Skip to content

King: Goodell is "angry" about teams not using starters

When word emerged on Friday that the league will ask the Competition Committee to revisit the question of teams with playoff berths secured should be permitted to rest starters late in the regular season, we thought that the NFL was merely paying lip service to fan outrage regarding the Colts’ decision to pull starters in a winnable Week 16 game against the Jets.

But a stream of Sunday reports regarding draft-pick incentives and quotes from the Commissioner have made it abundantly clear that Roger Goodell is serious about doing something to minimize the postseason preseason mentality.

Capping these developments comes a report from Peter King of NBC, who said during Football Night in America that Goodell is “angry” about teams tanking it.

But there’s no easy solution to the problem.  As Tony Dungy of Football Night in America said after King’s report, coaches with a shot at a Super Bowl care more about getting to the Super Bowl than getting an extra draft pick for putting a key player at risk in a meaningless game.

We’ve actually got a suggested solution to the problem, one that requires some outside-the-box thinking.  And we’ll pull the sheet off the idea as part of the Week 17 Morning Aftermath.

That’s what they call a tease.  For those of you who don’t understand the concept, I’ll explain it after tonight’s game.

Permalink 89 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
89 Responses to “King: Goodell is "angry" about teams not using starters”
  1. tonysservice says: Jan 3, 2010 8:17 PM

    hah

  2. Milhouse says: Jan 3, 2010 8:17 PM

    Oh, come on Florio, explain it now! I can’t wait until after the game!!!!
    …..wait a minute…..

  3. jedmud says: Jan 3, 2010 8:18 PM

    Key injury, a la Wes Welker. May not have been popular in Indy at the time, but going into the playoffs they don’t have any key injuries. Pats on the other hand don’t have a pro bowl receiver. Goodell should worry about running the league and not on individual coaching decisions.

  4. V says: Jan 3, 2010 8:18 PM

    how about seeding the playoffs using teams records for the last 6 weeks of the season? division winners get the 1 thru 4 seeds with the wildcards getting the 5 and 6 just like today.

  5. lurch's nyquil says: Jan 3, 2010 8:18 PM

    Right or wrong. Should be coaches decision. Not Goodells.

  6. dirtyTHIRTY says: Jan 3, 2010 8:18 PM

    He needs to keep his dick sucker closed….teams are just being careful with their players. Look at Welker.
    He should focus more on keeping the NFL the ‘National’ Football League and not the International Football League.

  7. evilmajortom says: Jan 3, 2010 8:18 PM

    I’m “angry” about Goodell systematically ruining the NFL . . .

  8. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:19 PM

    I wonder how angry he would have been if Manning, Brady, Favre and Brees were injuried after the clinched and missed the playoffs.

  9. workhorse says: Jan 3, 2010 8:19 PM

    Goodell please lengthen the season to 18 games. I want to see more teams tank it.

  10. BigEasy33 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:19 PM

    “Tanking it” – see Broncos and Eagles…..as for the Charger’s and Saints why would they risk injury for a game that has no benefit for them…..Goodell is going to punish teams for playing well and earning were they are at the end of the season??

  11. artie lange says: Jan 3, 2010 8:20 PM

    Based on that information the Patriots should receive their 2008 draft pick back then.

  12. benniehifive says: Jan 3, 2010 8:21 PM

    this is the same problem teams have with leaving the starters in after it’s 45-0 in the fourth quarter and still throwing the ball. the teams it effect could have won more games and not had to worry about what other teams were doing…so…ya know…if you would have won more games you could have the luxury of resting your starters while other teams cried foul because they needed you to win.

  13. benniehifive says: Jan 3, 2010 8:21 PM

    this is the same problem teams have with leaving the starters in after it’s 45-0 in the fourth quarter and still throwing the ball. the teams it effect could have won more games and not had to worry about what other teams were doing…so…ya know…if you would have won more games you could have the luxury of resting your starters while other teams cried foul because they needed you to win.

