Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

My problem with the Colts winning-- the absence of immortality.



I love Peyton for his brilliance, his professionalism and his personality.  Until this year's intentional walk away from perfection, I loved the Colts as well.  However, the way they've turned their backs on history, the Football Gods should decree this the year for the Saints.

Star-divide

It has been said it is little more than bragging rights that the Colts walked away from when they threw the last 6 quarters of the regular season.  To me though, it was much much more than that.

It’s FUCKING IMMORTALITY!!!!!!

I can’t see an athlete that wouldn’t kill for it. People knocked Michael Irvin for saying he’d trade his multiple SB wins and personal awards for one perfect season. I on the other hand think it’s one of the most honest things he’s ever said.

We're talking Perfection here.  It’s a bigger thing than SB wins. I don’t even know today how many SB’s those Cowboys teams won, nor what years they won them… I do know if they went undefeated one year, we’d all know the year by heart though. That isn’t about bragging, that’s about being SPECIAL, being a cut above the cut above.

A team wins the Super Bowl every year. Going undefeated makes you 44’s more likely to be remembered forever.  In a game where success is fleeting and careers are short, the Colts owed their players the opportunity to be remembered forever in the halls of history.

Greatness cannot be duplicated. Perfection would be remembered forever. And when things change along the way, the goals should change.  I'm not saying the Colts should have started the season carrying the burden of claiming a team goal of an undefeated season.  That would be hubris.  However, come week 14 or 15 when you are undefeated, you should add "UNDEFEATED ALL TIME GREATEST SEASON EVER" to your list of goals.

They were 6 quarters short of being in the exact same spot they are now, but with the real chance of immortality.

Peyton will be remembered forever undoubtedly and most deservedly.  Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney will not, despite being maybe the best bookend pass-rushers in the league.  Nobody outside fantasy football owners will remember Joe Addai 10 years from now, and the same may be true of Dallas ClarkBob Sanders may not be playing due to being injured yet again, but there was a time when he was among the best safeties in the league, and IR or not, he's a well known member of this team.  Jeff Saturday is a HoF candidate at Center, and most certainly not a household name.  And, like so many other role players and players NOT named Peyton on this team he will be forgotten by the masses soon enough, even if he name will be etched in the HoF someday.  Hell, even Reggie Wayne’s name will fade over time… yet I know Garo Yepremian’s name. Why? Because that son of a bitch was the kicker for the last undefeated team in the NFL, the only undefeated team of the SB era.

There is a definite argument for resting your team entering the playoffs, but there is a difference between resting your team when you can and should, and making a decision when you owe a burden of responsibility to your team, your fans, your sense of history.  Resting the Colts given the fact that the team they were playing was fighting for a playoff spot, and their own capacity to be a historic team was an incredibly selfish act. 

Resting spoke of greed and short term net gains, something that it could be argued is a problem systematic of our society at whole and the reason for our current economic recession.  This isn't meant to be a political piece, but it does bear mentioning giving our current cultural climate, where there is a definite "NOW" mentality that hinders a broader "forest for the trees" type perspective.

Going for an undefeated season would have been an act not of selfishness, but of respect to all those teams that had the chance but failed, all those players who gave every inch and effort of their careers for something fleeting and short and now use a cane to painfully cross a room.  Those guys would never have sat.  Today's supremely athletically conditioned players shouldn't either, given the unique opportunity presented them.

This Colt team DESERVES to lose!

The Colts are without a doubt in my mind the best team of the first decade of the 2000’s, and they could have capped that off with a perfect undefeated season. Instead, even if they win the SB, it will be just another year in the NFL, and no level of Super Bowl heroics from the Colts can change that.

I commend the Pats for playing everyone even though it cost them Wes Welker in the playoffs.  Football is a violent game, and injuries occur.  You'll notice that Welker blew his knee without contact though.  That could have happened in practice just as easily.  Injuries occur, and there's a whole string of crappy movies out these days (now in 3d!) proving that you can't avoid it if it is your time, it just happens. 

I for one commend the Pats for being the one team that looked at greatness and tried to take it head-on, and coming a crazy-ass catch from attaining it.  Even so, the Pats are a "bad guy" team due to their cutthroat style and head coach's acerbic nature.  That is why this Colts team should have been the team to go for it, do it and make it happen.  They are a team of ordinary and average players made extraordinary by a special unique player.  They are a team devoid of the things that make rational casual fans dislike teams. 

