NFL Will Look Into Teams Sitting Starters After Colts Case

[FlaccoFlicker]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815718c8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
intersting story,I think resting starters has pros and cons,people want to see competition and want teams to go out and win,but on the other hand what about the threat of injury it's a hard sell either way.
what are your thoughts?

[BloodRaven]

Good, right now playoff bound teams almost have the power to decide who plays in the wildcard, that and betting implications leaves a sour taste for many people.

[theFRANCHISE]

Roger Goodell said during the Steelers-Dolphins game that a possibility would be to add incentives via draft picks.

That'd make perfect sense; give playoff-eligible teams a chance to either raise their draft position in the first round or flip-flop draft picks with their opponents with a victory if their opponent has a higher pick. Additionally, they could also fight for additional draft picks, as there are already compensatory draft picks inserted into each draft anyway in addition to the standard 7 picks that each team gets.

I would like to see a competitive product through Week 17; people will get hurt in any game, so what difference does it make if a star goes down in Week 17 than in the first round of the playoffs? This will also provide further incentive for teams to build through the draft and raise the quality of the product; championship teams are only as good as their depth, and quality depth is attained through the draft.

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='BloodRaven' date='03 January 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1262545320' post='328427']
Good, right now playoff bound teams almost have the power to decide who plays in the wildcard, that and betting implications leaves a sour taste for many people.
[/quote]
i agree the only reason the jets have a shot is because manning sat,and you are right i wonder how much money was lost from people losing the colt game

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='03 January 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1262545337' post='328428']
Roger Goodell said during the Steelers-Dolphins game that a possibility would be to add incentives via draft picks.

That'd make perfect sense; give playoff-eligible teams a chance to either raise their draft position in the first round or flip-flop draft picks with their opponents with a victory if their opponent has a higher pick. Additionally, they could also fight for additional draft picks, as there are already compensatory draft picks inserted into each draft anyway in addition to the standard 7 picks that each team gets.

[b]I would like to see a competitive product through Week 17; people will get hurt in any game,[/b] so what difference does it make if a star goes down in Week 17 than in the first round of the playoffs? This will also provide further incentive for teams to build through the draft and raise the quality of the product; championship teams are only as good as their depth, and quality depth is attained through the draft.
[/quote]
it's football that's why you have your backups learn the game,not saying the backup should be manning like but at least have alot better effort than the qb did last week(sorry can't remember his name)

[J-man]

It's the worst idea ever. Let's give picks to teams that dont need them. Why not just take away picks?

[Child Of Humanity]

After seeing Wes Welkers knee go right when his thigh and shin went left (I am betting Major ACL and out for the season) I say they earned it, let em set em!

[quote name='FlaccoFlicker' date='03 January 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1262544899' post='328423']
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815718c8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
intersting story,I think resting starters has pros and cons,people want to see competition and want teams to go out and win,but on the other hand what about the threat of injury it's a hard sell either way.
what are your thoughts?
[/quote]

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='J-man' date='03 January 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1262545533' post='328432']
It's the worst idea ever. Let's give picks to teams that dont need them. Why not just take away picks?
[/quote]
But teams can still play their starters but play halfheartedly, so the threat of taking away picks for not playing starters is hollow.

Teams that are entering the playoffs need incentive to keep playing hard is the issue. You can give any team draft picks, but the question is, will they use them right? Only half the teams in the playoffs in both conferences are skilled at drafting annually; the rest are sporadic.

[BloodRaven]

[quote name='Child Of Humanity' date='03 January 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1262546081' post='328435']
After seeing Wes Welkers knee go right when his thigh and shin went left (I am betting Major ACL and out for the season) I say they earned it, let em set em!
[/quote]

Hmmm, a little bit of irony there?

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Child Of Humanity' date='03 January 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1262546081' post='328435']
After seeing Wes Welkers knee go right when his thigh and shin went left (I am betting Major ACL and out for the season) I say they earned it, let em set em!
[/quote]
But the thing is, benching a starter for a backup is basically telling that backup that they're insignificant enough to risk injury and their loss will be of no consequence to the team's playoff run. What happens when those backups have to actually play in the postseason?

[Child Of Humanity]

Yes I see that as an excellent point!

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='03 January 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1262546548' post='328443']
But the thing is, benching a starter for a backup is basically telling that backup that they're insignificant enough to risk injury and their loss will be of no consequence to the team's playoff run. What happens when those backups have to actually play in the postseason?
[/quote]

[BrownsFan]

I get all the talk on both sides of this issue but I don't think the NFL needs to step into this at all. Teams earn the right to play whomever they choose and I'm sorry but this is football... any player can get hurt on any single play in any single week; contact or not. It's the nature of the game.

