black mark on the league. TV, advertisers and season ticket holders would be demanding refunds like crazy. You're saying that wouldn't hurt the league? You don't think people would be calling the NFL to either play 16 games or shorten the season and kick back all the money they got for that last game?

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 04:08 PM
League rules are league rules.

I'll bet when you bill your clients out for an hour, you've always worked the entire hour to the second- no more, no less. Probably use a stopwatch that is calibrated monthly against GMT. Rules are rules, right, bro?


If you're going to argue for selective enforcement for Indy, then you have to argue for selective enforcement against a team that tanks for better draft position.

Again- these are two different situations that you are equating.

In one, a team is trying to win a championship. In the other a team is trying to lose a football game. These are not the same thing.

The spirit of the rule for putting forth a best effort should be that one team does not throw a game.

The rule is not for a team trying to win a championship. We should be encouraging that behavior, not discouraging it.


Or what about the rule against performance enhancers?

This is cheating to gain a competitive advantage. The Colts did not cheat.


Or videotaping the sidelines?

Again, this is cheating to gain a competitive advantage.

I'm not sure if you thought these examples through, but they are both in violation of other rules and have nothing to do with giving a best effort.


I've never seen a rule where it said "Follow these rules, unless you are trying to win a Super Bowl. Then it's okay to break them."

And I've never seen such a misguided analysis of a rule.

For me, a "best effort" rule is in place to uphold the integrity of the league, and this part we agree on. We can't have the public thinking that what they are seeing isn't authentic.

But the Colts are giving a "best effort" to win a championship. They are not trying to lose games, they are trying to win playoff games. That does not hurt the integrity of the league, it helps it, because the grand prize in the NFL is winning the Super Bowl and teams should be trying to win that.

The NFL can't on one hand make the biggest prize in the NFL winning the Super Bowl, then on the other hand enforce rules that hamper that goal for its best teams.

You are starting to remind me of Greg Brady in the episode where he argues with Mr. Brady over meaning what you say and saying what you mean.

traderumor
01-01-2008, 04:10 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080101&sportCat=nfl



League rules are league rules. If you're going to argue for selective enforcement for Indy, then you have to argue for selective enforcement against a team that tanks for better draft position. Or what about the rule against performance enhancers? Or videotaping the sidelines? They're just trying to win a Super Bowl, right? I've never seen a rule where it said "Follow these rules, unless you are trying to win a Super Bowl. Then it's okay to break them."

While I doubt the league will do anything about Indy (or Dallas for that matter), it should. I don't think it's much different than the Pats videotaping the sidelines. They're just trying to win a Super Bowl too, right?That rule is essentially unenforceable unless you provide a list of defining characteristics for "bona fide effort." I'm assuming no such list exists, and for good reason.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 04:26 PM
I'll bet when you bill your clients out for an hour, you've always worked the entire hour to the second- no more, no less. Probably use a stopwatch that is calibrated monthly against GMT. Rules are rules, right, bro?



Again- these are two different situations that you are equating.

In one, a team is trying to win a championship. In the other a team is trying to lose a football game. These are not the same thing.

The spirit of the rule for putting forth a best effort should be that one team does not throw a game.

The rule is not for a team trying to win a championship. We should be encouraging that behavior, not discouraging it.



This is cheating to gain a competitive advantage. The Colts did not cheat.



Again, this is cheating to gain a competitive advantage.

I'm not sure if you thought these examples through, but they are both in violation of other rules and have nothing to do with giving a best effort.



And I've never seen such a misguided analysis of a rule.

For me, a "best effort" rule is in place to uphold the integrity of the league, and this part we agree on. We can't have the public thinking that what they are seeing isn't authentic.

But the Colts are giving a "best effort" to win a championship. They are not trying to lose games, they are trying to win playoff games. That does not hurt the integrity of the league, it helps it, because the grand prize in the NFL is winning the Super Bowl and teams should be trying to win that.

The NFL can't on one hand make the biggest prize in the NFL winning the Super Bowl, then on the other hand enforce rules that hamper that goal for its best teams.

You are starting to remind me of Greg Brady in the episode where he argues with Mr. Brady over meaning what you say and saying what you mean.