They are in truth, eminently likable. 

And that's why the football gods should turn their backs on them come Sunday.  For doing an unlikable thing-- intentionally not caring about the outcome of games that mattered tremendously in the broader scope of history.

Comment 116 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Damn, beat me to it

Check out my Mets blog: http://metsmosh.blogspot.com/
Part of the Shore Sports Report blog network, Fox Sports Radio 1310 New Jersey

by Steeeve on Feb 4, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Ooops.

Where did I get Bob, lol. My bad. I guess thinking about Sanders I couldn’t let go of the name Bob…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions  

We obviously disagree here.

What if the lost timing by not playing is what cost the team in 05, 07, and 08. But, hey, at least they were healthy while having lost timing, be it in running systems together or individually against their competitors who were on point the whole time.

Can’t prove that the timing was hurt. But you also can’t prove playing would have caused injuries.

Welker’s the only guy I can think of who went down and it hurt his team in the playoffs, and his injury was a non-contact one which of course could have happened in practice. (My lil brother lost his SNR year hoops and baseball to an ACL/MCL/cartilage tear while running routes in football practice— it happens.)

I fully understand your point, but I disagree with it given the context of immortality. (Not to mention that the Jets got in over the Texans based on essentially the throwing of the game by the Colts.)

Fans already pay full price for pre-season tickets. Now 1-3 games on the back end are going to be “fake” games as well?!?

Perhaps teams should be forced to refund ticket costs when teams don’t play their full teams. On the road your team has to reimburse the opponents if you sit everyone. I’d like that, even though I know it would never happen. But then you get to weigh Immortality, Health, and Economic Cost as opposed to just Immortality and Health…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Once you've secured a first seed there's precious little to play for in the regular season other than some arbitrary win total.

And that’s all 16-0 is.

Colts fans? If they win the Superbowl they’re not going to care in the slightest that they had an undefeated season.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

I think they would/do

Some of my extended family live in Indy. I would care too, were it my team.

by DJ C-Raig on Feb 4, 2010 4:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I don't think so

From what my cousins tell me plenty of people in Indy (radio callers, word of mouth) were angry about not even trying, and are still pissed about it. I know that’s a limited sample size, but it’s still a sample.

I would rather my te earn a place in history and lose in the SB than always wonder “what if”" and win the SB. Plus, I think they could have done both.

by DJ C-Raig on Feb 4, 2010 4:49 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

While I agree with this entirely, I have but one exception.

The colts have Peyton Manning. Peyton took the fewest sacks this year, and when he is about to get sacked and he knows he can’t do anything, he just falls to the ground and surrenders himself. While I believe that teams should rest starters, in this case I would have opted for the undefeated season.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree.

Winning a Super Bowl brings you immortality anyway. The goal is to win championships, not to play a perfect season.

Look what 16-0 did for the Patriots.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Small sample size

You can’t say the Patriots lost because they went 16-0, that just doesn’t make sense.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions  

^ What he said.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:16 PM PST up reply actions  

That's because the Pats didn't win the SB....

and did they not win the SB because of the earlier wins, or because weird shit happens?!?

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Guess what, weird shit happens in the regular season too.

A glut of injuries can occur in the span of two games that would devastate the Colts chances of winning a championship.

Given that the first seed was already locked up, their coach determined the risk simply didn’t outweigh the reward. I agree with that assessment.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Didn't something similar happen to the Hawks in 06?

I remember a rash of cornerback injuries in the last game or two of the season. They went on to lose in overtime against the Bears with Pete Hunter starting.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 4, 2010 9:33 PM PST up reply actions  

I think that is an entirely different situation

The 2006 Seahawks were not 14-0. They should have been resting their starters.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I think he's pointing out that a team get be decimated in the span of two games.

While the Seahawks needed to play the starters, the Colts were in a position in which they didn’t have to risk that kind of fate.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I think it was Marcus Trufant and Jordan Babineaux suffering high ankle sprains in the last two games.

Might not have been Babs, but it was Marcus and another starter. The team was absolutely decimated in the secondary and it only took a span of two games.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Wasn't Babs since he played.

But I remember the legendary Pete Hunter.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 5, 2010 8:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Herndon sprained his ankle in the game against the Chargers.

And we lost on that stupid Hail Mary.

