Dungy did WHAT OMG!

[three out of four 0]

I don't get the whole " The Colts were just doing what was best for their team" defense. Wouldn't they want to get Sorgi some snaps in a situation like that? What if Manning goes down at the end of the game this weekend with the Colts down by 4? They need Sorgi to come in and make some plays, right? So why not put him in for a few plays against Tenn?

[aportanenko 0]

why is this thread still on the first page?

 

This mountain out of a molehill looks more like a potato chip crumb out of a braille dot. I know, I know, then don't read it, but I'm just sick of staring at this tired thread. Christ almighty, if non-stories are allowed to fester like this can we at least talk about something more newsworthy, like Y2K?

[Justy2 0]

This is getting out of hand. There IS NO FOCKING WAY anyone really thinks this way. This... poster is simple on a huge fishing trip. Look at his posts. They make zero sense. To think that ... is ludicrous, and that's putting it as mildly as I can. EVERY single post you have made about this insanity has been destroyed by multiple posters. You are caught so quit embarrassing yourself.

 

I agree. This hate for the Patriots is just out of hand. Can't people just see the whole story and move on?

[Justy2 0]

For those who are wondering how such an accord can be reached between two coaches its really quite simple. When Fisher realized that Dungy had not called his final timeout Fisher needed to take no further action. That's basically what Collins was talking about. I doubt that Fisher and Dungy agreed to this over donuts before the game. It was an unspoken agreement between the two at the end of the game. No fault to Fisher, he didn't need to anything other than kneel the ball. It's Dungy's action that affected the fate of teams outside the Colts. The effect is more than just the playoffs a slight nudge in the final rankings also possibly affects draft picks (not much, but then again Brady was a late round pick). Dungy should have played it out, even if it was his third-stringers. Give your guys a chance under some pressure. See what they can do.

[Dan 59]

For those who are wondering how such an accord can be reached between two coaches its really quite simple. When Fisher realized that Dungy had not called his final timeout Fisher needed to take no further action. That's basically what Collins was talking about. I doubt that Fisher and Dungy agreed to this over donuts before the game. It was an unspoken agreement between the two at the end of the game. No fault to Fisher, he didn't need to anything other than kneel the ball. It's Dungy's action that affected the fate of teams outside the Colts. The effect is more than just the playoffs a slight nudge in the final rankings also possibly affects draft picks (not much, but then again Brady was a late round pick). Dungy should have played it out, even if it was his third-stringers. Give your guys a chance under some pressure. See what they can do.

 

 

Silent accord . . . . hmmm, that's a new twist.

 

But no, it's not. It's chess, plain and simple. I'll show what I'm going to do and force you to make a decision accordingly. Go ahead, make it. Period.

[edjr 5,567]

What does this event have to do with Bill Belichick? Really?

 

Dungy and Fisher are moral because you think they are? More "likable". This is just ball washing, no?

 

Given that both teams played the last minutes in an unusual manner, the question of collusion is valid. And, no - they shouldn't slide on "reputation".

 

Who kneels down when there isn't time to run out the clock? Why didn't the Titans at least try to convert? A 44 yard attempt with 38 seconds? No gimme. Good chance the Titans don't even try for fear of giving the other team good field position or even a block. Titans don't try. Colts don't try. The Titans QB says "Fisher and Dungy had an agreement"... things that make you go hmmmm?

 

1-10-IND 24 (1:54) 5-K.Collins kneels, dead ball declared at IND 25 for -1 yards.

2-11-IND 25 (1:15) 5-K.Collins kneels, dead ball declared at IND 26 for -1 yards.

3-12-IND 26 (:38) 5-K.Collins kneels, dead ball declared at IND 27 for -1 yards.

END GAME

 

 

I would like an answer for this as well.

 

People accused the Patriots of "running it up" early in the season. Saying they should have "taken a knee" with more time on the clock than they could have run out. I stated I have NEVER seen a team take a knee unless they could run the clock out. This was researched by some on the board and found to be true. How funny, this is possibly the FIRST TIME in NFL history a team kneels on the ball, with the other team still having a timeout, only down by 6, when a field goal would guarantee the win, but they don't use the timeout? Coincidence? I think not. Cheating? I think so.

[edjr 5,567]

Also, let's not forget Brett Favre lying down like a dog on the ground and letting Strahan break the sack record. More of the NFL's so called integrity right down the sh!tter.

 

But hey, that was Favre, so it's ok.

[Dan 59]

I would like an answer for this as well.

 

People accused the Patriots of "running it up" early in the season. Saying they should have "taken a knee" with more time on the clock than they could have run out. I stated I have NEVER seen a team take a knee unless they could run the clock out. This was researched by some on the board and found to be true. How funny, this is possibly the FIRST TIME in NFL history a team kneels on the ball, with the other team still having a timeout, only down by 6, when a field goal would guarantee the win, but they don't use the timeout? Coincidence? I think not. Cheating? I think so.

 

An answer was given; you apparently chose not to read that one, or simply ignored. That's a choice, and you seem decided. Enjoy yourself.

[edjr 5,567]

An answer was given; you apparently chose not to read that one, or simply ignored. That's a choice, and you seem decided. Enjoy yourself.

 

Like I read the whole thread?

[Dan 59]

Like I read the whole thread?

 

Then you really forfeit the right to suggest that no one has answered your concern, don't you?