I haven't found a job yet where I'm directly billing clients, but I've already developed a spreadsheet that calculates my time in 6 minute increments (industry standard) so that I enter my start time and end time on a task and it calculates my billable hours automatically. I made it when I worked for the legal clinic, even though clients weren't being billed for my time. But I felt it was important to be honest about my time. I don't know where you'd get the impression that I would be willing to cheat clients by billing them for time I didn't work. I'm kind of offended that you would insinuate that I'm either a weenie or someone willing to cheat my clients.

I just don't think you can have selective enforcement of the rules just because one team does it to win in the playoffs and the other is doing it for other reasons. You could actually argue that, since it takes 1 1/2 years to properly come back from ACL surgery, teams eliminated from the playoffs should hold their starters back so that they have a better shot at making the playoffs and winning a championship next season.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 04:28 PM
The rule states that you play 16 games and you play each game with a bona fide effort to win the game.

For me, the purpose of the rule isn't to make sure teams who have secured playoff spots play their starters.

It's to make sure nobody is tanking games on purpose. To sort of read that in black and white and then apply that to teams who are trying to win it all subverts the rule.


Some of the greatest victories in NFL playoff history have been achieved when the lowly backup has had to step into the breach when the starter went down.


A few thoughts:

1) If this is true, then how is the integrity of the league on the line if Peyton Manning sits in week 17? You can't have it both ways.

2) Nobody wants to watch the game you describe above going in. You're arguing by anecdote- oh, this happened once, so teams who have playoff spots secured should play their starters at risk of injury because Don Strock came off the bench and had a good game once. That isn't good for the NFL and you know it.


Fortunately, even though the offseason hopes of most teams in the NFL were set before this past weekend's games, most teams felt it necessary to come out and play their starters in an effort to win. If every team followed the Colts example, then only 5-6 teams would have put in a bona fide effort to win and I guarantee you that would have been a serious black mark on the league.

No, no and no. Teams who were out of it played their best players (for the most part) due to the rule, agreed.

The Browns were a little unlucky in that regard, because had Tennessee played Cincy, things would have been different as far as starters go.

But teams whose playoff position was secure did not play their best players, unless it was out of preparation, a personal record or special circumstances.

Once Ryan Grant got his 1000 yards, his butt was on the sideline. Brett Favre extended his streak, and sat at or just before the half. Donald Driver did not play at all.

Fred Taylor did not play. Maurice Jones-Drew did not play. David Garrard did not play.

The Giants played their starters the whole game due to the historic nature of their game.

Tony Romo played into the second half in an attempt at a record.

And I guess these people are all cheaters and should be tossed in the same group as somebody who deliberately tanks a game to win a draft spot because they sat on the sidelines to give their team a chance at winning some playoff games.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 04:35 PM
I don't know where you'd get the impression that I would be willing to cheat clients by billing them for time I didn't work. I'm kind of offended that you would insinuate that I'm either a weenie or someone willing to cheat my clients.


I didn't say you cheated them. My point is that saying a "rule is a rule" is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things.

You can bill your clients in 6 minute intervals, but unless you're working the entire 6 minutes, are you being fair? I mean, what if you took a sip of coffee and billed your client for it. Is that in the rules? Or can we infer that hey, you bill people at certain intervals and there are going to be moments within that 6 minutes where you aren't always working?

The same way we can look at the rule for putting forth a bona fide effort in each game and infer that sometimes, you know, it's actually in the best interest of a team to not do that at one point in time to win a more important game two weeks down the line.

blumj
01-01-2008, 04:50 PM
It occurs to me that maybe the NFL should stop using SOS as a tie-breaker. Because it's one thing for a team to luck into getting a team that's already clinched everything as their last opponent instead of their 6th or 9th or whatever. But it's kind of double jeopardy if that opponent happens to be the one who creates the SOS difference.

Yachtzee
01-01-2008, 05:07 PM
I didn't say you cheated them. My point is that saying a "rule is a rule" is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things.

You can bill your clients in 6 minute intervals, but unless you're working the entire 6 minutes, are you being fair? I mean, what if you took a sip of coffee and billed your client for it. Is that in the rules? Or can we infer that hey, you bill people at certain intervals and there are going to be moments within that 6 minutes where you aren't always working?