Also a die-hard Hawks fan.

by Hopefulmsfan on Feb 5, 2010 10:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Including the 16-0 bit at the end is confusing then.

Your first statement would have sufficed, but then you added “Look what 16-0 did for the Patriots”. They suffered no season crippling injuries and made it just fine to the super bowl. I can guarantee you no team at the start of the season says “We are going undefeated”. Every teams plays to win championships obviously no team is going to go 16-0 and say “Well thats it boys lock up shop we’re done we got the record!”

I’ll copy what I said before. Winning the super bowl will solve the Colts situation. They will have to win the super bowl to justify not going for the record. Moreover, if they went undefeated they would have to win the super bowl to justify getting the record.

In the end it is about winning the super bowl. I am for resting starters. But, me personally, if you have the opportunity I think you have to take it, just because it’s what everybody wants. There could be repercussions(such as injury), but it is the risk of going for the undefeated season.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:25 PM PST up reply actions  

It is not confusing.

You simply misunderstood. That’s OK. I have moments like that too.

My reply was to a post that said that once you secured the first seed, there’s precious little to play for. I agreed. I only added the bit about the Patriots going 16-0 because it did not benefit them. It is an impressive feat, but so what? The goal is to win championships. The Patriots didn’t win the Super Bowl. They failed in accomplishing that goal.

The moral? Going 16-0 does not benefit you in any way. Stay focused on winning championships, and if you feel resting your most important players to do this is necessary, then do so.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

But that isn't the same thing.

16-0 is an undefeated regular season. That isn’t undefeated champions like 19-0 is…

Maybe I misunderstand you too.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:40 PM PST up reply actions  

And while I can't definitively say that playing would cause injuries

I can say that there is a very high correlation between playing and being injured, while there is virtually no connection to riding pine and becoming injured.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

And...

I can say there is a very high correlation between going undefeated and being remembered far more than there is for simply winning a Super Bowl like happens every year.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Winning the Super Bowl comes first for me.

However there would also be that “man, what if?” that would run through my head.

by MFAN on Feb 4, 2010 4:58 PM PST reply actions  

Too add.

I’d rather have 14-2 and a Super Bowl than 16-0 and lose the Super Bowl.

by MFAN on Feb 4, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed.

The Lombardi Trophy is what counts. Going 16-0, while cool, doesn’t really mean jack.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett

by Wayward Llama on Feb 4, 2010 6:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Spoken in the present.

Who won the Superbowl in 1971? 1973? 1970? 1974?

It DOES mean something! Those teams have Lombardi trophies too. But they are forgotten. The 72 Dolphins however, are remembered still.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Mercury Morris

makes sure of it.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett

by Wayward Llama on Feb 4, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions  

I think most people recognize that the '72 Dolphins weren't that amazing of a team.

And I doubt anyone would argue that a team that went undefeated now wouldn’t be a far better team then those ’72 Dolphins. Personally, I think the only reason it constantly comes up is because of Mercury Morris and his annual tradition.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 9:15 PM PST up reply actions  

It's the only major pro sport where perfection is even possible...

And yet it’s only happened ONCE in modern history.

And two years ago it almost happened again, and it was amazingly compelling.

And this year it was possible again, but the team essentially forfeited the potential.

In my eyes, that has more to do with it than Mercury Morris et all.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:25 PM PST up reply actions  

If we won the Superbowl by going undefeated

the fact that we set that mark would be an afterthought in my mind. I’d be going nuts for days, but it would be because we won the Superbowl. I wouldn’t even care that we did it without losing a single game until weeks later. It’s more of a feather in your hat thing to me.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 10:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed completely.

However, we’ve also never won one, they have quite recently. That changes things.

We’ve also never been 14-0 either, and that also plays a huge part in it, particularly following the recent SB win.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 11:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, I can't comment for the Colts fans.

I can only relate how I would experience the event. And I would be disappointed if we failed to go undefeated, but only a little. Because what I really care about is the Superbowl, and I would know we still had a full post-season to go through and that’s one hell of a trial. So I’d be too busy being worried about the post season to be annoyed at my team for not going for perfection.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 5, 2010 12:06 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree with this.

Having never won a SB, it’s the most important thing to us but if we had won the 06 SB, and were 14-0 next season, I have a hard time thinking we wouldn’t care about being undefeated.

