Colts sub in Curtis Painter....FML

[Tailback U]

The risk doesn't raise. The "risk" is always the same. Peyton is at as much risk of being injured in this game as he is in Week One. Carson Palmer played out the whole season in 2005. When did he get injured? Playoffs. von Oelhoffen went low on him. It's fucking football. The risk doesn't raise just because you're locked in for the playoffs.

The more snaps you play, the higher the risk of getting injured is. I don't even know how you are trying to argue this. As we all know, all it takes is 1 play and you can snap your leg. If you honestly think the chances of Peyton snapping his leg in 15 snaps are the same as in 50 snaps then you have mental problems.

If the Colts were a 5-10 team, you're telling me that it's suddenly no risk to play Peyton Manning, your franchise quarterback, in Week 17? According to your logic (and this is your logic), the more they're on the field, the higher the risk. Peyton suffers an ACL tear, suffers an elbow injury, or fucks up his shoulder in the last game of the season... it may affect the rest of his career or at least his play for next year. You're telling me the Colts don't risk anything still? You're the retarded one.

Oh please. I'm not even going to try to help you understand the difference between saving a guy for the playoffs and a championship and playing a guy who is going to be sitting on his ass and watching the playoffs.

You're acting like a moron because I know nobody could possibly be too stupid to not understand the difference between saving your best players for the playoffs/championship game and playing your best players because there is no point in saving them for anything.

 

[Tailback U]

Saying you aren't gonna play a player because he might get injured is a cop out and a lame ass excuse.

uh excuse for what? that doesn't even make sense. nobody is using holding peyton out as an excuse except you guys for your playoff struggles...sorry, "rust."

 

[Tailback U]

I don't agree.

Same reason why Manning doesn't touch the ball in the pre-season.

To totally dismiss the possibility of an injury is ridiculous, especially when you're essentially playing for nothing. The Colts have home field wrapped up. 16-0 means nothing if they don't win the Super Bowl.

Again ... if the Colts go 16-0 and don't win the Super Bowl, no one will care.

but dave, tom brady and the pats went 16-0 and went full throttle the entire season and rode that momentum through the playoffs and to a super bowl cham...oh, wait.

 

[Archer]

but dave, tom brady and the pats went 16-0 and went full throttle the entire season and rode that momentum through the playoffs and to a super bowl cham...oh, wait.

They were one miracle catch and or Asante Samuel easiest pick I have seen in a long time away from winning the game . If you don't buy the Colts rust you can not possibly buy the Pats theory

 

[Archer]

uh excuse for what? that doesn't even make sense. nobody is using holding peyton out as an excuse except you guys for your playoff struggles...sorry, "rust."

Polian also claims to not believe in rust . So why is Manning out there at all? If it's all about injuries why is he even playing two quarters? To keep sharp? Wait I thought he could turn it on like a light switch?

 

[Rush]

Retarded move. That is all.

 

[Bear Pand]

but dave, tom brady and the pats went 16-0 and went full throttle the entire season and rode that momentum through the playoffs and to a super bowl cham...oh, wait.

This post is bullshit. The Patriots don't have the same history or management style as the Colts. What happened to them in their 16-0 seasons has 0 to do with this situation. Other than laughing at them losing, no Colts fan really cares what happened to NE.

This whole injury discussion is retarded. You basically have to reduce the choices to either sit manning or get manning injured. That's not a realistic way to view the situation. It's so unlikely that Manning even takes a hit, let alone gets injured that it's overcautious to worry about it. Colts had the longest active pass streak w/o a sack before Painter came in today.

Also they left players like Saturday and Collie out there. If either of those players get injured Indy is fucked since they're thin at WR/OL.

If injury is the real reason to sub Manning out then don't play him at all. And don't trot him out for his ceremonial "let me play one drive in week 17 to keep my consecutive start streak alive" nonsense. I'll respect Polian a lot more if he plays no starters at all next week.

This whole situation is ass and points to Polians arrogance and outright refusal to fix some of the few things he's constantly wrong on.

 

[dave]

This post is bullshit. The Patriots don't have the same history or management style as the Colts. What happened to them in their 16-0 seasons has 0 to do with this situation. Other than laughing at them losing, no Colts fan really cares what happened to NE.

This whole injury discussion is retarded. You basically have to reduce the choices to either sit manning or get manning injured. That's not a realistic way to view the situation. It's so unlikely that Manning even takes a hit, let alone gets injured that it's overcautious to worry about it. Colts had the longest active pass streak w/o a sack before Painter came in today.

Also they left players like Saturday and Collie out there. If either of those players get injured Indy is fucked since they're thin at WR/OL.

If injury is the real reason to sub Manning out then don't play him at all. Don't trot him out for his ceremonial "let me play one drive in week 17 to keep my consecutive start streak alive" nonsense.

This whole situation is ass and points to Polians arrogance and outright refusal to fix some of the few things he's constantly wrong on.