[swirvenirvin 25]

Wow really this thread is still going

[Phurfur 70]

OK, I'll play nice. I apologize for the tone of my post and use of any language that offened you.

 

But I do find your argument to be ridiculous. Indy did not take the day off. They did what teams who have secured play-off seeding have been doing for years. With the amount of injuries in today's NFL, teams are wise to rest key players when they have nothing to play for. There are 53 men on the roster and some situations calls for the second tier guys to get a chance to play. Again, its been going on for years and several other teams did it in week 17, some even in week 16. It wasnt a "critical" game for Indy. It was for Tenn and Cleveland. Thats their problem.

 

If it wasnt for Collins' overblown comments and the fact that Cleveland needed a Tennessee loss to make the playoffs this would be a complete non issue. You still can offer no proof of your claim that Indy didnt play to win. And considering that you didnt even watch most the game its an absurd claim to make. You are insulting the integrity and common sense of the backups Indy put on the field. These are marginal NFL players who HAVE to play hard any time they step on the field so for you to say that they didnt play to win without even watching most of the game is a joke. They played to win, when it was clear that it wasnt enough to win, Dungy opted not to use his last time out w/ less than 30 seconds left. SO WHAT?

 

Indy and Dungy didnt owe the Browns a damn thing. Cleveland should have taken care of business themselves. And your angle that fans should expect more is just as ridiculous. Indy is preparing for a playoff run to defend their title. Their fans, the ones to whom they are most obligated, dont give a damn about a meaningless game. And most rationale NFL fans knew going into that game that Indy was going to rest players.

 

So what are we talking about? The fact that they didnt use their last timeout w/ less than 30 seconds to set up a situation in which NO NFL game has ever been won. For what? Dungy, the Indy players, and fans who PAID to attend the game, said "OK, in a game that meant nothing to us, our backups played hard if not all that well, and kept it close. In the end it wasnt enought to win so we'll just let the last 30 seconds run out, call it a day and prepare for our playoff run in two weeks."

 

As a fan, I dont feel cheated in the least. It has nothing to do with being indifferent and everything to do with realistically looking at the situation.

 

So sorry if my tone wasnt sugar coated for you but I find your stance on this to be phony and/or ridiculously idealistic. And thats about as nice as I can put it.

 

 

But compare your two replies and ask yourself which on is more convincing? Which one would have a better chance to change your opinion?

 

I cannot disagree with most of your post but I feel pretty strongly about what I am trying to say. What I am talking about is resting your starters in a meaningful game. This game was not meaningful to Indy but it was meaningful to Cleveland and the league. I will try to relate this to FF and all the "tanking" threads we had in week 12. Half the board said it was OK the other half was against it. Some commissioners even went into owners lineups and adjusted them to play the strongest lineup. I was one that said it was wrong to "tank a game" and the teams owed it to the league to start their best lineup. I seem to be the only one that feels that way about the NFL. So that being said I hope I never see another thread about "tanking" in FF, it is part of the game just like the NFL. Everyone seems thinks it’s OK.

 

The argument of giving your backups some experience is the one I cannot get past. This is a very valid reason to play your backups but it will not change my mind completely. In the past (and I am doing this from memory so it may not be totally accurate) teams would rest their starters once they got ahead or in the second half. In a game of this importance I would have hoped that Indy had kept their starters in for at least the first half.

[cbfalcon 824]

But compare your two replies and ask yourself which on is more convincing? Which one would have a better chance to change your opinion?

 

I cannot disagree with most of your post but I feel pretty strongly about what I am trying to say. What I am talking about is resting your starters in a meaningful game. This game was not meaningful to Indy but it was meaningful to Cleveland and the league. I will try to relate this to FF and all the "tanking" threads we had in week 12. Half the board said it was OK the other half was against it. Some commissioners even went into owners lineups and adjusted them to play the strongest lineup. I was one that said it was wrong to "tank a game" and the teams owed it to the league to start their best lineup. I seem to be the only one that feels that way about the NFL. So that being said I hope I never see another thread about "tanking" in FF, it is part of the game just like the NFL. Everyone seems thinks it’s OK.

 

The argument of giving your backups some experience is the one I cannot get past. This is a very valid reason to play your backups but it will not change my mind completely. In the past (and I am doing this from memory so it may not be totally accurate) teams would rest their starters once they got ahead or in the second half. In a game of this importance I would have hoped that Indy had kept their starters in for at least the first half.

 

umm...are you serious?

 

Players are benched to avoid injury.

 

FF wise, I am pretty sure benching Manning or Romo doesn't insure they won't be injured in their real games that week.

 

However if I had things wrapped up and could bench Romo in week 13, and this would magically not allow him to get hurt in his real NFL game, I would do it and I doubt any commissioner would have a problem with that.

[Phurfur 70]

umm...are you serious?

 

Players are benched to avoid injury.

 

FF wise, I am pretty sure benching Manning or Romo doesn't insure they won't be injured in their real games that week.

 

However if I had things wrapped up and could bench Romo in week 13, and this would magically not allow him to get hurt in his real NFL game, I would do it and I doubt any commissioner would have a problem with that.

 

 

In the NFL players are rested to avoid injury and "to give the team the best chance at winning the SB".

 

In FF players are benched to get the best matchup possible "to give the team the best chance at winning the SB".

 

What's the difference?

[patsnsox04 0]

I am the greatest poster in history you tards keep biting....thanks i feel like i fit in with you losers now.....DUNGY IS A HYPOCRITE