I've said it before, I'll say it again. You're an idiot (not flaming anyone specifically, but yet everyone in general if that counts) if you think they should've gone for a so-called "perfect" record. 16-0 means jack shit if you don't win whats truly important, and thats the Superbowl.
Well statistically speaking, going undefeated in the regular season guarantees that team a spot in the Superbowl. The '72 Dolphins went 14-0 and ended up winning the Superbowl and the '07 Patriots went 16-0 and would've won the Superbowl had it not been for David Tyree's incredible catch on third down to keep the drive alive. The Colts, on the other hand, have had consistent problems winning games when they've rested their players. Since 2005, when the Colts rested their starters, they haven't been able to make it past the Divisional Round of the playoffs let alone make it to the Superbowl.
Caldwell did the right thing. Why? Just ask yourself, while it was a chance - what would the chance had been if Peyton Manning got severely injured and forced to miss the playoffs, because he was kept in chasing some stupid, meaningless, regular season record? Would the Colts back-up QB be able to lead them to a Superbowl Championship? Doubtful.
To answer the question about the back-up QB simply he wouldn't be able to lead the team. He showed that on his first play in the game when he was unable to find anybody open and fumbled the football. But what if the o-linemen that sat on Sunday and will probably sit next week and don't have anything to do the week after come into the Divisional Round very rusty and play horridly, leading to Manning getting sacked a good amount of times and a non-existent running game, which would result in yet another early round exit for the Colts all because they didn't want to chase the record.
Reggie Wayne has been playing hurt for weeks now. Hes not just their stud WR, he's also their top and mainly ONLY WR. Collie and 'The Waiter' are too inconsistent to be considered valuable. And Dallas Clark can't be the #1 guy alone. If Wayne would've injured himself even worse, they'd be royally fucked.
Then that's fine because like I said in my previous post, if the player is hurt or has shown that he has been injury prone, then you should pull him no questions asked in order to avoid that injury.
Now, the question is asked.. Well, why not bring your starters back once you began losing, then re-pull them once you take the lead? Name one time thats ever happened in any sport's history. One time. To the very best of my knowledge, its never EVER happened.. and the reason being is because its a disgrace, and lack of trust in your back-ups.
It has happened and pretty recently too. Game 2 of the 2008 NBA Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics. Boston was up by 24 in the 4th quarter and had most if not all of their starters on the bench when L.A. began to make a comeback. The Lakers worked the lead down to 10 with a few minutes left before the starters came back and ended up holding them off. That's beside the point because the whole Colts situation had nothing to do with trust whatsoever. I know I'm not trusting my group of back-ups to defend a 5 point lead with 20 minutes left in the game against a team of starters who are desperately trying to fight for their playoff lives. Caldwell never trusted his back-ups, he was going to sit his players regardless of the score.
Yes, they're back-ups for a reason.. but NO single person should be on your 53-man roster if you don't have the slightly bit of faith and belief that he could help be a valuable member of your team and shine when the spotlight is on him. To pull your guys and bring back your "true stars" would not just be disrespectful to your own players, it'd be an embarrassment to your entire team - to show the world you ONLY trust a selective SMALL group of men. Instead of the entire TEAM.
That's why they're the starters. Out of that 53 man roster, 22 of them get the most time because that's who the coach trusts the most to get the job done. Out of the 31 left, I believe 8 to 12 players are picked out to come into the game if somebody gets tired. So you have 21 guys who are there to fill in if the other groups are hurt and unable to play.
Finally.. I reflect back on the New England Patriot's so-called perfect season and bring up this point. 18-0 looks good, right? Well, the Giants had more than 1 loss that season and still shined brighter, better and most importantly BEST, when the moment counted the most. The Superbowl. I guaran-damn-tee you, not one player, or Coach, on that New England team.. would say they'd rather go 16-0 and lose in the Superbowl, over finishing 10-6, and winning the most important thing there is to win in Football.
But if you have the opportunity to do something that nobody has ever done, go 19-0, why not? Once again, the Pats were a fluke play away from doing just that and I would bet that they would rather replay the Superbowl with the Giants and have a shot at the perfect season over going 10-6 and winning the Superbowl.
Whether you like the decision or not, and in the end the Colts could still lose in their first Playoff match-up, they made the right decision to NOT risk injury.. for something that's already been done.
The Colts have made this decision every year they're able to and every time it has come back to hunt them where they would lose to a team that is coming in hot because they look rusty on the field.