  14. wwwmattcom says: Jan 3, 2010 8:21 PM

    It’s a business. Not simply of entertaining but of winning, of staying healthy.
    Be angry about injuries too! Or get mad at strength coaches.
    Teams that will miss the playoffs should sit their franchise players and anyone else who may suffer career ending injuries or injuries that will require missing OTA’s and camp.
    Colts are a bad example they had something on the line while have nothing to gain besides history. If they didn’t want it, they shouldn’t have to have it.
    Lots of people said Pats had the guts to go for it, yea they also had the guts to keep their starters in just so they could run the score up this season and last. From HISTORY class to classless. This fine line should have no borders or intrusion from the Commish. Fans can have their opinions; including me, but no one opinion is worth more than any other. Azz h0les opinions, we all got’em. But commish, leave it alone.

  15. Dirthead says: Jan 3, 2010 8:21 PM

    Who Dey! I am all for competitive games, but there is nothing Gooddell can do….and anything he does do will be counter-productive. The fact is the fans don’t care as much as Vegas. Bottom line: winning gives you choices. Teams like the Steelers who are whining about it should have taken care of their own business…….Bengals 3:16 says: “We just swept your ass.” See you next year.
    Goodell is kind of a tool anyway.

  16. Jaydub says: Jan 3, 2010 8:21 PM

    Ugh
    Screw you Goodell. Keep your f’n nose out of the teams’ decision making. You aren’t going to lose a dime by having starters not playing in meaningless games. The entire world knows you will blow a dead horse for a dollar, so please stop trying to convince people that you have the fans’ best interest in mind.

  17. Hank says: Jan 3, 2010 8:22 PM

    Piss on Goodell. This isn’t some damn staged wrestling match. Hell, it isn’t like Goodell has dicked around with the game enough. If it was up to him every damn team would play in a dome with an attached mall and defensive penalties for giving the QB the stinkeye.
    Seriously Goodell, shut your suck hole.

  18. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 3, 2010 8:22 PM

    “King: Goodell is “angry” about teams not using starters”
    Can’t blame him. If I were him I’d fine the Eagirls $100,000.

  19. jfd349 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:22 PM

    So now the NFL wants to “reward” teams with additional draft picks? For playing starters? Give me a break. How about giving bad teams an extra pick for not “tanking” it in meaningless games to get higher draft picks.
    And how is the NFL going to make this actually work? The Colts would “start” Manning, have him take a few snaps then fall down holding his leg. Out he comes with a hamstring injury. But the Colts get another pick for this?
    Maybe the solution is to play the entire season, then select the playoff teams out of a hat at random, that way nobody knows who is going to be in the playoffs until after the regular season. That will keep them all playing.
    Just give the best teams more opportunity to draft players, because that will help with the competitive balance the league so wants I guess.

  20. Alzado's Vein says: Jan 3, 2010 8:22 PM

    Wow, I’m in total suspense now…

  21. gbditka says: Jan 3, 2010 8:22 PM

    The day Roger Goodell owns an NFL team is the day he can determine who should start in week 17 and who should sit. Owners & Head Coaches are in the position to determine the best interest of their business, not someone with an office in New York City who can’t profit from the decision. Just ask the Pats how glad they are now that Brady & Welker are dinged and possibly out of the wildcard week since they played in a meaningless game today.

  22. YP2K says: Jan 3, 2010 8:23 PM

    Nobody cares that Goodell is angry . . .

  23. Hugh says: Jan 3, 2010 8:24 PM

    cock teaser

  24. LewD says: Jan 3, 2010 8:25 PM

    they should leave the situation as is …
    1- The league should not have any say in who plays for a team …
    2- The teams that are resting players have earned that right …
    3- Giving the powerful teams in the league (the playoff teams) extra picks makes no sense … the wanna bees need the help …
    4- The only griping is coming from the teams and fans whose franchises are not quite eliminated and are seeking help through another team’s loss …

  25. Klytus says: Jan 3, 2010 8:25 PM

    What a surprise! Mr. Goodell and I are in complete agreement. Especially, when it comes to the Colts undefeated season. The Colts may never have an undefeated season again. Pulling the players during the Jets game just showed that Colts management doesn’t care about it’s players or it’s fans. You know, the fans. The people subsidizing Polian’s salary.
    “You play to win the game!”
    Herman Edwards
    GO STEELERS!

