2009 NFL Season Thread

[HedleyLamarr]

My counter-argument is that the Colts have taken the 'rest the starters' route several times and made quick exits from the playoffs, so it's clearly not a slam-dunk decision. Players always talk about getting in a rhythm and I think it applies to the season as well as a single game. These guys are the sharpest there is, but the rust can build quickly if they don't play.

The Colts were playing their starters in their 16th game last season, to hold onto the 5th spot in the playoffs. They still lost....to an 8-8 team, no less. It's worked both ways for the Colts, in terms of playing their starters through the entirity of the 16-game schedule....they've won the Super Bowl, and they've lost in their first game. Teams that have rested their players have won the Super Bowl, and teams that played their players in Game 16 have lost their first playoff game.

Again, it's not like the starters played one series, then sat the rest of the game. They were playing into the 3rd quarter. How much rust is a player going to get by not playing for 1.5 quarters?

I think folks are more upset that they aren't going to see a perfect season more than Caldwell doing what he thinks is best for his team. Is this an issue if the Colts entered the game 13-1 as opposed to 14-0? He knows the pulse of the Colts a helluvah lot more than us fans do.

[BaltimoreFan]

It's not realistic to expect undefeated seasons, but "well we didn't really wanna win anyway so nyah" was kind of a weak bailout on Caldwell's part.

Yea, I have to agree. The undefeated season really isn't a big deal. I understand that you want to rest players and avoid the risk of injury. But I think it worse to take players out of winnable games and get them out of a competitive mindset. I think the Colts proved that when they lost in the Divisional round to the Steelers a couple weeks ago. Its hard to get back into a mental game state when you've sat around for 2 or 3 weeks. As much as I hated the Patriots 2 seasons ago for playing until the end, I think thats the way you have to go. I know they lost in the Super Bowl, but I think that was for other reasons.

[IceCap]

This kind of buffoonery makes Mercury Morris a LOSER.

Wrong again, Dirty Curty. Mercury Morris is awesome.

He is

I understand how people could see him as annoying, but really, he was a big part of the only team to go undefeated in NFL history. So it's not just a case of "this loser won't shut up." Its a case of "this guy actually has something to brag about."

[Sodboy13]

I'm sorry, but we'll be better off as a nation when every last member of the '72 Dolphins is finally dead. They're the national equivalent of the guy at the end of the bar who fancies himself a big shot as he drones on about how awesome he was in high school.

[crashcarson15]

Jim Caldwell said it was never the Colts goal to go undefeated.

I have very little respect for that attitude. I understand the perspective that you're simply playing for the championship, but I don't like it.

When you start the season, you're playing to go 19-0. When you lose the first game of the year, you're playing to go 18-1. Lose the second? 17-2. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Show me a person that PLANS on losses, and I'll show you a loser. And I feel this way about every sport. In hockey I want my guys to be trying to go 96-0.

I understand how unrealistic to impossible (depending on the sport) those expectations are. I don't intent to suggest I consider falling short of those goals to be failures, I just don't see any other way to approach it. I hate that saying it always conjures up a goofy Herm Edwards rant, but you really do play to win the game, each and every game. Not doing so just doesn't sit right with me.

You're a fan. Caldwell's a coach. There's a reason why you two are in your respective roles.

These are probably Caldwell's goals at the start of the season:

-Get a playoff spot.

-Win the AFC South.

-Earn a first-round bye.

-Earn home-field advantage through the AFC playoffs.

-Get to the Super Bowl.

-Win the Super Bowl.

The Colts have earned the right to play their players for as long as they want to. They can't better or worsen their playoff positioning. The starters played into the 3rd quarter, which is more than they've played in the past when they were yanked early to rest.

What if some Jets player, in an obvious sign of frustration, took out Manning's knee....blows out his ACL and ends his season? Do you think Colts fans still would want all their starters playing?

It's not like the starters played one series and called it a day...they played over half the game. The starters aren't going to be rusty just because they sat out the final 20-25 minutes of the game.

My counter-argument is that the Colts have taken the 'rest the starters' route several times and made quick exits from the playoffs, so it's clearly not a slam-dunk decision. Players always talk about getting in a rhythm and I think it applies to the season as well as a single game. These guys are the sharpest there is, but the rust can build quickly if they don't play.

As for the Saints, I can only hope that this loss is the wake-up call the Dallas loss should have been. Especially following the Redskins game, I think they concluded that they could do anything, make any mistake, and come back and win. It would seem not.