Also a die-hard Hawks fan.

by Hopefulmsfan on Feb 5, 2010 10:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Who won the super bowl in 1985?

I think there’s also a pretty universal recognition that the best team in the super bowl era was the 1985 Bears team and they manage to maintain that status with a blemish.

I really think the ‘72 Dolphins are more trivia fodder than sports legends, as you’re making them out to be. Try this.

Who won the ’86 World Series?
Who won Super Bowl XLII?
Who won the 1992 AFC divisional round playoff game between the Bills and the Oilers?

Point is, teams get remembered for all sorts of reasons and they’re usually remembered due to tidbits of trivia, some of which get blown up into some sort of mythical status. But you don’t remember that the Mets won in ‘86 and the Giants won Super Bowl XLII on their own merits yet some wouldn’t hold them in any higher regard than those ’72 Dolphins

by niko on Feb 5, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

The Bears were the closest to perfection we've seen...

that’s a big reason why that 85 team is so well remembered. They were dominant. This 2 loss Colts team will not hold up to that standard.

Perhaps trivia is the only reason for the 72 team’s fame… but whatever the reason, they are memorialized. I happen to think they are trivia fodder BECAUSE they were undefeated.

The Bears 85 team because they are almost universally regarded as the best team of the SB era.

The only way for this Colts team to keep themselves in discussions like that would have been to play a full 16 regular season games instead of 14 and a half like they did.

I don’t understand your last statement, “But you don’t remember that the Mets won in ‘86 and the Giants won Super Bowl XLII on their own merits yet some wouldn’t hold them in any higher regard than those ’72 Dolphins.”

What do you mean here? That those teams are held in EQUAL regard to the 72 Dolphins? It’s simply not true. They’re not, not even close. (Even if, comparatively to their competition they were actually more talented teams.) Know why? Because they weren’t undefeated, and they weren’t “G.O.A.T.” status, therefore they are just two somewhat more well known championship winners, of which there have been many.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 4:14 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't disagree on the facts

I disagree on status, I guess. I agree that the ’72 Dolphins are trivia fodder because they were undefeated. I also think that the significance of their undefeated season ends there.

You’re arguing that in order to become an Immortal team and to be truly remembered as an NFL team this Colts team needed to go undefeated. All I’m trying to say is that isn’t true. It’s much simpler: you have to do something worth remembering, or at least retaining in the case of trivia fodder. Everyone knows the Mets won in ‘86 and one could argue they’re a tangentially immortal team but they didn’t have to come anywhere close to perfection to attain that status.

To really attain Capital I, Bold-Faced Immortal status, I’d argue that all this Colts team needs is for Curtis F-ing Painter to throw the winning touchdown. It’s really that fickle and, ultimately, meaningless next to winning the Super Bowl.

by niko on Feb 5, 2010 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

What if?

You’ve really got to consider NEXT YEAR!
If I were Indy, I’d pull Peyton Manning at halftime, along with many of the other starters. You wouldn’t want them to get injured and miss out on those all-too-important off season workouts. Plus, I’m sure it seems long to us, but the offseason is short and those preseason games are right around the corner. I’d be shocked to see them play Manning/Wayne the whole game…

by StonerHawks on Feb 4, 2010 5:18 PM PST reply actions  

Really? I thought they handled it perfectly.

Go for the win, take the lead, then rest your starters. The Superbowl is everything, it doesn’t matter that it’s been won 40 some odd times. Each individual team has only won it a few times, the Steelers hold the record with, what, 5? 5 Superbowl wins in the last 40+ years. The team with the most overall success in the history of Football has barely won it more then once a decade. And that’s with two in the last five years. Winning the Superbowl is a rare opportunity.

Yes, going undefeated means immortality. And I hate the ‘72 Dolphins and their ritual, and really want someone to best them. But you can’t jeopardize the ultimate prize, because you may not get another chance at it. That doesn’t mean throw in the towel on it. Play to win, and when you’re winning and the game means nothing, trust your back ups to hold it for you like the Colts did. If they fail, meh not a big loss. If they succeed, great! But it’s still secondary to winning the Superbowl.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 6:02 PM PST reply actions  

"the Steelers hold the record with, what, 5? 5 Superbowl wins in the last 40+ years. "

It’s six, and the good plebs in “Sixburgh” aren’t likely to let anyone forget it.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett

by Wayward Llama on Feb 4, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Today, yes.