  26. SixburghSteelers says: Jan 3, 2010 8:26 PM

    No Flo, a tease is a Hottie at your local bar who isn’t drunk enough to go home with you yet…
    Your Week 17 Morning Aftermath however, I have NO problem waiting on that.

  27. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:27 PM

    How about giving the first overall pick of the draft to the team with the best regular season record in the league.

  28. Franchise says: Jan 3, 2010 8:28 PM

    Just another thing Goodell is going to eff up.
    LEAVE IT ALONE!!
    If a team gets into the position to rest starters come week 16 or 17, they deserve it.
    Dont like it, maybe the best teams from the prior year shouldnt have an easy schedule. They dont need to make the NFL schedule so far in advance.

  29. The Notorious V.I.C. says: Jan 3, 2010 8:28 PM

    I don’t know who the bigger asshat is: Mike Florio, Peter King, or Roger Goodell. Three guys who know nothing about football yet somehow manage to make their living off it.

  30. TheBigOldDog says: Jan 3, 2010 8:28 PM

    Start by removing Polian and Fisher from the competition committee. Next, make sure the Committee isn’t compromised in the future by people unconcerned about throwing games. Make it outsiders or at least a yearly rotation of insiders.
    A new Committee comprised of people more concerned about the game than a particular team will find solutions that will work.

  31. username says: Jan 3, 2010 8:28 PM

    While it wouldn’t solve the problem 100%……the league ought schedule three division games for the last three games of the season (1 against each oppenant) this would greatly increase the number of teams that still have meaningful games week 15, week 16, and week 17.
    It would also make it almost impossible to back into the playoffs and would result in teams that get hot in late Nov/Dec making the playoffs instead of teams that were hot in Sept/Oct and then declined.

  32. Tdk24 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:29 PM

    Sounds like the commish was betting on the saints to win. Can we fire him for “cause”?

  33. Bob Loblaw says: Jan 3, 2010 8:32 PM

    Just wait until the NFL expands to an 18-game schedule. You’ll see some teams playing guys part-time the whole month of December.

  34. slutnuts says: Jan 3, 2010 8:33 PM

    using this as a platform to bitch about welkers injury is ridiculous.. it happened far too early in the game, so even if he was going to come out it is a moot point….
    is this goodell’s first year watching football? this has happened every year since i can remember, but all of a sudden its a problem, makes one wonder exactly how much vegas lost because of the colts las weekend

  35. littlekaps says: Jan 3, 2010 8:34 PM

    I kind of laughed when I heard season ticket holders in Indy demanded money back. Which would you rather have:
    1) A shot at the Super Bowl with ALL healthy players
    or…
    2) A shot at the Super Bowl less one of your starters
    Just asked Belichick if he would change his mind right about now.
    Teams that are guaranteed their spots in the playoffs can tank all they want. If you needed someone to win for you to make it, too bad, should have won more games than you did. The teams that did this have EARNED the right to do it. Get over it folks, happens in each and every sport.

  36. pft rocks says: Jan 3, 2010 8:34 PM

    Goodell start by reprimanding Polian first. He should be removed from the Competition committee.
    He has broken far to many rules and you allow this. Set an example…. We will see if you really are angry or not. Are you afraid of Polian also??

  37. redsquare says: Jan 3, 2010 8:37 PM

    The best idea I’ve heard was in these comment boards (I think it was from Deacon Blues, correct me if I’m wrong), and that is to have the last month of the season be all division games. Now, where those games are held could become a contentious issue, but overall it sounds like a great idea–minimal tweaking, maximum effect.

  38. jackbauerqb1 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:37 PM

    “That’s what they call a tease. For those of you who don’t understand the concept, I’ll explain it after tonight’s game.”
    That is a CLASSIC!!!!
    Who doesn’t love this website???!!!!!

  39. ernielogo says: Jan 3, 2010 8:37 PM

    The solution is very simple. It’s all about scheduling.
    The first two games of the season, the middle two games of the season and the last two games of the season should ALWAYS be against division opponents.
    Not only will teams play hard agains division rivals, the best route to the playoffs is through winning your division. If you are 3-1 in your division heading into the last two weeks, you probably have to win out to secure the division. Starting out 2-0 in your division after the first two games is an advantage.