The same way we can look at the rule for putting forth a bona fide effort in each game and infer that sometimes, you know, it's actually in the best interest of a team to not do that at one point in time to win a more important game two weeks down the line.


The rules state you bill by the hour or else you inform the client about how you are billing them. Billing your time out in 6 minute intervals is the standard because it's a lot more fair than someone who works 31 minutes and rounds it up to an hour. And you can bet that if I haven't spent the vast majority of time within that 6 minutes working for the client, I'm not billing 6 minutes. If you're trying to equate taking a sip of coffee while reading a client's file or drafting a brief to an NFL sitting the majority of its starters, then you're just being ridiculous in order to paint me into some sort of stupid corner. You know I have never said that teams have to have every player out there on every play of every game giving 100% of their effort all the time. That's ridiculous and impossible to expect of anyone. Of course, you seem to like to paint my argument as either expecting players to do that or else I'm "middling" because I think it's fine to bench the starters once a victory is at hand. You play to win the game. If the Colts want to rest their starters, get a big lead early.

I feel it's perfectly fair to expect that, if you are charging admission to a regular season football game and putting it on TV and charging broadcasters for the rights to air those games, both teams on the field are putting forth a bona fide effort to win that game. I choose individual games as the unit because 1) it's how customers are charged for games, and 2) it's the rule. If you're going to have a 16 game regular season, teams should have to play 16 bona fide games to make the playoffs. Regardless of why a rule is put in place, you can't make exceptions just because one person's violation of the rule is more acceptable than the other. If you want to allow such, change the rule.

And although I've been hammering the Colts, I feel the same way whether its the Colts or Jags or whoever. I criticize the Colts because its the game I watched. If the Jags sat all their starters, I feel the same way about them.

kaldaniels
01-01-2008, 07:26 PM
I actually think this thread is making some progress here...some things I'd like to add...

First and foremost...I think Jim Sorgi wins that game 2 or 3 times out of ten games. He was bad the other night...but to operate under the assumption that Indy was going to lose for sure is an error. The Titans have a hard time scoring...remember the Colts only lost by 6. They were 'dogs by 4-6 points going into the game with Vegas knowing Peyton would come out. Compare that to the Browns being favored by 10 versus the Niners...just realize the Colts backups had a shot here.

Now, looking back at the Reds example...to elaborate further...Harang is the only man from the 5 man rotation rested. The Reds have 1st place clinched. Due to the 40 man callups you have Phil Dumitrait (2007 scenario here) as the 6th man in the rotation available to start in game 162. He is facing Jake Peavy in a game that will help determing the NL West champion. Who do you start Yatz...if you say Harang I have no answer to that, other than you make an Eagle Scout look like an inmate on death row.

I would argue the Colts had a better chance with Sorgi, than the Reds would with Phil D.

Cyclone792
01-01-2008, 07:41 PM
If the Cincinnati Reds had Aaron Harang scheduled to pitch in Game #162 in a potential pivotal playoff, but instead happened to clinch the NL Central in Game #161 - rendering the final game meaningless - then everyone reading this knows that Harang would be skipped in Game #162 in favor of someone like a Tom Shearn ... regardless of whether or not the Reds' opponent was fighting for the playoffs.

And you know what? Not a damn person reading this would have any problem with that. Instead, we'd all be livid if Harang actually would start Game #162 in a meaningless situation as the Reds were heading into the postseason. Anybody who says they'd want Harang to start that game would be insane.

traderumor
01-01-2008, 08:19 PM
I didn't say you cheated them. My point is that saying a "rule is a rule" is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things.

You can bill your clients in 6 minute intervals, but unless you're working the entire 6 minutes, are you being fair? I mean, what if you took a sip of coffee and billed your client for it. Is that in the rules? Or can we infer that hey, you bill people at certain intervals and there are going to be moments within that 6 minutes where you aren't always working?

The same way we can look at the rule for putting forth a bona fide effort in each game and infer that sometimes, you know, it's actually in the best interest of a team to not do that at one point in time to win a more important game two weeks down the line.http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1521187&postcount=33
:p:

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 09:11 PM
The point I was making there is that if the rule is called "zero tolerance" then it should be followed that way. Otherwise, it isn't zero tolerance.