Today the Super Bowl is everything. But in the long run the ultimate prize is the only thing that will be remembered, and the only thing that will be remembered is the first 19-0 season. I can’t help but to wonder if perhaps a different perspective may haunt them…

“Aye, fight and you may die, run and you’ll live. At least a while.
And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to
trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one
chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take
our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom?!”

Instead of William Wallace, they got the lepered elder Robert the Bruce,
“And you wish to charge off and fight as he did, eh?”
Bruce Jr. – “Well, maybe it’s time.”
“It is time… to survive. You’re the seventeenth Robert Bruce. The sixteen before you passed you land and title because they didn’t charge in.”

They had the ability and potential to be great like no team ever has done in history.

Instead, no matter what, they’ll be nothing but a footnote.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 7:40 PM PST up reply actions  

It's football.

We’re talking about two different kinds of footnotes. Yes, if they had gone undefeated that’s a better accomplishment, because it also involves winning the Superbowl. But is it worth the risk? Is the chance at a perfect season worth risking your chance at a Superbowl? In my opinion, you just leave yourself the chance at going undefeated but don’t take any more chances then you need too. The Colts did that, taking the lead and then benching their starters to minimize risk. I would not be surprised if they would have started their starters on the final game and done the same thing if they had beat the Jets.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 7:49 PM PST up reply actions  

It's easy to second guess the call

from our armchairs, but I really can’t blame the Colts for being careful. Just a little bad luck (and they had to have good luck to get to that point, so it would really be just an evening out of their luck) and they are in deep trouble for the playoffs. That’s a tough chance to take at something that’s little more then a footnote. Even if it is something that’s never been done before.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 7:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Hardly the same thing.

The M’s TRIED to win in the playoffs. They didn’t intentionally turn their backs on the opportunity.

And it isn’t the same thing in MLB or the NBA (which I’m not actually sure exists anymore). Because having the most wins in history or the highest winning percentage is not the same as having the PERFECT record.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions  

116 wins, that's immortality right there.

Winning a world series would have just been a footnote.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Immortality?

They got immortality for getting laughed at for winning that many games and not even getting to the world series.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Not a fair comparison, Brian, and you should know it.

My argument is based on the concept of the perfect season and seizing the opportunity when it arises, instead of forfeiting it for a more immediate goal.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm sorry, but no

You’re immortalizing an arbitrary number and building an argument out of it. You’ve effectively concealed that fact by referring to it as a “perfect season” but it’s still an arbitrary number.

I’d argue that 120-42 would have been just as immortal as 16-0 and I’d be just as right since we’re immortalizing the arbitrary. By applying your rationale, the M’s should have been throwing Freddy and Jamie out there on 3 and 4 day’s rest in order to pick up a few more wins here and there.

Placed in that context 16-0 doesn’t seem so immortal to me; it seems more intoxicating.

by niko on Feb 5, 2010 3:15 PM PST up reply actions  

No. The "arbitrary number" is ZERO. As in ZERO LOSSES.

Call it intoxicating instead of immortal if you want, but it is the nectar of the gods…

And the side argument you put out there about Freddy and Jamie is wrong and disconnected from reality. Playing 16 games instead of 14.65 in the regular season is not.

I’m not “immortalizing the arbitrary,” you are by pretending 120-42 would be just as immortal. First, the regular season undefeated means little without the victory in the end. So any record in the regular season doesn’t make for immortality without the followup perfection in the playoffs.

Not to mention that 120-42 is a .7407 winning percentage, which is .2593 different— in other words 1 out of every 4 games different, than the 1.000 winning percentage of a 19-0 season.

There have been arguments about resting that make sense. Your argument that the actual going undefeated is an empty symbolic thing does not fly. The symbolic greatness is exactly my point, it is as closely akin to immortality as a sports team can get, hence it is an opportunity that when available, should be embraced.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions  

You're still arguing for an arbitrary win/loss total

Undefeated is still arbitrary when it wins you nothing. If 16-0 got you home field advantage and 15-1 only got you a first round bye then I say go all out in week 17. That’s not arbitrary. The stated goal of every NFL season is to win the last game of the post season, not every single game of the NFL season. Any goal short of winning the final game of the NFL season is arbitrary by definition: “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something”