  40. Rev. Dr. HollywoodWags says: Jan 3, 2010 8:40 PM

    The NFL is about sportsmanship and community activism.
    And screwing the fans and destroying people’s lives.

  41. IrishBoy36 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:40 PM

    It the teams are allowed to tank the games, then the game tickets should be free or refunded.
    Seems shitty to have to pay to watch a fixed game?

  42. TheBigOldDog says: Jan 3, 2010 8:43 PM

    All they have to do is take away draft picks from teams who throw games. Rest more than 5% of your non-injured starters and lose a first third round pick. Problem solved.

  43. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 8:54 PM

    I like the idea of playing all of the division games at the end of the season. You play the first 10 weeks against those outside your division and the final six games are home and home against your division. Also, make a team finish 3-3 in their division or better to be eligible for a wild card slot. Maybe take it a step further and require a winning record in the conference to be wild card eligible.

  44. Farves sweet Hair says: Jan 3, 2010 8:55 PM

    Goodell is a power driven douche bag!

  45. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 8:55 PM

    Goodell is a total moron and how he is handling this issue shows he is so clueless and out of touch it isn’t even funny.
    First of all, players who have earned the right to rest for the playoffs are not going to be incentivized to play to get draft picks. Why would they play to give a team more draft picks to potentially put younger players in their respective position. Ridiculous. Would you be motivated to work hard a work during the holiday season when doing so meant putting an ad in the paper listing your position????
    Goodell, you are a tool and have worked for the NFL for so long that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

  46. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 8:56 PM

    BirdOldDog…………that is the dumbest suggestion I have heard yet!

  47. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 8:58 PM

    ..and to all you know-nothings……the games aren’t FIXED and the teams aren’t THROWING games……….resting keyplayers but still giving it your all with the players who ARE on the field isn’t throwing a game……it is being smart.
    If you disagree, why don’t you give Wes Welker a call this evening and see how he feels about it???

  48. SixburghSteelers says: Jan 3, 2010 8:59 PM

    ————————————————–
    …have the last month of the season be all division games. Now, where those games are held could become a contentious issue, but overall it sounds like a great idea–minimal tweaking, maximum effect.
    …The first two games of the season, the middle two games of the season and the last two games of the season should ALWAYS be against division opponents.
    ————————————————–
    +1 on EITHER of these points

  49. Deb says: Jan 3, 2010 9:02 PM

    First, Goodell is empowered by the owners to act on their behalf. He’s not some Napoleon who’s marching in and taking over. If the owners don’t want it to happen, it won’t happen.
    Second, Welker was injured at the beginning of the game, so even if Belichick had planned to pull starters early–as Indy did last week–it wouldn’t have changed his outcome. If Welker were injured early next week instead, would everyone feel the Pats should have saved him in case they made the Super Bowl? It’s a contact sport. Players get hurt. Crap happens. That’s not justification for throwing a game. People think boxing is corrupt because people used to “take dives.” Why is it okay to take a dive in the NFL?
    Third, if you’ll check, I think you’ll find most of the 43 Super Bowl winners played through to the championship. They didn’t take the last few weeks off. That would mean there’s no evidence it’s a successful strategy. So why do it?
    You play to win the game. If not, there should be some repercussions.

  50. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 9:05 PM

    ALL BYE WEEKS ARE COMPLETED IN WEEKS 3 -10.
    ALL TEAMS IN A DIVISION HAVE THE SAME BYE WEEK AND ROTATE THE BYE WEEKS EACH YEAR. (THIS YEAR YOUR BYE WEEK IS WEEK 3, NEXT YEAR WEEK 4….ALL THE WAY TO WEEK 10, THEN BACK TO WEEK 3 AGAIN.
    AFC EAST SCHEDULE
    WEEK 12
    NE@JETS
    BUFFALO@MIAMI
    WEEK 13
    JETS@BUFFALO
    MIAMI@NE
    WEEK 14
    BUFFALO@NE
    JETS@MIAMI
    WEEK 15
    NE@JETS
    MIAMI@BUFFALO
    WEEK 16
    BUFFALO@JETS
    NE@MIAMI
    WEEK 17
    NE@BUFFALO
    MIAMI@JETS

  51. skoolya says: Jan 3, 2010 9:09 PM

    You think assholes like polian give a damn what Godell thinks. He hates Godell because that asshole polian thinks he knows absolutely everything about everything. He went around telling everyone that he knows that Jeff Pash was going to be the next commish after Tags. So when Roger got the gig it just pissed him off to no end.
    On a different note, did you know that polian has a “word of the day” roll of toilet paper? It’s true and he tries to work his new word into each interview. Shitty job his little boy chrissy has because after daddy reads his word, sonny boy has to wipe his daddy’s ass.