Did you lose money on them today?

 

[Deviant]

The more snaps you play, the higher the risk of getting injured it. I don't even know how you are trying to argue this.

Because you don't fucking get it.

What's the difference between Brady's 2007 knee injury in Week 1 and Palmer's 2005 knee injury in the playoffs? Same injury. Palmer was already in postseason, Brady was in Week One. Risk is the same regardless of number of snaps. Risk only increases if you continue to play through an injury because you can re-aggravate it. Your argument is invalid.

Oh please. I'm not even going to try to help you understand the difference between saving a guy for the playoffs and a championship and playing a guy who is going to be sitting on his ass and watching the playoffs.

You're acting like a moron because I know nobody could possibly be too stupid to not understand the difference between saving your best players for the playoffs/championship game and playing your best players because there is no point in saving them for anything.

I'm very aware of the difference. However, you're putting your player in equal amount of jeopardy regardless of if they're 14-0 or 0-14, which is what you're not getting...

I'm going off of what you said. You said that non-playoff teams don't risk anything if they lose a player and I'm saying that the logic of that, especially after what you've said in previous posts, is fucking retarded. If Tom Brady suffers his injury in Week 17 instead of Week 1 and the Patriots are let's say 6-10 (just to add emphasis to your "meaningless" point), there's a chance he may not even be ready come back for the beginning of the season.

Even worse, if your franchise player suffers a "Theismann injury" in a game that doesn't matter because he's going to be "sitting on the couch" anyway, it really changes the game plan for your entire franchise even though the game is meaningless. Therefore, if you're worried about players getting hurt like that and saving them for postseason when they have nothing to play for, the same should be the concern regardless of the situation.

That's why resting players only because they're "going to the playoffs" and "they might get injured" makes no fucking sense when the risk of injury is the same regardless of where you are in the season. If you play to win the game, it shouldn't change just because of what your record is.

 

[EmpireWF]

At the end of the day, Manning and the Colts starters they pulled will not win or lose based on the fact they did not play the 4th quarter of week 16 and however much of wk 17 they won't play.

They didn't even dress Mathis and a few other big players, where's the outcry there


Still, I think it's a stupid move (I started Peyton in my fantasy league, stung but didn't screw me...I hope). I'd like to know how Caldwell came to pick the time he did it. Why not just pull them after the 3rd quarter?

Any player who steps on the field risks injury, if they really want to avoid it, don't play any of the starters at all.

San Diego will likely rest their main guys next week, as may Cincinnati...will it screw them in the end?

 

[Deviant]

This post is bullshit. The Patriots don't have the same history or management style as the Colts. What happened to them in their 16-0 seasons has 0 to do with this situation. Other than laughing at them losing, no Colts fan really cares what happened to NE.

This whole injury discussion is retarded. You basically have to reduce the choices to either sit manning or get manning injured. That's not a realistic way to view the situation. It's so unlikely that Manning even takes a hit, let alone gets injured that it's overcautious to worry about it. Colts had the longest active pass streak w/o a sack before Painter came in today.

Also they left players like Saturday and Collie out there. If either of those players get injured Indy is fucked since they're thin at WR/OL.

If injury is the real reason to sub Manning out then don't play him at all. And don't trot him out for his ceremonial "let me play one drive in week 17 to keep my consecutive start streak alive" nonsense. I'll respect Polian a lot more if he plays no starters at all next week.

This whole situation is ass and points to Polians arrogance and outright refusal to fix some of the few things he's constantly wrong on.

Thank you. This is why Tailback needs to stop while he's behind.

 

[Esjay]

He could take a page from the Lions and learn to lose without acting like a giant faggot.

And I'll take being a Lions fan over a Colts fan any day especially after them booing a playoff bound team today. What a bunch of assholes.

You're an idiot. They booed because the dumbass coach pulled the best QB in the game (not to mention by FAR the most important player to any team in the league) up 5 when we have a chance to go 16-0. Everyone here wants that for this organization, it's disappointing to see your coach basically give the other team the game.

Quit being an angry for no reason douche bag. Manning had a bad expression on his face because he wants to be in the game so we fucking win. Not because he's a whiner.

Not to mention the fact the fans paid good money to see the team at least try to win the game. Caldwell came into today thinking we better be up 30 by the 3rd quarter or we probably won't win. He will never say that, but everyone in the stadium knew as soon as Painter fumbled away a touchdown that we were going to lose.

Just because the Lions suck ass doesn't mean nobody else in the fucking league can boo, jackass.

 

[Bear Pand]

They didn't even dress Mathis and a few other big players, where's the outcry there


Still, I think it's a stupid move (I started Peyton in my fantasy league, stung but didn't screw me...I hope). I'd like to know how Caldwell came to pick the time he did it. Why not just pull them after the 3rd quarter?

Any player who steps on the field risks injury, if they really want to avoid it, don't play any of the starters at all.

There's no outcry for not dressing players like Mathis and Garcon because they were already injured and it made sense. It didn't make sense to just randomly yank the other starters in that game situation. Had they just not played Manning to begin with and put it on injury I wouldn't have complained. Don't leave Manning in just long enough to break 50,000 yards then yank him and say it's to prevent injury.

 

[ThunderHorse]

There's no outcry for not dressing players like Mathis and Garcon because they were already injured and it made sense. It didn't make sense to just randomly yank the other starters in that game situation. Had they just not played Manning to begin with and put it on injury I wouldn't have complained. Don't leave Manning in just long enough to break 50,000 yards then yank him and say it's to prevent injury.

Honestly,

It's time to let it go

It happened, we can't change it, why dwell on it.

maybe it'll be brought up again come playoff time if we lose, but as for now, I don't care anymore.

 

[Bear Pand]

Honestly,

It's time to let it go

It happened, we can't change it, why dwell on it.

maybe it'll be brought up again come playoff time if we lose, but as for now, I don't care anymore.

I agree but Polian isn't leaving anytime soon. When he does his son (who probably has the same mentality) is gonna take over. My problem is the sometimes soft approach the Colts take, and that's not going away until they start deciding to be aggressive.

Oh and I've been listening to Polian's radio show and this shit is comedy. So far he's said:

-The Colts played their starters against Jax because the 23 game win streak and most wins in a decade are important records that he wanted. Yet 16-0 isn't because they've been done before by Dolphins and Patriots.

-Only 20-0 not 19-0 is considered a perfect season. Even though going 20-0 is practically impossible.

-NFL is the only sport where the the championship loser is considered a loser. In the NBA/MLB/NCAAB the championship runner ups are celebrated.

-Caller asked him why the Colts played Harrison in week 17 years ago to reach the #2 in before to reach a record. Why they left Wayne in a few years ago in Week 17 to reach a record. Why they also bring Manning in late in the season just to hit records. Polian just danced around it. Also got all mad at another caller that went in on him.

 

[mcstl25]

The Colts will not win a playoff game... there, I said it. I don't bet often, but I don't care who the Colts play in the second round of the playoffs, I'm putting money on their opponent.

Tailback, I couldn't disagree more with what you're saying. Look at the track record of Superbowl winners this decade. Only one number one seed has won the Superbowl, and most of these teams rest their starters down the stretch. The Colts been the number 1 seed several times this decade and always rest their players during the last week or two. And every year they choke in the playoffs. The Colt's Superbowl victory came this decade as a number 3 seed when they had to fight all the way until the end. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't care what anyone says, the intensity you bring to an NFL game cannot be turned off and on like a switch. A team that goes through the motions for four weeks leading up to a playoff game will be rusty and will have a hard time "turning things on" again -- history has shown that. The Colts will come out flat in their first playoffs game and they will lose.

 

[Archer]

The Colts will not win a playoff game... there, I said it. I don't bet often, but I don't care who the Colts play in the second round of the playoffs, I'm putting money on their opponent.

Tailback, I couldn't disagree more with what you're saying. Look at the track record of Superbowl winners this decade. Only one number one seed has won the Superbowl, and most of these teams rest their starters down the stretch. The Colts been the number 1 seed several times this decade and always rest their players during the last week or two. And every year they choke in the playoffs. The Colt's Superbowl victory came this decade as a number 3 seed when they had to fight all the way until the end. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't care what anyone says, the intensity you bring to an NFL game cannot be turned off and on like a switch. A team that goes through the motions for four weeks leading up to a playoff game will be rusty and will have a hard time "turning things on" again -- history has shown that. The Colts will come out flat in their first playoffs game and they will lose.

I'm not so sure about that . People want to blame our losses on resting when it's not fully the case . Last year we lost because of an inability to convert a simple 3rd and 2 then several "iffy" calls in OT hurt also . Maybe we would have played better with less rest? I don't know . I'm as pissed as anyone that a shot at going 19-0 was taken away and trust me ... I hated the call but it's time to move and stop blaming things for losing in the playoffs .

 

[Nukleopatra]

Da Bears

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Colts = Charmin Soft

 

[Esjay]

I realize why they booed, you fucking tard. Your coach has been making decisions that have gotten your team to the playoffs with a bye week. The stupid fucking fans can shut up when he makes decisions to help their team try to win a Superbowl. You fucks don't deserve it though. Can't wait to see your team lose badly, faggot. Fuck you and your team. Thanks for the 800 groans. Butthurt much? '72 Dolphins still the only undefeated team in NFL history. LMAO at you.

Oh, and Manning is a homo just like the Indy fans.



Yeah, it does. You want a reason to boo, go root for an 0-16 team, dicknose.

LOL clearly you're just upset because the Lions suck and the Colts don't, get the fuck over it you nerd.