Maybe the argument you’re making is that striving for 19-0 shouldn’t be a rational decision, which is why we’re using word like “immortal” and phrases like “nectar of the gods”? Otherwise, I’m on board with what others have said: You don’t sacrifice a chance for a Super Bowl win for a chance at 19-0.

by niko on Feb 5, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions  

To play devil's advocate here

Which is a more arbitrary standard of greatness: winning 16 straight games or winning 3-4 straight games? I am not saying I’m arguing that going 16-0 is better than winning a Super Bowl, but making winning the Super Bowl the standard of greatness is rather arbitrary as well.

by Gihyou on Feb 5, 2010 9:14 PM PST up reply actions  

In all fairness here

What they are saying is if you are 14-0 and have the opportunity to go undefeated, why not? It’s just two more games. I am usually for resting starters but if it is only 1-2 games why the hell not. Especially with Manning on your team. If Manning is healthy, the Colts can win.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 8:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Exactly.

And in this case it wasn’t even 2 games, it was 6 quarters more is all.

What’s more, if the Colts played the entire game as well as possible, they could perhaps have put it out of reach against the Jets by the start of the 4th, and they most certainly could have done so against the Bills.

That means a mere 4 more quarters of top notch football.

It’s a shame they didn’t, it really is, whether many of you guys see that now or not.

I would bet money if they win Sunday, someday years from now when Peyton is in the HoF as the G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All Time) he’ll look back at this year and those two losses with regret. The SB champs shouldn’t look back with even a hint of regret on their season.

This SB winner, if it is the Colts, will. Oh sure, they’ll enjoy it, they’ll celebrate it, Disney World, the White House visit, all that. But it will come eventually, maybe not for years, but it will be a small haunting voice that reaches them in quiet times and says, “what if.”

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Personally, if I'm the head coach, I wouldn't want the distractions that come with going 16-0 in the season.

Keep the the team focused on the goal at hand, which is get to the playoffs healthy and win.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions  

That's an argument I can see...

However I still would rather go for it than essentially forfeit the opportunity by not fielding your best team…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:29 PM PST up reply actions  

That's your personal bias.

The head coach has to evaluate if that issue would be a distraction for the team as a whole.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:31 PM PST up reply actions  

No, not at all.

A SB is a special thing. But it is also forgotten over time by those not directly connected, at least in comparison to the perfect season.

When the opportunity arises, instead of shirking away from greatness, I would prefer to meet it head on.

The Colts did not, and instead punted.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree with this.

Sure if you are 12-2, go ahead and rest your starters. But if you are 14-0 why not go for the undefeated season? How many times has an undefeated team gone for the record and had devasting injuries that hindered their chances of winning a super bowl?

This is what I believe..If the Colts went for the record and got it, they would have to win the super bowl to justify it. Moreover, by not going for the record, they must win the super bowl to justify not going for the record. Either way, I think winning the super bowl solves the situation. The point that I agree with is if you have the opportunity, take it.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 8:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Devastating*

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes they can.

But given the situation it is arguable. I challenge you to find a team who could have gone undefeated by winning ~2 games and ended up suffering a horrible injury that ultimately contributed to them not winning the super bowl.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions  

That's absurd and you know it.

Football is an incredibly violent sport. Just because that hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean that it never will or isn’t likely to.

The more snaps you take, the greater your chances of injury. While there is a chance you might not be injured while playing, you’re guaranteed not to be injured while sitting.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Are you guaranteed to play as well when you come back from the layoff?

No. And some would argue that the rust from sitting is why the Colts didn’t win in 2005, 2007 and 2008?

I will fully grant to you that injury is more likely to happen.

I also believe the risk is worth it when the chance for immortality, which happens rarely enough, is at your doorstep.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:17 PM PST up reply actions  

It would only take one cheap shot, one awkward plant or one player rolling up on Mannings leg to lose both perfection and the Super Bowl.

It makes no sense to risk everything because someone in Seattle might not remember the exact year they won a ring ten years from now.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 4, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions  

If someone lays a cheap shot on Peyton and he tears a labrum/ACL/MCL as a result, the Colts are doomed

And let’s face it, this is the NFL. There’s a good chance that could happen on any given play.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Which is what makes the possibility of the undefeated season that much more special...

I totally understand what you are saying here guys, but I disagree.