And when they won Super Bowl 41, they played it until the end. You'd think they'd learn from the past.

Years where the Colts rested their starters:

2007 - Lost to San Diego in divisional round

2005 - Lost to Pittsburgh in divisional round

2004 - Lost to New England in divisional round

Years where they haven't:

2008 - Lost to San Diego (game they would've won/avoided if the teams were seeded by record) in divisional round

2006 - Won Super Bowl

2003- Lost to New England in conference championship

[Sport]

when was the last time the Colts missed the playoffs?

[IceCap]

I'm sorry, but we'll be better off as a nation when every last member of the '72 Dolphins is finally dead. They're the national equivalent of the guy at the end of the bar who fancies himself a big shot as he drones on about how awesome he was in high school.

They did something no other team has been able to do. I don't really see the problem with them continuing to celebrate that accomplishment as long as they're the only ones to have achieved it.

[Saintsfan]

Are there any decent QBs likely to be available to a team like the Rams in free agency? Could they sign a free agent QB and draft Suh? How much of a risk is a guy like Claussen? Can you really get a proper franchise QB away from the first round? (I mean ever?) (And yes obviously there are the out of nowhere guys like Montana and Brady, but as a rule rather than as an exception?)

I am bashing on about this a bit, but to me, if there is a team at the top of the draft with a glaring need at QB its the Rams. I just sort of sense the Rams may go looking to fill that need, rather than looking for the best single player, irrespective of position, in the draft?

[IceCap]

Michael Vick going to the Rams was one rumour floating around.

[Seadragon76]

Michael Vick going to the Rams was one rumour floating around.

That, my friend, is career suicide. Playing in St. Louis or Oakland or Cleveland is basically the equivilant of being hung by a giant mob because the mob thinks you're guilty.

Speaking of which, please please please... Please don't let poor Suh go to the Lambs in the Draft. His career would suffer a godawful epic fail before it begins.

[STL FANATIC]

SeaDragon's just upset because the Seahawks continue to dwell in mediocrity. I guess that's better than blowing things up to get the team moving in a positive direction?

As for Vick, it's a rumor I've heard, and I think it's credible (so far as the Rams having interest, who knows where he'll actually go). I think it'd be a fantastic move for the Rams. Whether you want to get your high draft pick QB reps or not, Vick would probable see the field. He wouldn't be in a situation where he'd have to lead the team to the playoffs right away, so if he doesn't pan out, he just doesn't pan out. And as far as ability, it's a worthwhile gamble. Worst case, all he can do effectively is run. Well, the whole offense is built around Stephen Jackson right now anyways. It's often been joked that the Rams would be better off doing a direct snap to Jackson EVERY play. Well now Jackson would have a secondary back who's also an extremely effective runner to spell him, and the ball always would be getting snapped to that guy. It COULD be a potent offensive attack, actually.

And again, if it doesn't work out, no big deal. He wouldn't be signed as a major cog for the future, he'd be signed as a small gamble. The only risk would be if he isn't past his off-field demons. Hopefully he is.

[rams80]

Michael Vick going to the Rams was one rumour floating around.

Decent quarterbacks. Vick is a glorified running back who throws on occasion, not a decent quarterback. The rumors are fueled mainly because Rams GM Billy Devaney came here from the Falcons, and there is a small yet vocal fanbase that bought into the hype of the Michael Vick experience years ago and never left it when reality proved otherwise. I really, really wish that rumor would die.

Of course, #7 was Bob Waterfield's number way back when, so Vick would also have lose his favorite number.

But no, there aren't any decent FA QBs. The Rams would be best off drafting a guy in the second and let them develop a year while Bulger, who is under contract and better than any FA the Rams could get this offseason, takes his licks.

[Seadragon76]

SeaDragon's just upset because the Seahawks continue to dwell in mediocrity. I guess that's better than blowing things up to get the team moving in a positive direction?

If dwelling in mediocrity means beating St. Louis twice a year, then I'm for it.

[tBBP]

SeaDragon's just upset because the Seahawks continue to dwell in mediocrity. I guess that's better than blowing things up to get the team moving in a positive direction?

If dwelling in mediocrity means beating St. Louis twice a year, then I'm for it.

So what does it mean, then, that your Seahawks got beat, in Seattle, by my Buccaneers--a team that historically NEVER wins road games that late in the season, or out on the west coast at any point in the season??