  52. slipkid says: Jan 3, 2010 9:12 PM

    the division games idea, sounds real good, till u realize that dungy and fisher colluded to hand a game to tennessee. and a playoff spot. keep yer friends close and yer ‘enemies’ closer!
    kick fisher and polian off the committtee.
    that’s enough change. rotate membership from team to team. one from each division at a time. 2 year stint. switch half out every year.
    no mckays either.

  53. yem123 says: Jan 3, 2010 9:12 PM

    I agree with Goodell. Teams tanking games sucks. It also makes December less interesting and not a true playoff race.
    I dont know how you would govern this though.

  54. LaimHeloc says: Jan 3, 2010 9:12 PM

    Dear Mr. Polian,
    I won my suicide pool. My wife and kids love you.

  55. GhostofFlorioPast says: Jan 3, 2010 9:26 PM

    Goodell makes over 10 million dollars per year, and this collection of mama’s boys and chronic wankers think they’re smarter than him.
    Take your meds, and let the grown-ups run things.

  56. favrecansuckit says: Jan 3, 2010 9:41 PM

    # TheBigOldDog says: January 3, 2010 8:43 PM
    All they have to do is take away draft picks from teams who throw games. Rest more than 5% of your non-injured starters and lose a first third round pick. Problem solved.
    —————————————————–
    That may be the stupidest post in the history of PFT, which says a lot.

  57. The RBM says: Jan 3, 2010 9:45 PM

    I’m reading these comments regarding scheduling the last two (or three in a couple instances) regular season games as divisional games, but Im not sure how that would have made any difference this season. I’m convinced that this furor is coming from those fickle fans who believe that the Colts somehow owe the rest of the NFL franchises and the fans of not just Indianapolis, but of football, something/anything (whether is a chance to witness or “participate” in history, or to those teams on the fringe of making the playoffs) by playing their starters.
    The Colts and Chargers both won their division by five games, the Bengals swept both the Ravens and Steelers (and Browns), the Vikings swept the Packers, the Saints by four games and etc. In my opinion the proposal wouldn’t have made too much a difference this season since the Colts could have and would’ve more than likely have done things the same way, especially if you add the motivation of it being a “divisional” game to the mix.
    While I’m not opposed to changing the scheduling to meet this suggestion since it may (or may not) make games more compelling, ultimately it’s a 16 game NFL season (right now). Teams and players need to focus on winning games throughout the season and take care of the business they have control over. If you need to hope and pray that another team does this and/or that in order for you (or your favorite team) to be rewarded with a postseason berth, then you (or your team) don’t deserve to be there anyway.

  58. winkel33 says: Jan 3, 2010 9:52 PM

    Goodell is an idiot.
    On the day that a team, with really nothing to play for, had one of its best players tear his ACL and MCL, it probably isn’t the right time to be angry that teams do not play their starters.

  59. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 10:02 PM

    Observer1 says:
    January 3, 2010 9:05 PM
    I like the idea of playing all of the division games at the end of the season.
    You play the first 10 weeks against those outside your division and the final six games are home and home against your division.
    Also, make a team finish with a 3-3 record in their division and a .500 or above winning percentage in the conference to be eligible for a wild card slot.
    A couple of other schedule modifications would be to have all bye weeks completed in weeks 3-10. All teams in each division will have the same bye week and the week will rotate one year laterly in the schedule each season. i.e. if a teams bye week is week 3 this year, it is week 4 next. Each eight years you make it through the rotation.
    Example AFC EAST SCHEDULE under this plan:
    WEEK 12
    NE@JETS
    BUFFALO@MIAMI
    WEEK 13
    JETS@BUFFALO
    MIAMI@NE
    WEEK 14
    BUFFALO@NE
    JETS@MIAMI
    WEEK 15
    NE@JETS
    MIAMI@BUFFALO
    WEEK 16
    BUFFALO@JETS
    NE@MIAMI
    WEEK 17
    NE@BUFFALO
    MIAMI@JETS

  60. bustabloodvessel says: Jan 3, 2010 10:27 PM

    So, why doesn’t Goodell just tell the teams who they can draft, who they can pick up via free agency, and who their starters are going to be? Maybe he can just write the scores down for every game so they don’t have to play.