My nature is to go for it all. Maybe I should change my SBNation name from WhiskeyChainsaw to TinCup…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

I wouldn't say a good chance.

It is possible though. The only problem I have with this is the Colts have Peyton Manning. Manning doesn’t get hit a lot and has never really had a significant injury. Given the fact that they have arguably the greatest quarterback ever, I think going for the undefeated season wasn’t too much to ask for. Normally, I’m for resting starters. But since this is Manning we are talking about, I think he would have been fine.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Injuries don't always happen on sacks or hits.

He could get tangled up with his linemen and bend his knee in a way it shouldn’t. He could get rolled up by a rusher that couldn’t quite put on the brakes in time after a pass was off. He could take a cheap late hit from a frustrated defender.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions  

For me, I play to win championships, not chase records

So fuck 16-0.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:03 PM PST reply actions  

Connected personal note--

First, I don’t think undefeated is as unique a thing if your competition isn’t your equal. In other words, an undefeated season in the NFL means more than, say, Florida going undefeated when they play inferior competition during much of the season. That being said, when all things are equal, when the teams are equal to you and you go undefeated, you find it to be a much more satisfying success.

My city league team just wrapped a perfect 12-0 record. We won the session before with 1 loss. Undefeated means a whole hell of a lot more. It was our goal from game 1, and at least half our games were “close.” But our winning made us win more, generated more belief in our ability to win, and made the other teams more anticipate our ability to win late, because that’s just what we did.

Maybe it’s because we already won the championship the session before, but we wanted that “undefeated” banner. I can’t foresee the Colts not having at least a little bit of that as well when it is said and done since they’ve already won the SB as well…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:10 PM PST up reply actions  

I see your point.

 But some of those players on that team haven’t won a Super Bowl, though.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 4, 2010 9:15 PM PST up reply actions  

This is very true and I thought about that when I wrote it.

But then I thought, do you think they would rather win one, just like the Colts and Peyton did a few years ago, or be the ones that did it with perfection. And you are right, I can’t answer that… But I know looking at Peyton’s face when the team lost that game against the Jets that he wasn’t happy with the situation.

Oh, they put the front of team unity on afterward, but it had to go against his core belief set as a competitor to walk away from undefeated willingly.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:20 PM PST up reply actions  

My problem with the Colts winning:

I’m tired of looking at them.

My problem with the Saints winning? I’m tired of hearing about their “destiny.” I spit on them both.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett

by Wayward Llama on Feb 4, 2010 9:19 PM PST reply actions  

Here's all I have left to say about this.

The coach of the Colts has several large responsibilities. He owes it to his team to maximize their success in the playoffs and ensure the welfare of his players. With a first round bye and home field secured through the playoffs, he was faced with two options. Rest the starters to keep them healthy for a strong playoff push, or go for a 16-0 season.

He chose to rest his starters, which was a perfectly rational, defensible, logical, and sound decision. The outrage directed at the Colts over this is incredibly over the top.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:26 PM PST reply actions  

Agreed.

Sure it was not the most popular choice, but you cannot say what Caldwell did was not smart. He did what a head coach should do, pull his starters.

Good talking with you guys. I’ve got to wake up early tomorrow so i’m going to bed.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I understand your point completely.

However, I do not believe the outrage is over the top. First, I’m not outraged.

I’m disappointed… I’m disappointed for competition. I’m disappointed for fairness in the playoff hunt. I’m disappointed for the Indy players who had the chance to be truly and uniquely special instead of simply special. And I’m disappointed for history, that will be without the greatness that could have been the Colts undefeated season.

One of my alltime favorite quotes is by Vince Lombardi— “In great attempts, it is glorious even to fail.” I guess that pretty much says it all about my perspective on this unique situation.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm not saying the Lombardi quote makes it right...

just that it is my perspective and it is equally defensible and logical, even if with a higher level of risk— but the greater risk leads to greater reward…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 9:42 PM PST up reply actions  

I think it goes

“If you can accept losing, you can’t win”

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Google paradox

/End world

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 10:09 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

It's a fraud, I think. Lombardi did say this though:

“Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good.”

by John Morgan on Feb 4, 2010 11:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Fine. But what does that have to do with it?

I’d be okay LOSING. But they didn’t lose, they were up 5 when he was pulled, in the third quarter.