[Eye]

Michael Spurlock had the first kick return TD in Buccaneers history in 2007. Yesterday he returned a punt for a TD. Anyone know who had the first punt return TD in Bucs history?

[Saintsfan]

Vick strikes me as a risk, but compare Vick to Bulger, who is the better bet for the team in 2010? I don't know the answer mind! Certainly Spagnuolo doesn't seem to have any experience working with a QB anything like Vick. Mind you who is like Vick?! I still think Vick could make a useful acquisition as a wildcat type player for a team wanting to run a wildcat type system.

I am not a Rams fan, and to that extent I bow to rams80 and STL fanatic, in terms of them seeming to want Suh, but I still think that in the Rams position drafting a QB 1st overall may be the best way to go, although to counter that I suppose the risk is less for the Rams this year than it was for the Lions last year, in terms of getting a quality QB later in the draft, but I don't think the Rams are going to be competitive in the league without a serious upgrade under center.

[Jimmy!]

So what does it mean, then, that your Seahawks got beat, in Seattle, by my Buccaneers--a team that historically NEVER wins road games that late in the season, or out on the west coast at any point in the season??

Dear Bucco,

Shut yer piehole.

Sincerely,

Defeated Seahawks Fan

[rams80]

Vick strikes me as a risk, but compare Vick to Bulger, who is the better bet for the team in 2010? I don't know the answer mind! Certainly Spagnuolo doesn't seem to have any experience working with a QB anything like Vick. Mind you who is like Vick?! I still think Vick could make a useful acquisition as a wildcat type player for a team wanting to run a wildcat type system.

I am not a Rams fan, and to that extent I bow to rams80 and STL fanatic, in terms of them seeming to want Suh, but I still think that in the Rams position drafting a QB 1st overall may be the best way to go, although to counter that I suppose the risk is less for the Rams this year than it was for the Lions last year, in terms of getting a quality QB later in the draft, but I don't think the Rams are going to be competitive in the league without a serious upgrade under center.

1. The Rams run a West Coast offense*. The "Wildcat" is merely a small grouping of plays that are best used to change the pace of the game or exploit a potential defensive opening-not the foundation of your entire offense. The team that uses it the most by far, Miami, also runs other plays to keep defenses on their toes. Ultimately, Vick relies on his personal athleticism to make plays more than his accuracy or throwing ability. Once you hit 30, like Vick will this year, athleticism stops being an asset.

Additionally, neither Vick nor Bulger would be the long term answer-that would be the office of the rookie they take in the 2nd round or later. However, given the fact that the rest of the Rams offense minus Jackson is a disaster area, you want a veteran QB taking snaps and hits instead of the rookie. You also want that veteran to be a good passer in order to teach the rookie. Bulger is one. Vick isn't.

2. We're also not going to be competitive if we don't do anything about the defense in general, and pass rush/run defense in particular. Suh helps that a lot. As for why we are excited about Suh...

2009 stats

Alabama D-Line

98 Tkl, 23.5 TFL, 9.5 Sk, 20 QBH, 5 PBU, 0 Int, 1 FF, 3 Blk

Florida D-Line

112 Tkl, 33 TFL, 14 Sk, 48 QBH, 5 PBU, 0 Int, 1 FF, 0 Blk

Texas D-Line

116 Tkl, 25.5 TFL, 15.5 Sk, 10 QBH, 7 PBU, 0 Int, 2 FF, 0 Blk

Ndamukong Suh

82 Tkl, 23 TFL, 12 Sk, 24 QBH, 10 PBU, 1 Int, 1 FF, 3 Blk

Suh did this whilst commanding double and triple teams all season. Please note that Alabama, Florida, and Texas had 3 of the best defenses in the country this season. There is no QB prospect who has been this dominant in the draft.

*-in theory. This year, practice has been kind of erratic due to injuries and incompetent receivers/playcalling

[The_Admiral]

I can put up with the '72 Fins, for the most part. Consider that perfection was either going to belong to an elderly washed-up cokehead laying down (surprisingly well-flowing) diss tracks, or NO ONE RESPECTS US NO ONE RESPECTS US YOU HAVE TO RESPECT US NOW. This is for the best.

[IceCap]

Michael Vick going to the Rams was one rumour floating around.

Speaking of which, please please please... Please don't let poor Suh go to the Lambs in the Draft. His career would suffer a godawful epic fail before it begins.

The Rams defence needs the most work, Suh is a step in the right direction. I'm sorry that you'll have to see a division rival get the number one draft pick, but thems the breaks.