  61. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 10:28 PM

    I would also like to see teams only play inside their conference. No NFC vs AFC during the regular season.
    You play 6 games in your division and the other 10 games in your conference. There would be 12 possible opponents to pull the 10 games from. I am sure they can figure a way to make this work too.

  62. Blue Horse Shoe says: Jan 3, 2010 10:34 PM

    @schoolya:
    Best Polian post EVER!!! Maybe that is why Chrissy got a raise from Irsay, because the tp was getting thinner!!!

  63. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 10:47 PM

    Deb, just correcting you a bit….”That’s not justification for throwing a game.” No teams mentioned here are throwing games. They are just being smart about winning the one’s they need to to reach the ultimate goal. Even if the teams aren’t playing all of their starters, they are stll trying to win with who they have playing. That isn’t “throwing a game”
    “I think you’ll find most of the 43 Super Bowl winners played through to the championship. They didn’t take the last few weeks off.” If this is true. it is probably because they HAD to. Teams have been resting starters in games for decades. Why it is all of a sudden an issue is beyond comprehension.

  64. Dan says: Jan 3, 2010 10:51 PM

    I don’t have a problem with resting teams the last week but I do have a problem with the Colts pulling their players one game to protect them then the very next game playing some to get player records. That’s horrible management and just goes to prove that individuals are more important than the team.
    O yeah my idea is change the rules back so the offenses of today don’t get to run over defenses with bull penalties. This only recently became a problem,

  65. Hugh says: Jan 3, 2010 10:57 PM

    Get over it people. Just like politics, things won’t change.

  66. pft rocks says: Jan 3, 2010 10:59 PM

    @schoolya: Thanks for elaborating on Polian’s word of the day!!!! Brilliant!!! Can’t wait to hear Polian broadcast tommorrow for the new word !!!
    You all do know that it will end 10 min early…… Polian is all about being right.

  67. Favre On HGH says: Jan 3, 2010 11:10 PM

    More lip service.
    Being “angry” doesn’t change anything.

  68. stnmmc says: Jan 3, 2010 11:10 PM

    # The Notorious V.I.C. says: January 3, 2010 8:28 PM
    I don’t know who the bigger asshat is: Mike Florio, Peter King, or Roger Goodell. Three guys who know nothing about football yet somehow manage to make their living off it.
    _________________________________
    ….says the expert on football….

  69. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 11:11 PM

    “I would also like to see teams only play inside their conference. No NFC vs AFC during the regular season.
    You play 6 games in your division and the other 10 games in your conference. There would be 12 possible opponents to pull the 10 games from. I am sure they can figure a way to make this work too.”
    Observer1 – this the second dumbest posting on PFT!

  70. golongboyee says: Jan 3, 2010 11:14 PM

    I don’t have a problem with resting teams the last week but I do have a problem with the Colts pulling their players one game to protect them then the very next game playing some to get player records.
    —-good point…..I also don’t like bogus records….just like Gibbs did with Monk for years. He had someone on the team always remind him if it was in the 3rd quarter or so and Monk didn’t have a catch!!!

  71. Observer1 says: Jan 3, 2010 11:27 PM

    Not sure what is so dumb about it. Let the AFC fully determine their playoff teams and the NFC fully determine theirs. Do I think it will happen, no.

  72. WornFlorio says: Jan 3, 2010 11:39 PM

    Goodell is worthless as an NFL Commissioner. So much for Robert Kraft’s puppet named Roger.

  73. SkinsFanInNebraska says: Jan 3, 2010 11:43 PM

    The point is: the league should not be getting involved with trying to tell franchises who they can and can’t put on the field. It’s a bad idea, and it opens up all kinds of worm cans that won’t improve the league one bit.