It wasn’t losing. It was the equivalent of punting on 3rd and 2.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 10:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Larger perspective is needed here as well

“Great attempt” = Attempt to win a super bowl? Or Attempt to win a football game? Or Attempt to do my absolute best at this particular moment in time? Again, it’s a fuzzy and arbitrary quote intended to fit whichever definition you need at this moment.

If you think the Super Bowl is your ultimate goal, perfect season be damned, then Hey! Lombardi says the Colts should be doing everything they can to ensure a Super Bowl win! Rest the starters!

On the other hand, if you think the perfect season (19-0, not 16-0) is the ultimate goal, then Hey! Lombardi says the Colts should be doing everything they can to ensure they win every game! Play the starters!

by niko on Feb 5, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Every quote is "intended to fit whichever definition you need at the moment" if you want to play the deconstruction game.

I’m not sure how you can cut the legs off a quote about greatness in the context of my overall argument and say we should redefine “great attempt.”

I’m talking about THE great attempt. It is inherent in ALL of your examples.

Winning the Super Bowl? Check. Definitely a requirement in an undefeated season.

Win a football game? Check. Definitely a requirement in an undefeated season.

Attempt to do my best at this particular moment in time? Check. If you think otherwise, you’ve deconstructed Vince Lombardi and his core beliefs to suit your fancy. The guy was all about performing up to the best of your ability at that given moment in time.

The true meaning and context in the quote comes from the other side, the part about it being “glorious even to fail” if you did happen to do everything you possibly could in every moment in time, if you truly made “the great attempt.”

I do not believe in sitting the rest of the Jets game and the Bills game that the Colts to use your own words, “attempted to do [their] absolute best at [that] particular moment in time.”

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, he looked pretty happy when they sat him down against the Jets...

I believe he could do it too, and I believe with his versed knowledge of the history of the game, he knows what it would mean and wants it.

I don’t believe it’s his choice, or they would have gone for it THIS year.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Honestly, this says more about the Colts then anything else could.

I mean, daaamn. That’s one hell of a consistently good team.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 5, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree. They are an amazing team, and consistently so.

And that again is why I believe they should have gone for it. That number is amazing, but will be forgotten relatively quickly. 19-0 would have lasted a hell of a lot longer…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

surprised how people here dismiss the perfect record

it is a huge accomplishment. I am a tad on the fence, maybe I can think this through logically. The question for me comes down to this: is the reward (huge bragging rights as perfection in record and subjective bragging as one of the best teams ever, although sharing this with Dolphins, extra and elite documentation in the record books) versus the risk (small risk of injury to starter, which has unknown effect and risk to wiinning superbowl). Take a look at the risk, you realize its not only small risk to start, but its small risk to really effect the game (everyone assumes Manning would be hurt, that is unlikely, more likely another player, which would have less risk to ‘cause’ a superbowl loss). When both the risk of occurring and risk of damage to SuperBowl are dependent and both small, you multiply them and it creates a even smaller risk, and therefore the risk could be low enough to try for the reward. However, the decision maker, the coach’s job is only really to win the SB at a base level, therefore if your thinking very practically on a mean level he should not risk the SB for other less practical motivations no matter how small the risk, since his reward is not a goal in mean terms, and the risk is contradictory to his main goal.

by paul2 on Feb 6, 2010 9:44 AM PST reply actions  

Next Year

I agree with the sentiment that it would be more of a goal the next year. Irvin can say he would trade his rings because he has three rings. Once you win a title, it seems like less of a risk.

The Colts are a few years removed from their title, so I can see why they would worry less about perfection. I imagine that they or the Saints will make it more of a goal next season.

by Michael Scott on Feb 6, 2010 1:16 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows

Recent FanPosts

8b0726ecf3b3e299b1fbdfefb4ec9922_small
Interview with TE, John Nalbone from ProInterviews
Photo_on_2011-10-14_at_23
Jim Harbaugh Vs. Pete Carroll
Small
Nation Wide Mock Draft
Small
Could Dre Kirkpatrick be the key to our 2012 draft?
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
Seahawks QB Situation: Not a Defense for Tarvaris Jackson
Small
Team Needs - The National Perception of Seattle
Small
2012 Mock Draft, Version 1.0
Walshrun_small
Super Bowl XLVI Reaction: New England Patriots
Small
My Friend has a Friend who works for Nike...
208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Easleystreet2_small ChadDavis45

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill