Team Of The Decade

[UNHWildCats]

No matter what happens the rest of this season, one thing is certain. The New England Patriots are the NFL's team of the decade.

The Colts had a very small chance to take that honor, they needed to go 19-0 to make a claim.

How good has the decade been for the Patriots? Not since they first year of the decade (2000) did they fail to finish worse then tied for 1st place in the AFC East.

They of course won three Super Bowls and were a miracle helmet catch from a 4th. The also have the leagues only 16-0 regular season ever as well as the league record for points scored to go along with a number of individual accomplishments.

Not only did the Colts throw away a perfect season today, they threw away any chance they had at being the best of the best for the entire decade.

[BlueHen86]

Obviously this is a meaningless title. If the Colts really cared, they wouldn't have benched Manning.
NFL teams try to win Superbowls, not win team of the decade.

[UNHWildCats]

Obviously this is a meaningless title. If the Colts really cared, they wouldn't have benched Manning.
NFL teams try to win Superbowls, not win team of the decade.

ya, how has over resting players done for the Colts in the past? The Colts are foolish and that why time and again they are the NFLs best regular season team and barely sniff the AFC title game.

[BlueHen86]

Obviously this is a meaningless title. If the Colts really cared, they wouldn't have benched Manning.
NFL teams try to win Superbowls, not win team of the decade.

ya, how has over resting players done for the Colts in the past? The Colts are foolish and that why time and again they are the NFLs best regular season team and barely sniff the AFC title game.

The Colts sound like the UNH of the NFL, and yet, they still almost won the coveted "team of the decade award", they must have been up against some really weak competition. Sounds like the winner backed into the award, congrats to them.

[SuperHornet]

To me, a much better solution to this whole deal would be to dedicate a series or two in the second quarter OF EVERY REGULAR SEASON GAME to the second string. That gives them much needed game experience while giving the starters (particularly the QB) a valuable vantage point outside of the field of play that they can take back into the fray later. If this is standard, then it's not perceived as a "benching."

IMO, taking this idea out of the dark ages of football would eliminate meltdowns like we saw on Sunday.

That said, what the cr@p happened to Manning's previous backup? He always looked good on the rare occasions he went in, and THIS guy reminded one of Billy Joe Hobert in Buffalo going in for the injured Jim Kelly.

[BlueHen86]

To me, a much better solution to this whole deal would be to dedicate a series or two in the second quarter OF EVERY REGULAR SEASON GAME to the second string. That gives them much needed game experience while giving the starters (particularly the QB) a valuable vantage point outside of the field of play that they can take back into the fray later. If this is standard, then it's not perceived as a "benching."

IMO, taking this idea out of the dark ages of football would eliminate meltdowns like we saw on Sunday.

That said, what the cr@p happened to Manning's previous backup? He always looked good on the rare occasions he went in, and THIS guy reminded one of Billy Joe Hobert in Buffalo going in for the injured Jim Kelly.

Never happen, nor should it. NFL games are too close, and the playoffs are often decided by 1 game (look at all the 7-7 AFC teams entering this weekend). Nobody wants to have their season decided by their second string, and fans don't pay to see the stars sit on the bench. I know the Colts benched their starters yesterday, but they are in a rare position. Not many teams have home field clinched after 14 games, certainly not enough to warrant a rule change requiring backups to play.

[SuperHornet]

Who said anything about a rule change, BH? The only way that would work would be a Little League-style everyone-plays rule, and not even I am arguing that. All I'm asking is a series or two specifically in the second quarter so that the game is not on the line. That ensures everything I mentioned. Coaches used to do that a lot. In fact, the most explosive offense in history played one QB in the first quarter, another in the second quarter, and then let the hot hand play the entire second half. Now, I'm not asking for anything THAT extreme, but it CAN work if the guys involved don't have easily bruised egos.