The perfect example to this hit at my home two years ago when the Browns were 10-6 and needed the Colts to win on a Sunday night game against Tennessee; if they didn't Tennessee got the final wild card berth. Of course, the Colts had nothing to play for and they benched everyone and the Titans won and got the final playoff spot instead of Cleveland. It sucked obviously but the Colts earned the opportunity to do what they did and Cleveland lost close games during the year.. they needed to win one more game. People blamed Indianapolis for us not making the playoffs that year and personally I don't.

This is all just a phase; there's too many great teams and too many horrible teams. If the balance could ever shift and there could be more competitive teams then this problem doesn't exist. I don't see how the NFL can or think they can make a team play or not play certain players.

[jfc13]

I think the rule [or incentive] would be very tricky to write.

Sure, Peyton is the starter, but what if he were injured and someone else started more than half their games, now Peyton is back just before the playoffs, does he have to play? He's considered the starter because of his talent, but someone else started in games 4 through 15 [and obviously did enough to get them to the playoffs]. Would sitting either QB be a violation? What if the team doesn't have a QB with the reputation of Peyton? What if the team actually won after switching [or rotating] QBs [and won by virtue of the defense]. Which player is considered their "starter"? [think of the Browns, Titans, Raiders QB situations]

Also, teams with multiple receivers could just say that receiver "A" really isn't our starter, receiver "B" is, so we can sit "A" as long as we play "B".

What about defensive players that are situational? They are starters in that situation.

This could be an extremely complicated formula with many, many loopholes.

[darklight1216]

It's kind of ironic that after losing one of it's golden boys and cracking down on safety measures (at least for star players), the league is so upset that teams want to protect their starters.

If they do find a way to force teams to play their starters all year long, I wonder what will happen when eventually Peyton Manning or Larry Fitzgerald's back-up has to start in the playoffs.

[PSU RAVEN]

First I think that teams should be able to decide, without penalty from the league, who starts and who does not.

But have you noticed that many of the SB teams usually have to fight thru the whole season? Seems like a much higher % of wildcard and lower seeded playoff teams have been in it.

I find it funny that the colts are resting players when the year they won it all they were a wild card team and all the other years they were bounced in the playoffs after getting a great record, one week off and home field throughout.

[LilyRaven]

This isn't up to the league, it's up to the fans. If the Colts fans were really upset they'd let their dollars do the talking. Don't like it? Don't buy the tickets. Don't buy the merchandise. Don't spend another penny on the organization. As long as people keep paying, teams will keep doing whatever they want.

[Wacko4Zacko]

I think they should make it only the 1st and 2nd seed teams can rest thier starters only in week 17. The 1st and 2nd seeds deserve the have the choice to rest their players.

[thewarden86]

With few exceptions, the "resting of the starters" flat out seems to come back and bite in the payoffs. Just an observation I've made. I've seen it with the Steelers more than once and I think it helped the Giants in 2007: Even though the Pats played their starters too, the Giants didn't show everything, but got a good look at the Pats (who were playing all out to got undefeated).

Starters coming off a week or two of rest entering the playoffs always look flat to me. Peyton Manning will be coming off of roughly 3 weeks by the time he steps back onto the field.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='PSU RAVEN' date='06 January 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1262819113' post='332804']
[b]First I think that teams should be able to decide, without penalty from the league, who starts and who does not.[/b]

But have you noticed that many of the SB teams usually have to fight thru the whole season? Seems like a much higher % of wildcard and lower seeded playoff teams have been in it.

I find it funny that the colts are resting players when the year they won it all they were a wild card team and all the other years they were bounced in the playoffs after getting a great record, one week off and home field throughout.
[/quote]
I agree with that. They're paying all 53 players, so they should be able to play who they want when they want.

Furthermore, consider how most fans feel about the officiating in most games. We get upset when the zebras don't spot the ball right or when they don't catch holding and many other things. How would you like for the NFL (who brought us slow, old, part-time referees) to appoint someone to decide whether or not a team is putting in enough effort?

If teams were penalized for not playing their starters for the entire regular season, would the Ravens lose draft picks for giving Willis McGahee more carries than Ray Rice during the last game of the season? If the Dolphins want to rely on the wildcat, and give Pat White significant playing time in December, would they be penalized for it? How about the bottom feeders who use their best players all year long but finish with 2 wins- do they get anything special for trying or are playoff teams the only ones entitled to a reward?