  74. WornFlorio says: Jan 3, 2010 11:44 PM

    artie lange says:
    January 3, 2010 8:20 PM
    Based on that information the Patriots should receive their 2008 draft pick back then.
    ___________
    More like karma for the 2007 season when Belichick left his starter in the game in blowouts. Though I regret seeing Welker go down with the ACL injury, Belichick brought it upon his own players.

  75. Deb says: Jan 3, 2010 11:51 PM

    Hey, golongboyee … long time, no chat :-)
    Yes, I’m sure most Super Bowl winners had no choice. But they managed to win the Super Bowl despite letting their starters play in the regular season.
    No, holding out starters isn’t new, but it’s more blatant now. When the season was shorter, teams didn’t usually lock up as early. Those that did might pull starters after securing a strong lead, or protect starters that were banged up. But when you pull most of your starters from a game that’s still competitive, to me that’s throwing a game.
    The Colts could have won last week if they wanted. And in giving up, they tossed the opportunity to make history. It was gutless. I’ve seen the highlight reels from the Steelers’ 70s Super Bowls a zillion times. One player I most respect from that era is the Rams’ Jack Youngblood. The guy played us in the Super Bowl on a broken leg! A broken leg!
    Guess I’m a throwback, but the idea of the Colts winning a Super Bowl after throwing a game makes me ill. I’d rather see the Ravens win! Hate the Ravens–but they don’t lie down. That’s more an emotional argument than a logical one. But it’s an emotional sport.

  76. stetai says: Jan 4, 2010 12:06 AM

    It’s not right for anyone be it fans, local politicians, media, or NFL commisioner’s to have any direct control over who starts and who plays.
    The league has the right to intervene for who is active on a roster and who is on a team, but there is no just explanation for them to influence who plays in a game other than for injury/concussion purposes.

  77. facelessman says: Jan 4, 2010 12:08 AM

    at least the nfl is fixed like the nba..lottery draft hahahaha tell me thats not the biggest scam of all..
    The NFL is Great because its the NFL..not everything can be changed..like this one..rest vs no rest ..The Franchises should decide not the commish

  78. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 12:51 AM

    Hey Deb, :)
    “But when you pull most of your starters from a game that’s still competitive, to me that’s throwing a game.” This is incorrect. You are only throwing a game when you intend on losing. Resting SOME of your starters for games other than the one you are playing for competitive advantage is completing an act that will lead to MORE wins. No team has EVER intending on losing. If they rest their starters and do lose, so be it. But they aren’t TRYING to lose.
    “The Colts could have won last week if they wanted.” I disagree but no point in arguing. Colts also would have lost today regardless so the point is really mute.
    If the Colts won the SB BECAUSE they “threw the game” but wouldn’t have if they didn’t (if we had a time machine and could review such things) Are you saying it wouldn’t be the right thing to do??????What if Manning had an injured thumb as an example and he COULD play but they would rather save him for a game they needed, IS THAT “throwing a game?”

  79. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 12:54 AM

    Deb, a good example. The Chargers won today with their second stringers, beat the Redskin starters……..were they trying to throw the game? Every player on every team is striving to do his best mainly for selfish reasons……if they are doing so, how can this be labeled as throwing the game????

  80. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 12:59 AM

    Deb – if the Steelers were playing next week and Big Ben had this arm injury and could play but they wanted to rest him becasue they are in the playoffs, would this be throwing the game?????
    The salary cap era has made coaches become manipulators of need moreso than ever before….saving people and using role players happens all the time. It is part of the entire strategy of things.

  81. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 1:24 AM

    “Not sure what is so dumb about it. Let the AFC fully determine their playoff teams and the NFC fully determine theirs. Do I think it will happen, no.”
    It is ridiculous on many levels. The level of competition is bad enough without limiting inter-conference play. Also, the SB would be less competitive especially when you have one weaker conference. Inter-conference play assures a more competitive playoffs.
    …and dumb dumb, you are talking about two conferences in the same league…….this isn’t the days of the AFL!!!!!!

  82. afiresnake says: Jan 4, 2010 4:21 AM

    Bill Belichick has just traded starting Randy Moss in Week 17 for a future 3rd round pick with the Raiders.

