PDA

View Full Version : Goodell: NFL will look into teams sitting starters after Colts case


mesaSteeler
01-03-2010, 02:52 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815718c8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Goodell: NFL will look into teams sitting starters after Colts case

Associated Press

MIAMI -- NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Sunday that the competition committee will review league policy regarding late-season games in which teams might be tempted to rest their starters for the playoffs.

Goodell said the league is sensitive to criticism in the wake of the Indianapolis Colts' decision to use backups a week ago in a game they lost, ending their bid for a perfect season.

"It is something we'll look at," Goodell said. "We heard the fans loud and clear. It's something our competition committee has looked at in the past, but we're going to ask our competition committee to look at it again in the future. We want every game to be competitive."

The league's position has been that playoff-bound teams enjoy the right to rest their starters to prepare for the playoffs.

The Colts already had clinched home-field advantage throughout the AFC playoffs when coach Jim Caldwell sat quarterback Peyton Manning and other starters in the second half, and the New York Jets rallied to win. NFL purists were upset that the Colts didn't go all-out with a shot at a perfect season.

"We want to make sure the integrity of the NFL is first and foremost in everyone's mind and try to find ways to make sure our games are competitive at all points in the season, including the preseason," Goodell said.

The commissioner spoke before the game between the Miami Dolphins and Pittsburgh Steelers. He was in Miami to take part in an 80th birthday celebration for former Dolphins coach Don Shula, who won two Super Bowls and an NFL-record 347 games.

"He's an extraordinary guy," Goodell said. "You don't like to define people in terms of numbers. But when you talk about 347, you talk about two Super Bowls, and now he has added 80 to that list -- he's a special guy to the NFL, and we're proud of everything he has done."

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

Steeler in Carolina
01-03-2010, 03:25 PM
I don't know what he can do. It is their right to play whoever they want.

fansince'76
01-03-2010, 04:24 PM
See the sig. :coffee:

X-Terminator
01-03-2010, 04:29 PM
"We want to make sure the integrity of the NFL is first and foremost in everyone's mind

Yeah, you sure cared about that during Spygate. :coffee:

Anyway, I doubt this gets any traction. I'm not sure you can force a team to play their starters if they have the opportunity to rest them. If need teams to help you get into the playoffs at the end of the season, then it's your fault if you don't make it.

MasterOfPuppets
01-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Yeah, you sure cared about that during Spygate. :coffee:

Anyway, I doubt this gets any traction. I'm not sure you can force a team to play their starters if they have the opportunity to rest them. If need teams to help you get into the playoffs at the end of the season, then it's your fault if you don't make it.

i was just about to post the same thing...:sofunny:

goodell isn't worried about integrity...he's worried about fans boycotting games at the end of the season. i'll be damned if i'd freeze my ass of in january just to watch a team that don't care if it wins or not .

tony hipchest
01-03-2010, 04:54 PM
See the sig. :coffee:
according to the diahrea that spewed out of his mouth thismorning (granted i wasnt really listening), they are trying to figure out a way to reward teams who play (like the patriots*) with draft picks or something.

Glace
01-03-2010, 06:02 PM
And how does he feel about it after Wes Welker tore up his knee in a basically meaningless game?

As a fan, it sucks to pay for tickets to go to the game, only to see backups playing and getting whipped. But if it helps your team get healthy for a potential superbowl run....it's necessary.

mesaSteeler
01-03-2010, 06:04 PM
http://blog.triblive.com/view-from-the-press-box/2010/01/03/leave-this-one-alone-nfl/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+triblive%2Fblog%2FViewFromThe PressBox+%28View+from+the+Press+Box+Blog%29


Leave this one alone, NFL
January 3rd, 2010

The NFL’s competition committee will apparently look into ways to eliminate scenarios where playoff-bound teams rest their starters at the end of the regular season.

Any changes that emerge from that offseason dialogue among members of the competition will come too late to help the Steelers.

Here is hoping that nothing comes out of such talk.

First, teams like the Colts, Patriots and Bengals have earned the right to do what they please in their final game -- or games in the case of Indianapolis

Why should teams that, you know, win be forced to risk losing key starters to injuries in games that are meaningless to them?

Also, even if some measures are enacted that try to compel teams not to “lay down,” as LaMarr Woodley might put it, what is to say they will make all of the final regular-season games truly competitive?

Example: Even if the Colts were forced to play Peyton Manning today, Indianapolis coach Jim Caldwell could get circumvent such a silly rule by simply having his franchise quarterback hand off on every single play.

The certainty that coaches will find ways around any new rules enacted in the name of competition coupled with the issue of fairness (i.e. teams shouldn’t be penalized for having successful season) adds up to this: leave this one alone, NFL.
Filed under: Steelers Comments (2)

mesaSteeler
01-03-2010, 06:08 PM
i was just about to post the same thing...:sofunny:

goodell isn't worried about integrity..

Alas it too true. All that slime bucket goodell cares about is if his cheatriots win.

Larry
01-03-2010, 08:17 PM
Competition committee? Sounds impotent.

BlackNGold88
01-03-2010, 08:41 PM
Case close. Welker sealed the deal on this one.

steelwalls
01-03-2010, 09:35 PM
Oh brother..... Stupid, plan and simple.

mesaSteeler
01-03-2010, 09:46 PM
Sitting players does not mean a team is trying to lose
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/localsports/2-3-Steigerwald

Give it a rest.

Could we please stop the whining about the Indianapolis Colts' decision to pull their starters last week and allow the Jets to win a game? Columnists across the country have been wailing about the decision by head coach Jim Caldwell - and maybe more important, GM Bill Polian - to yank Peyton Manning and several other key players after the Colts went up by five in the third quarter.

One argument is that not playing your best players goes against what sports are supposed to be about: trying your best to win. Forget that there's no reason to believe the scrubs didn't try their best to win. The Colts sitting Manning, the Bengals possibly sitting Carson Palmer against the Jets, and the Patriots sitting Tom Brady against the Texans today are trying to accomplish exactly that.

It's doing your best to win.

Win in the Super Bowl, that is.

If the Colts go on to win the Super Bowl, giving up on the idea of a perfect season will be nothing more than a footnote. The argument that coaches shouldn't play their best players at all if they're worried about them getting hurt is ridiculous. They can get hurt as easily in the first quarter as the fourth. You take the chance of playing them in the early part of the game to keep them from getting rusty, which also is doing your best to win the Super Bowl, then you get them out of there because you know they can't get hurt on the bench.

That's called looking at the big picture. It's also trying your best to win a championship.

Players such as Steelers linebacker Lamar Woodley, who whine about how unfair it is that the Bengals won't try hard enough to help the Steelers by playing everybody against the Jets, need to understand they're fortunate to be playing in a league that rewards mediocrity a little less than it rewards excellence.

If you're 8-7 fifteen games into a 16-game season, you probably don't deserve to play in the postseason.

If you're 14-0 fourteen games into a 16-game season, you get to use your last two games to tune up for the postseason.

Deal with it.

n Of course, none of this takes into account the fans who paid big bucks for their tickets, but why would anybody want to start doing that?

If you really wanted to give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, you wouldn't allow teams to pull their star players when they're blowing an opponent out by 35 points in the fourth quarter. In those instances, the delicate feelings of the million dollar players and coaches on the losing team are considered way more important than the fans' right to get the best show possible.

n Ben Roethlisberger didn't get voted on to the AFC Pro Bowl team. With the possible exception of Peyton Manning, I don't think any of the quarterbacks who made the team are better than Roethlisberger. Neither Tom Brady nor Phillip Rivers would put up the numbers they put up this season playing for the Steelers.

I think Roethlisberger would put up better numbers than Brady and Rivers if he played for either of their teams.

n His teammates, many of whom just don't like him, finally had no choice but to vote Roethlisberger their MVP for the first time, even though he was far and away their most valuable player in both of their recent championship seasons.

n One major element missing from the Steelers offense is the home run threat on the ground. Defensive coordinators have finally gotten around to accepting that the Steelers are a pass-first team and they aren't stacking the line of scrimmage the way they used to.

They also don't have to worry about Rashard Mendenhall busting a long one against them the way they had to with Willie Parker. Since Week 10, except for a 60-yard jaunt against the Raiders, Mendenhall's longest run was 15 yards.

n Rob Akey knows why the option to go for two exists. His Idaho team, which has only won two bowl games in its history, fell behind Bowling Green, 42-35, with 32 seconds left in the Humanitarian Bowl Thursday night. His team pulled to within one point of tying it on a 16-yard touchdown pass at the end of the game.

Instead of letting it be decided in overtime, Akey went for two and made it. Final score: Idaho 43 Bowling Green 42.

This shouldn't even be big news. Isn't that what the two-point conversion is for, to give a team an option to take the lead instead of tie or end it instead of going to overtime?

What's the big deal?

Think of all the things that can go wrong in college football's overtime system. Compared to that, why is punching it in from the three-yard line such a risky proposition?

Akey would have been ripped, of course, if the attempt had failed.

John Steigerwald writes a Sunday column for the Observer-Reporter

Psyychoward86
01-03-2010, 09:47 PM
Oh my effing god. Goodell, just chill your ass, please, and stop embarassing yourself. DEAR LORD

Aussie_steeler
01-04-2010, 03:50 PM
according to the diahrea that spewed out of his mouth thismorning (granted i wasnt really listening), they are trying to figure out a way to reward teams who play (like the patriots*) with draft picks or something.

I am surprised more people didnt pick up on that line either Tony. He indicated that an incentive program was needed and draft picks could be the answer

How good would it be Tony??? This year you are the Colts, Saints, Bengals, VIkings etc

You ring up Goodell and say something like this in Week 16

Colts " Hey Roger, we are 14-0 at the colts and we are going to rest Peyton Manning this week. However he might play for the right draft pick"
Goodell " If he plays I will give you a 7th round draft pick"
Colts " No thanks - Peyton sits"
Goodell " how about a 5th round draft pick"
Colts " No thanks - Peyton will be rested until the playoffs"
Goodell " Name your price needed for Peyton to play"

This conversation could have theoretically have occurred two weeks straight and imagine what the colts may have been able to negotiate.
This approach certainly would continue to ensure parity in the nfl

CanadianSteel
01-05-2010, 10:14 AM
In the case of the Colts and Saints this year, I am not sure this would matter as they had such a lead, but what if the NFL declared the last 3 weesk of each season as divison only games. Each team would play the other teans in their divison that last 3 weeks. The odds are teams would need to play hard in those games to wrap up divison titles etc...

What say you on this idea .... silly idea.... or some merrit ?

revefsreleets
01-05-2010, 10:16 AM
Juts let the coaches and FO's do what they deem best for their teams and, for the love of all that is Holy and sacred, STAY OUT of this matter, Goodell.....

4xSBChamps
01-05-2010, 10:30 AM
Juts let the coaches and FO's do what they deem best for their teams and, for the love of all that is Holy and sacred, STAY OUT of this matter, Goodell.....

learn-it, live-it, love it!!!!!

SteelersinCA
01-05-2010, 11:59 AM
From a financial standpoint this may or may not make sense. I don't have the figures, don't even know if they are available. However theoretically, you have 12 playoff spots, but only 2 were up for grabs this season and you had 6 teams fighting for those spots and Indy laying down twice, the Patriots (potentially laying down) and the Bengals laying down. However only 1 of those teams even played at home; Indy in week 16. The fans didn't know they would lay down so the tickets were sold and copious amounts of concessions were bought. The other games were away games where it probably bolstered sales to have the home team fighting for a spot. It also made for some pretty compelling TV.

You have to approach this from the perspective of the NFL, not the fan. Does it get them more money and TV ratings or not? This season in particular I don't see any type of detriment to the NFL financially by having teams lay down in week 17. Seems to me that this year it was only more apparent because a team actually got to walk into the playoffs. However, that is pure happenstance. I don't think anything will change because it simply doesn't make financial sense to change it. I think Goodell was paying lip service to sound like he would appease the masses. This has gone on for years without so much as an issue, somewhere down the line it will pop up again but not after years of the system humming along just fine.

PalmerSteel
01-05-2010, 12:12 PM
he has a huge hard on for creating 18 game regualr seasons and he knows this could really hurt his case for that so he is going to try everything to prevent this happening in the future. i just dont see how though.