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='03 January 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1262546548' post='328443']
But the thing is, benching a starter for a backup is basically telling that backup that they're insignificant enough to risk injury and their loss will be of no consequence to the team's playoff run. [b]What happens when those backups have to actually play in the postseason?[/b]
[/quote]
They'll have had experience playing in real games late in the season. They may also have a better shot at securing their spot on the team during the next season(or even getting a starting job some where else) if they have had the opportunity to play.

Why not just punish teams like the Rams? If those kinds of teams were actually competitive earlier in the year then teams like Indy would have had to play hard throughout the season.

[FerrariFan87]

What I don't understand about Manning's situation is that he's never missed a game in his career... so all of a sudden they are worried about him getting injured the last 2 games of this season with perfection in sight? I'm just baffled, and fans who attended those games should be refunded by the team.

[JO_75]

[quote name='FlaccoFlicker' date='03 January 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1262544899' post='328423']
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815718c8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
intersting story,I think resting starters has pros and cons,people want to see competition and want teams to go out and win,but on the other hand what about the threat of injury it's a hard sell either way.
what are your thoughts?
[/quote]


[quote name='J-man' date='03 January 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1262545533' post='328432']
It's the worst idea ever. [b]Let's give picks to teams that dont need them. Why not just take away picks?[/b]
[/quote]

First off, taking away picks or giving extra draft picks is not the answer. There's no point in giving draft picks to teams who don't need them like J-Man said. The League can't police this, as much as Roger Godell thinks he could get teams to play starters when they really don't need to, he can't. I'm actually thinking this is one of the most dumbest ideas he has thought of as the commish and you just can't force teams to do something they don't want to do. It's all within the team and the organization and their choice to play the starters or not play the starters.

Like someone has mentioned before, it's a lose-lose for any team that benches their star players. If they bench Manning, he is safe and he is healthy for the post season; if they had continued to play Manning against the Jets, with all that happened to their backup, it all could have happened with Manning in, and if he would have got hurt, the fans would be just as upset at the Colts for playing Manning and seeing their playoff hopes go down the drain because of them trying for 16-0. They sat Manning and fans were upset about that, see lose-lose situation.

The league should not step in, realistically there is only 1 way to solve this issue, and the best way to solve the issue. I know the league mentioned this has a possibility and didn't really do much with it, but this will solve the issues of teams resting starters if there was something to play for. So here is a proposed solution from Jo_75:

Mr. Goddell, if you really want to prevent this, don't automatically give the top 4 seeds to the division winners. Seed the teams via record. Even with the top 2 seeds locked up, if you seed the teams based on their record, 3-6 will have something to play for in weeks 14-17. Hell, if the Colts had lost earlier and the Chargers could have gotten the 1 seed in week 17, the Colts don't pull their starters against the Jets. Just think about this as Ravens fans Ravens are 11-4 heading into Week 17 of next season, knowing that the 2 seed is still available if they can beat the Bills in Week 17 and the Chargers lose to say the Patriots who are the 4th seed and a Patriots win over the Chargers could drop the Chargers from the 2 seed to the 4th seed. First John Harbaugh is going to play the starters knowing a Bye is on the line, second Norv Turner is going to play Rivers and Co knowing they could lose the 2 seed and drop to the 4th seed and lose the bye week and Bill Bellicheck is going to play knowing they could get a bye week. Using this logic the current seeding of this years playoffs would be different minus the AFC since that is basically in order starting at 14-2 to the two 9-7 teams. The NFC on the other hand would be different much different:

1)Saints 13-3
2)Vikings 12-4
3)Packers 11-5
4)Cowboys 11-5
5)Eagles 11-5
6)Cardinals 10-6

GB earns the 3 seed over Dallas due to Head-to-Head.(I believe thats how the tie breaker would have worked between the Pack, Cowboys and Eagles) The playoff matches would still be the same, but with the Cardinals if they can beat the Packers they have the chance to face the Saints in the divisional round.

Quite frankly, if the league adapts a Seeding Via Record stance when it comes to how the seeds are determined, issues would be solved somewhat. Of course if a team locks up the 1 seed before hand, fine than they earn the right to bench their players, but if they don't lock up the top seed and they know they could lose it in Wk 17 with a loss, they'll play the starters.

What do you think?