I get the concept. You take your star quarterback out of a meaningless regular season quarterback so as to not risk an injury that would affect his being able to play in the playoffs.
Of course it was not a meaningless game to the fans and probably not to the players either. It was a chance for the Colts to go to a perfect 15-0 on the season and win their 24 regular season game in a row. Instead, Peyton Manning was pulled out of the game in favor of backup quarterback Curtis Painter, who had never played in an NFL regular season game. Not surprisingly, Painter did not do well and the the New York Jets came from behind to beat the Colts.
Here's what I don't understand about the decision that was made. Throughout Manning's entire career, the Colts organization has repeatedly left him in during the fourth quarter of blowout games. Some fans at the time justified the move saying the Colts were worried about some obscure, rarely-invoked point differential tiebreaker thus needing Manning in the game to run up the score. However, Manning was not running up the score in those fourth quarter blowouts. Rather he was just handing the ball off, running out the clock. There was no reason why a backup quarterback could not do that instead of risking Manning to a season-ending injury.
The justification for leaving Manning in today was much strong than it is for leaving him in those blowout games. Yet today, Manning was benched. It is a shame. The Colts players and their loyal fans deserved a genuine effort to try to win today's game.
12 comments:
I still don't get it: why is Indy's reputation dependent on the outcome of a football game?
Seems like a case of misplaced identity to me.
I don't think the City's reputationis at all dependent on the outcome of a football game. Rather this is about a lot of fans feeling betrayed, and rightfully so.
People PAID to watch this game. Had I gone, I would have asked for a refund for a team that DELIBERATELY gave less than 100%.
Indy rises and falls on the Colts. Indy is a small market with limited market expansion that shouldn't even have a NFL team.
The Colts had to bench Manning and throw the game, because Manning is a horrible cold-weather QB who the NFL protects from having to play outside.
The Colts simply could not afford to expose Manning to the pressure of a perfect season in Buffalo, next week.
Since 2004, when the NFL favoritism for the Colts began, the Colts have played the following games that might appear on the schedule to be in cold-weather cities. Upon inspection, however, we see that Manning has played only one truly cold-weather game since 2004.
2004
January 2 at Denver - L (14-33) - Game temp 27 - Manning barely played.
2005
Nov 7 - at New England - W (40-21) - Game temp 55
Nov 20 - at Cincinnati - W (45-37) - Game temp - 39
Dec 24 - at Seattle - L (13-28)- Game Temp - 54
2006
None
2007
December 9 - at Baltimore - W (44-20) Game temp - 38
2008
November 9 - at Pittsburgh - W (24-20) - Game temp - 40
November 30 - at Cleveland - W (10-6)- Game temp - 33 <- No offensive td in this one.
2009
Buffalo
The NFL is played in Winter, yet Manning sees none of it.
Note that the games that could be counted on to be cold, - Denver '04-'05 and Buffalo '09 were scheduled to be the last games of the season in anticipation of resting Manning.
When the NFL stops hand-picking the Colts' schedule and stops gifting the Colts wins through phantom holding and interference calls, you'll see just how horrible this Colts team is.
Did any of you see the play in the 4th Quarter where the Colts' defender had his arm completely wrapped around the Jets' receiver, yet no flag was thrown?
Your Colts team is a sham, Hoosiers. The NFL is as legitimate as the WWF.
Seems to me the Colts have a history of resting Manning in blowout games. During the 2004 season, in particular, I recall Manning sitting a lot of 4th quarter minutes.
That doesn't take away from your overall point, however.
Doug, I strongly disagree. Yes there are a few games when they've taken Manning out in blowouts but in most of the blowouts they've left him in well after the game was decided.
I can remember because I remember screaming at the TV that they get Manning out of the game. I also remember wondering why they weren't using the opportunity to get Sorgi needed experience.
I repeat: why does the outcome of a football game -- played by millionaires on behalf of billionaires -- matter one whit in the grand scheme of things?
This is entertainment, folks, not anything remotely meaningful. Indy does not "rise and fall on the Colts": sorry, Cato. (Indy rises and falls on its economic climate, cultural landscape, political atmosphere, etc.)
The fans are just spectators buying tickets to a sporting event...and, the event transpired as scheduled, yes?
HITH:
Central Indiana Hoosiers do rise and fall on the Colts. It's the bedrock of their identity, their claim to equivalency with bigger cities like Boston and San Fran.
To Hoosiers, the following rationale governs: the Colts beat your team, ergo, Indy is better than your city. If you insult the Colts, you're insulting them, so bound are their identities with some silly Football team. I'm not saying things ought to be this way, quite the contrary. I'm simply telling you the way things are.
You will never see a town go inside like you will Indy when a Colts game is on.
HITH,
Why does it matter? Have you been to a restaurant and paid an extra 2% sales tax? Have you rented a car recently? We taxpayers are all paying for the Colts to be here. The people who attend the games have made an even bigger investment. We all have made an investment in the Colts and have the right to feel betgrayed at their giving away the game. The Colts don't exactly play their games in isolation, divorced from the public. If they didn't, you'd have a point that nobody should care.
Cato,
"Central Indiana Hoosiers do rise and fall on the Colts. It's the bedrock of their identity, their claim to equivalency with bigger cities like Boston and San Fran.
To Hoosiers, the following rationale governs: the Colts beat your team, ergo, Indy is better than your city. If you insult the Colts, you're insulting them, so bound are their identities with some silly Football team. I'm not saying things ought to be this way, quite the contrary. I'm simply telling you the way things are."
Okay, now you're being silly. Maybe a few people do this but your waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy over generalizing about Hoosiers.
Paul:
I posit that you don't know your constituency.
The magic code word is "suckep." Cool.
Well, this Hoosier doesn't give a flying "f" about the Colts. (or, the Pacers or the Indy "500" or whatever the hockey team is or....)
Grow up, people. Games/sports teams are too stupid to form the basis for a city's identity, and "owners" like the Irsays are too smarmy to represent the majority of residents.\
It's about time we stopped subsidizing 'em and started putting our money where it matters (rapid transit, for one).
Post a Comment