The NFL rules regarding "best efforts" are not laid out that way, and as evidence I will offer that nobody will be punished for anything that happened in week 17.

I was not stating- as you suggest by your posting- that all rules are zero tolerance and should be followed to the letter regardless of intent.

That would be ridiculous.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:distinction&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 09:18 PM
Anybody who says they'd want Harang to start that game would be insane.


Then I think you have a couple of candidates for the asylum here, becuase they can't make a distinction to save themselves.

Apparently Tony Romo is in violation of an NFL rule because he didn't play most of the second half of the Redskins game.

So is Brett Favre. Those guys are awful and I'm going to hold them responsible for the collapse of the NFL because it's turning into the WWF.

That's what is being suggested here and it's crazy.

GAC
01-01-2008, 09:24 PM
Essentially, what the critics of not playing regulars in this situation are saying is that a MLB playoff bound team playing in the last game of the season against a team in a must-win situation should start their best available starting pitcher in that game if he was available to pitch, even though that would have the potential of eliminating him from being used by that team in the postseason the way they wanted.

Not a good analogy tr. Of course a playoff bound MLB team wouldn't throw their ace out there on the last day, if it happened to be his turn in the rotation to pitch, because you want his arm ready to start the series. He is not being withheld because of the injury risk possibility; but moved in the rotation.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 09:25 PM
If you're trying to equate taking a sip of coffee while reading a client's file or drafting a brief to an NFL sitting the majority of its starters, then you're just being ridiculous in order to paint me into some sort of stupid corner.

I am not equating the two. I'm equating your assertion that a rule is a rule. There's a difference.

The purpose of the NFL "best effort" clause should not be to force its best teams to field all their starters in a gam that can only cause them harm.

Think about that. Under your interpretation of the rule, the league's best teams are put in situations where they only have something to lose and nothing to gain.

That makes no sense.

As far as being fair to ticket buyers: They know what they get with week 17. It's always a weird week. Always has been.

And what kind of fan wants a team to risk worsening their position for his own sake?

That's selfish. That hurts the league.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 09:29 PM
Not a good analogy tr. Of course a playoff bound MLB team wouldn't throw their ace out there on the last day, if it happened to be his turn in the rotation to pitch, because you want his arm ready to start the series. He is not being withheld because of the injury risk possibility; but moved in the rotation.


It's actually a perfect analogy, GAC, and you just restated his argument, if I'm not mistaken.

GAC
01-01-2008, 09:38 PM
It occurs to me that maybe the NFL should stop using SOS as a tie-breaker. Because it's one thing for a team to luck into getting a team that's already clinched everything as their last opponent instead of their 6th or 9th or whatever. But it's kind of double jeopardy if that opponent happens to be the one who creates the SOS difference.

You bring a valid point into the scenario. I have to be honest. I really don't understand the intricacies about this tie breaker system. In the case of awarding the division title I understand that even though the Browns and Steelers both finished at 10-6, the Steelers beat the Browns both times.

But what were the details as far as the tie breaker goes that awarded the playoff spot to Tennessee?

GAC
01-01-2008, 09:55 PM
It's actually a perfect analogy, GAC, and you just restated his argument, if I'm not mistaken.

Only in your mind Dom. ;)

The reason an NFL team, like the Colts, withhold their starters is to prevent the risk of injury in what they deem a meaningless game.

A MLB team may jerk their pitching rotation around in order to be able to have their ace available and ready to pitch the opening game of the series, not to prevent injury.

And we're talking about one player (pitcher). The remainder of the players on that MLB are out there. I didn't see where those MLB teams going into the post-season were jerking all their starters on the last day of the season.

Also - you don't have the same scenario in MLB with the tie-breaker system (SOS).

It's just not the same scenario IMO.

blumj
01-01-2008, 10:06 PM
You bring a valid point into the scenario. I have to be honest. I really don't understand the intricacies about this tie breaker system. In the case of awarding the division title I understand that even though the Browns and Steelers both finished at 10-6, the Steelers beat the Browns both times.