  83. prophet of the light says: Jan 4, 2010 6:27 AM

    That colon changes it from a report by Peter King (who is regularly clueless) to Goddell anointing himself King and being angry.

  84. Deb says: Jan 4, 2010 12:47 PM

    golongboyee, will you stop trying to make me be logical? :-)
    Yes, I’m sure the backups were playing to win. But was the organization? Did Polian care if his team won? I think the answer is no. Winning that game was irrelevant to him.
    Take Pittsburgh out of the equation because we made our bed and that’s not what this was about. The Colts’ potential for an undefeated season was affected by that game. Houston’s fate was affected by that game. I’m sure a lot of money in Vegas was affected by that game. The backups may not have played to lose, but management and the coaching staff strategized to lose. Their thinking was lose the battle and win the war. Doesn’t make it right.
    As for your other scenarios … Would the Chargers have put in their starters if they’d needed them? We don’t know–they didn’t need them. And an injured player is different, though history has taught us Ben still plays when banged up (as long as it’s not a concussion).
    Yes, the Colts had a right to “rest” players. And now other teams have a right to remind them football is a contact sport, and I hope they do. And if Bill Polian were standing on the sidelines and someone “accidentally” gave him a “Pat White meet Ike Taylor” salute, well, that would be great. I’m a nice person and would never want anyone–even Polian–to be injured … just rattled enough to be more respectful of fans.

  85. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 1:42 PM

    Also, resting starters and playing reserves DOES have a benefit. They need game time and experience. So one could argue, in many cases, that playing reserves in a meaningless game is beneficial.
    One thing that DOES bug me is playing people just to reach milestones……the only reason the Colts played Manning at all in these games is to keep his consecutive start record in tact……….bogus!

  86. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 1:43 PM

    I’m sure the backups were playing to win. But was the organization?……..again I ask, if you were on Team A, and you could choose 1) rest starters in week 17 and win the SB or 2) play hard in week 17 and somehow lose the SB, which would you choose?
    “The Colts’ potential for an undefeated season was affected by that game.” Not an issue……. “Houston’s fate was affected by that game”….well, that is their fault, if they had played better they wouldn’t be relying on anyone……. “I’m sure a lot of money in Vegas was affected by that game. “…..not really, the betters in the know were aware of the possibilities, plus the NFL doesn’t condone gambling (said tongue in cheek)
    “The backups may not have played to lose, but management and the coaching staff strategized to lose.”……….NO, THEY DID NOT DO THIS AT ALL.
    “Yes, the Colts had a right to “rest” players”…..YES they did, end of story!
    If the NFL is so concerned with the level of competition, they should address the 10 teams out there that flat out stink, not the ones who do some things strategically on their way to the playoffs.

  87. Deb says: Jan 4, 2010 3:09 PM

    How about, even though I’m a smart woman and can’t really argue with anything you’re saying, it just flat annoys me, so I want someone to stomp them? I wish the Ravens of this year were the Ravens of last year because last year’s Ravens were mighty good stompers–not as good as we were, but still better than anything I’m seeing this year.
    I do agree about the stinking teams. God bless Charlie Batch–he must have thought he died and went to heaven when he wound up with the Steelers after being with the Lions. But what was Larry Foote smoking?

  88. golongboyee says: Jan 4, 2010 3:36 PM

    Yeah, Ravens never match up well against the Colts…..like in the playoffs 3 years ago, McNair throws an INT in the end zone and gives the game away. If that play doesn’t happen, Colts lose, Manning’s playoff record is a miserable 5-9, rather than a mediocre 7-8 and all these Manning lovers would have to accept the fact that Manning is a choker.
    Don’t worry, the Chargers are going to stomp them. Chargers and Cowboys in the SB.

  89. Deb says: Jan 4, 2010 4:06 PM

    Noooooo! I don’t want the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Not the Cowboys. No no no!!! Romeo will blow it even without the blonde-of-the-month distraction. He’s holding for kicks again, isn’t he? Oh yeah, their playoff curse will continue.
    Chargers and Vikes. Haven’t you heard? This is their year–or so they keep telling everyone :-)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!