How the "Going Undefeated v. Resting Starters" argument has been severely dumbed down - Stampede Blue

Just a reminder to the readers that two weeks ago, BBS appeared ok with the idea of resting startes. Now he's all about giving Colts brass the business about resting starters. As much as this website is entertaining, it really can be annoying at times. But oh well, in the end it doesn't really matter.

over 2 years ago lefpsyd 3 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Response

That was before the Jaguars game, which saw the Colts playing starters for four quarters. The result was a win. After that game, the last two became meaningful to everyone save Colts management.

SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Dec 28, 2009 3:52 PM EST reply actions

It wasn’t meaningful to me, so I guess that brings the total to 3 people. But two of those are the only ones that matter. Listen, nothing personal about putting up this post. I just couldn’t deal with all the harsh words thrown at the leaders of our favorite team. It feels like you think we’re being led by Matt Millen or something. If your opinions can sway so drastically because we won one meaningless game (with significant rotation substitutions throughout, btw), then so be it. I will respectfully choose a different course of action. I will simply say that it was hard to watch them lose, and perhaps the timing was off by (literally) a few minutes, but all in all this is a great team that has as good a chance as any to win the Superbowl. I respect their resolve to go with what they decide. The year we won, we were healthy. Period. This year we aren’t as healthy, but have a chance to be almost as healthy. You have to play the numbers and keep your eye on the real prize here…the Superbowl.

@lefpsyd

by lefpsyd on Dec 28, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions

Nobody is against rest.

Why did the rest suddenly become an issue with twenty minutes left in the game? Why when we were backed up at our 10 with twenty minutes left to play? Why is 16-0 so meaningless, but Peyton’s consecutive streak or getting 50 K yards or winning in Jacksonville not meaningless?

Rest is fine. One series in Jacksonville, one series in NY Jets, we could all deal with it. It’s not just the decision, but the timing of it. And from what I hear, a lot of players weren’t even prepared for it. They’re the epitome of the never-quit attitude and they’re just suddenly halted. Stop, it’s hammer time. Or more like Resting time.. or Painter Time. Or whatever.

Also, what purpose did this serve? Nobody can argue the injury thing, in my opinion, because they didn’t care about if for six and half quarters and they won’t when we start the Buffalo game with Peyton as well. It hurt the fanbase, it was against the identity of this team, it was against the wishes of the players. It has created a negativity that this team didn’t deserve. These Colts and their seven comeback wins and the way they had overcome all types of difficulties were THE story of the NFL. The way we just quit with five minutes left in the third was the antithesis of how this team had acted through the first fourteen and half games. Bad timing and a very bad approach to it all.

I’m still quite optimistic about the future, but it can not be considered “a good decision.” It can not be declared a positive thing. It didn’t help this team. I don’t care about the media, and they will massacre us, that’s fine. But it could have all been handled much better than what they did yesterday and what they’ve done since.

I’ll still support Polian, Caldwell, Irsay, and the players (especially the players,) but that does not mean that you can’t acknowledge they’ve made an error here.

by diagenesis on Dec 28, 2009 4:11 PM EST reply actions