But what were the details as far as the tie breaker goes that awarded the playoff spot to Tennessee?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was record vs. common opponents. The Browns didn't play, and lose to, the Colts, did they? In fact, I'm not positive that SOS is one of the tie-breakers for playoff spots. I might have imagined that.

Dom Heffner
01-01-2008, 10:09 PM
A MLB team may jerk their pitching rotation around in order to be able to have their ace available and ready to pitch the opening game of the series, not to prevent injury.


GAC- Please. The analogy is fine. If the Reds hold out a pitcher from a regular season game to save him for the playoffs, it's the same thing.

The point that kaldaniels and TR have made remains valid: An MLB team would skip their pitcher's turn in the rotation if that scheduled start fell on game 162 and said team already clinched a playoff spot.


The remainder of the players on that MLB are out there.

Not always. And most of the time only thorugh half the game, if that. Grady Sizemore had on at bat in game 162 last year for Cleveland. David Ortiz was replaced. Manny Ramirez was replaced.


Also - you don't have the same scenario in MLB with the tie-breaker system (SOS).


No, but teams who have clinched can affect things for other teams still in the hunt. It's a valid analogy.

RedFanAlways1966
01-01-2008, 10:17 PM
But what were the details as far as the tie breaker goes that awarded the playoff spot to Tennessee?

Wild Card Tie Breakers, To Tie Breaker Used
1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.

Cleveland & Tennessee 2007
1. No game between each other.
2. Both were 7-5 in AFC play.
3. Browns = 3-2 (.600) ; Titans = 3-1 (.750).
>> CLEVE... wins: CINN, JETS, HOU ; losses: CINN, OAK
>> TENN... wins: HOU, OAK, JETS ; loss: CINN

Two losses by a total of 7 points. Two games (CINN, OAK) that burned the Browns in the end. And I am sure most would agree they were two games that the Browns should have won.

blumj
01-01-2008, 10:26 PM
The point that kaldaniels and TR have made remains valid: An MLB team would skip their pitcher's turn in the rotation if that scheduled start fell on game 162 and said team already clinched a playoff spot.
But they'd never do it just to avoid a potential injury if they had 2 weeks off between game 162 and their first playoff game. Because big, huge guys aren't trying to knock pitchers around while they're pitching. By the same token, football teams don't have to play games between the time their QB last played a game and the time he becomes available to play again, unless he's already injured. MLB teams are set up to use multiple starting pitchers routinely, NFL teams generally expect to use the same QB every game they play as long as he's healthy enough. Jim Sorgi isn't Bronson Arroyo to Peyton Manning's Aaron Harang, he's more like a reliever making a spot start.

HeatherC1212
01-01-2008, 10:28 PM
Because someone asked and I don't think anyone else answered this question, I do believe Jacksonville also sat all of their starters either for the entire game or by the end of the first half. Pittsburgh sat Big Ben because they wanted to rest him up for the playoffs and also sat a couple of other players. Indy wasn't the only team sitting starters in the last week of the regular season. I don't want to get involved with all the arguing or anything but IIRC, Indy wasn't alone in sitting players in week 17 (and I know those other games didn't have quite as big of playoff implications but some of the games did affect the seedings so they did matter somewhat in the end).

RedFanAlways1966
01-01-2008, 10:28 PM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was record vs. common opponents. The Browns didn't play, and lose to, the Colts, did they? In fact, I'm not positive that SOS is one of the tie-breakers for playoff spots. I might have imagined that.

No game between CLEVE and INDY this year. Here are the tie breakers for Wild Card spots (SOS is #5):

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

Bip Roberts
01-01-2008, 10:29 PM
I just want to post :bowrofl: @ the Browns

:)

RedFanAlways1966
01-01-2008, 10:36 PM
BTW... if it come down to the next tie breaker, strength of victory (the combined records of teams you beat), it would look like this:

CLEVE: 55-105 (.344)
TENNE: 70-90 (.438)

Cleveland only beat one team that ended up with a winning record (SEA, 10-6). Tennessee beat only two teams with a winning record (JAX, 11-5 & INDY, 13-3).

kaldaniels
01-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Again here in lies the issue. Everyone has their own line that they draw in regards to what is appropriate. If someone else would have played Peyton Manning that is fine. But please don't go on and on about how Dungy and the NFL are immoral and unsportsmanlike to proceed in the way they did.

If it was just a difference of opinion I'm out of this thread 50 posts ago...but it is the implication that Dungy is a crook that is driving me crazy.

I understand that the scenarios in regards to the Reds and Colts are a little bit different. However in each scenario just realize each team is not giving 100 percent to win that final game...but understand neither game is "being thrown" or the "outcome is predetermined" if the backups play.

BoydsOfSummer
01-02-2008, 01:44 AM
Browns should have beat a sorry Bengal team. They should have beat a bad Rams team (and depending on how you see the last play of the game,did). They did beat the Raiders only to lose it to a crap timeout call.

13-3 removes all questions. They could have been sitting starters.

traderumor
01-02-2008, 07:32 AM
Only in your mind Dom. ;)

The reason an NFL team, like the Colts, withhold their starters is to prevent the risk of injury in what they deem a meaningless game.

A MLB team may jerk their pitching rotation around in order to be able to have their ace available and ready to pitch the opening game of the series, not to prevent injury.

And we're talking about one player (pitcher). The remainder of the players on that MLB are out there. I didn't see where those MLB teams going into the post-season were jerking all their starters on the last day of the season.

Also - you don't have the same scenario in MLB with the tie-breaker system (SOS).

It's just not the same scenario IMO.It works because you are asking Indy to take a risk that their QB, the equivalent of an ace in the rotation (most important player on the team), take his turn in order to win a game in a sport where a player can be eliminated from future use on one play, the same as an ace starter pitching a normal game would be eliminated from starting for four days. Dungy is making sure his ace is well rested and available for the playoffs to use as he sees fit.

Since you don't like that one, though, you are asking Dungy to play one hand of blackjack, after he has accumulated a million dollars in chips over the course of the night playing this very risky game, to put all his chips on the table, hit on 20, and if he happens to draw an ace, the house has no more money to give him, but if he busts, he loses it all.

BTW, I think the "best efforts" rule is intended more toward teams tanking for a higher draft pick than it is the resting starters playoff scenario.

Yachtzee
01-02-2008, 07:39 AM
It works because you are asking Indy to take a risk that their QB, the equivalent of an ace in the rotation (most important player on the team), take his turn in order to win a game in a sport where a player can be eliminated from future use on one play, the same as an ace starter pitching a normal game would be eliminated from starting for four days. Dungy is making sure his ace is well rested and available for the playoffs to use as he sees fit.

Since you don't like that one, though, you are asking Dungy to play one hand of blackjack, after he has accumulated a million dollars in chips over the course of the night playing this very risky game, to put all his chips on the table, hit on 20, and if he happens to draw an ace, the house has no more money to give him, but if he busts, he loses it all.

Nobody's asking Dungy to play blackjack. They're just asking Dungy to treat this game as he would any other regular season game, as he is required to do and and the Colts are contractually required to do by reason of being members of the NFL. If teams don't want to play 16 games, then make it a rule that you can forfeit the rest of your games once you clinch a playoff spot. You like to focus on one guy, as if the Colts only sat Manning. They didn't. They took out everybody. If they gave Sorgi the starting OL, Addai, Wayne, Dallas Clark, he still would have a fighting chance of winning that game.

traderumor
01-02-2008, 07:45 AM
Nobody's asking Dungy to play blackjack. They're just asking Dungy to treat this game as he would any other regular season game, as he is required to do and and the Colts are contractually required to do by reason of being members of the NFL. If teams don't want to play 16 games, then make it a rule that you can forfeit the rest of your games once you clinch a playoff spot. You like to focus on one guy, as if the Colts only sat Manning. They didn't. They took out everybody. If they gave Sorgi the starting OL, Addai, Wayne, Dallas Clark, he still would have a fighting chance of winning that game.That's why we use the word "analogy." I know you are trying real hard to defend this position you have taken, but you are basing it on a rule that is unenforceable, which I stated earlier and you have yet to provide the strict definition of "best efforts" that allows you to make statements like "contractually required."

Provide a definition that allows this rule to be interpreted the way you are and you win. Simple as that.

BRM
01-02-2008, 06:54 PM
If they gave Sorgi the starting OL, Addai, Wayne, Dallas Clark, he still would have a fighting chance of winning that game.

He had a chance without them. They only lost 16-10.

Bip Roberts
01-02-2008, 08:00 PM
Browns had thier chance to go to the playoffs. Dont try to blame other teams for you not making it.

GAC
01-02-2008, 09:58 PM
Two losses by a total of 7 points. Two games (CINN, OAK) that burned the Browns in the end. And I am sure most would agree they were two games that the Browns should have won.

You won't get no argument from me there '66. ;)

GAC
01-02-2008, 09:59 PM
Browns had thier chance to go to the playoffs. Dont try to blame other teams for you not making it.

Give it a rest. That is not the point being made on here.

Go back into hibernation. ;)

GAC
01-02-2008, 10:12 PM
It works because you are asking Indy to take a risk that their QB, the equivalent of an ace in the rotation (most important player on the team), take his turn in order to win a game in a sport where a player can be eliminated from future use on one play, the same as an ace starter pitching a normal game would be eliminated from starting for four days. Dungy is making sure his ace is well rested and available for the playoffs to use as he sees fit.

There's no risk to an ace pitching on that last day, as far as an injury concern that is equivalent to a QB. Baseball, for the most part, is not a contact sport in the same sense as football. The sole reason a manager withholds an ace pitcher on that last day is because he knows if he uses him he won't be able to pitch again for 4-5 days.

That's not why Dungy didn't play Manning, Addai and others. And it's also not the argument being presented on here tr, as to why teams didn't play their starters..... i.e. to rest them.

It's to avoid possible injury in what many deem meaningless games.

I can accept the "avoid possible injury" reasoning far more then I can the rest one. Now all of a sudden it's about resting a player?

And I hope Manning gets plenty of rest in about two weeks. ;)

GAC
01-02-2008, 10:13 PM
He had a chance without them. They only lost 16-10.

That's more of an indication of just how sorry the Titan's offense is, then of the performance of Sorgi and company. :lol:

Bip Roberts
01-02-2008, 10:19 PM
Give it a rest. That is not the point being made on here.

Go back into hibernation. ;)

actually sounds a lot like that to me. Maybe you arent saying it but thats what im getting out of it.

Fullboat
01-03-2008, 02:19 AM
Doesn't anybody find it strange that B.Polian and J.Fisher are both on the
NFL rules committee?That Browns HC Romeo Crennel was the Pats
DC not too long ago? Yes the Browns blew it and the Colts have a right to
rest their starters but its a little fishy No?

Razor Shines
01-03-2008, 02:44 AM
Nobody's asking Dungy to play blackjack. They're just asking Dungy to treat this game as he would any other regular season game, as he is required to do and and the Colts are contractually required to do by reason of being members of the NFL. If teams don't want to play 16 games, then make it a rule that you can forfeit the rest of your games once you clinch a playoff spot. You like to focus on one guy, as if the Colts only sat Manning. They didn't. They took out everybody. If they gave Sorgi the starting OL, Addai, Wayne, Dallas Clark, he still would have a fighting chance of winning that game.



That's not why Dungy didn't play Manning, Addai and others. And it's also not the argument being presented on here tr, as to why teams didn't play their starters..... i.e. to rest them.

As I pointed out earlier almost the entire rest of the team has been (still is really) banged up all year, with the exception of Wayne and Manning. It's not just a matter of preventing injuries, it's more like letting guys nurse current ones.

blumj
01-03-2008, 08:53 AM
Doesn't anybody find it strange that B.Polian and J.Fisher are both on the
NFL rules committee?That Browns HC Romeo Crennel was the Pats
DC not too long ago? Yes the Browns blew it and the Colts have a right to
rest their starters but its a little fishy No?
No, because that's what the Colts do every year in that situation.

BRM
01-03-2008, 10:19 AM
That's more of an indication of just how sorry the Titan's offense is, then of the performance of Sorgi and company. :lol:

Well, I can't really argue with that.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-03-2008, 01:51 PM
Browns had thier chance to go to the playoffs. Dont try to blame other teams for you not making it.
True they had their chance, but they didn't get to play anybodys second, third, and fourth string to get to their 10 wins.

BRM
01-03-2008, 01:56 PM
True they had their chance, but they didn't get to play anybodys second, third, and fourth string to get to their 10 wins.

One of their wins was against the Dolphins at home. That's probably an easier win than beating the Colts backups in the RCA Dome. ;)

Bip Roberts
01-03-2008, 08:05 PM
True they had their chance, but they didn't get to play anybodys second, third, and fourth string to get to their 10 wins.

Should have chinched when they could have. Dont blame other teams for sitting their guys and being smart.

Bip Roberts
01-03-2008, 08:06 PM
Doesn't anybody find it strange that B.Polian and J.Fisher are both on the
NFL rules committee?That Browns HC Romeo Crennel was the Pats
DC not too long ago? Yes the Browns blew it and the Colts have a right to
rest their starters but its a little fishy No?

no its not fishy at all you are just searching

GAC
01-03-2008, 09:57 PM
actually sounds a lot like that to me. Maybe you arent saying it but thats what im getting out of it.

Go back and check the responses of those Brown fans, besides myself, that have posted on here. We all realize that it was up to the Browns to take care of business on that playing field, and that they have only themselves to blame. No one is blaming Indy.

It's just that many, including myself, don't agree with this "mentality" that has evolved in the NFL where week #16 is filled with meaningless games where teams basically "lay down".

The Browns backed into the playoffs back in '02 the same way the Titans got in this year. And the Browns went down in the 1st round (to Pitt), just like the Titans will next week. :lol:

No one denies the "nature of the beast" when it comes to week #16. If the Browns had been in the same situation as Indy they would have most likely done the same thing. Again - many just don't care the "practice" because we feel it does hurt the integrity of the game when teams are required to make a bona fide effort to win each and every week.

Bip Roberts
01-03-2008, 10:17 PM
Go back and check the responses of those Brown fans, besides myself, that have posted on here. We all realize that it was up to the Browns to take care of business on that playing field, and that they have only themselves to blame. No one is blaming Indy.

It's just that many, including myself, don't agree with this "mentality" that has evolved in the NFL where week #16 is filled with meaningless games where teams basically "lay down".

The Browns backed into the playoffs back in '02 the same way the Titans got in this year. And the Browns went down in the 1st round (to Pitt), just like the Titans will next week. :lol:

No one denies the "nature of the beast" when it comes to week #16. If the Browns had been in the same situation as Indy they would have most likely done the same thing. Again - many just don't care the "practice" because we feel it does hurt the integrity of the game when teams are required to make a bona fide effort to win each and every week.
I think it doesnt mattter in the long run.

Chip R
01-04-2008, 03:02 AM
Go back and check the responses of those Brown fans, besides myself, that have posted on here. We all realize that it was up to the Browns to take care of business on that playing field, and that they have only themselves to blame. No one is blaming Indy.


Why don't you get someone to read this thread to you again because it's obvious you can't see that people are mad at the Colts for playing their second string against the team they needed to bet for CLE to make the playoffs.


It's just that many, including myself, don't agree with this "mentality" that has evolved in the NFL where week #16 is filled with meaningless games where teams basically "lay down".


Funny how no one complains about it until it affects their favorite team.



No one denies the "nature of the beast" when it comes to week #16. If the Browns had been in the same situation as Indy they would have most likely done the same thing. Again - many just don't care the "practice" because we feel it does hurt the integrity of the game when teams are required to make a bona fide effort to win each and every week.


Oh, smell the roses, Moses. These teams' goals are to win the Super Bowl. It doesn't mean squat if you're like NE and win every game then lose in the playoffs or the Super Bowl. Indy was doing what they thought was the way to best win the Super Bowl. You really think if Indy wins the Super Bowl, Indy fans are going to be complaining that they didn't play the 1st string against TEN?

jimbo
01-04-2008, 03:31 AM
Funny how no one complains about it until it affects their favorite team.


How do you know that the same people voicing these concerns haven't done so in the past in other venues?

Personally, I share the same views on the subject that GAC does and I have never shared it in RedsZone, but I have shared it for several years now. This isn't the first year it's happened and it isn't about the Browns, as opponents to this point of view seem to keep bringing up.