OT: Dungy's view of integrity is situational... - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

indycolts685 · 04-05-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

There was actually a playoff berth at stake for two teams, as opposed to most rest scenarios including when we rested players vs. Miami because WE DID NOT have a bye. There was an outside chance had we won that a seeding change would have ensued, but that was not at our discretion since it would have required another team who played later to lose and they did not. Here the implications were clear, and there were underlying concerns regarding how relationships (between Dungy and competition committee member Fisher) and statements (the Tennessee backup QB stating they knew TO's would not be called and Dungy proclaiming three playoff teams emerging from the AFCS was somehow significant IHO) created the perception of impropriety due to potential collusion regarding the outcome.

It's also an issue for Pat's fans because if some mediot asked BB to comment on the situation he would decline and say it's a league matter or none of his business - while Dungy has never met another teams/coaches situation he is unwilling to comment on...

I didn't realize the Pats didn't have the bye week when you played Miami, that does make a big difference. I wish Dungy would play it straight up for 16 games, enough of this resting starters crap, I don't like it and never will, but if Manning was to get hurt in a meaningless game then I might learn to like it though..

edit to add: Do other teams like the Colts really owe it to other teams to play with all starters in a meaningless game and risk injury to help the other teams into the playoffs? I think the Browns should have just taken care of business and then they wouldn't have had to worry about what we did...but thats just my biased opinion of course.

***fgssand*** · 04-05-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indycolts685

I just have one question and I am not flaming you in anyway. Why are people still making a big deal out of this when other teams and coaches do this ever single year? Just curious, not looking for a flame war or anything.

For the same reason NE gets repeatedly puked on for what the uninformed classify as "cheating by stealing signals and using them in 2nd half of games" when the truth is they only violated arule about where taping can occur.

How does it feel that the "uninformed" feel your team laid down in a very unsportsmanship like way??

***DaBruinz*** · 04-05-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indycolts685

I didn't realize the Pats didn't have the bye week when you played Miami, that does make a big difference. I wish Dungy would play it straight up for 16 games, enough of this resting starters crap, I don't like it and never will, but if Manning was to get hurt in a meaningless game then I might learn to like it though..

edit to add: Do other teams like the Colts really owe it to other teams to play with all starters in a meaningless game and risk injury to help the other teams into the playoffs? I think the Browns should have just taken care of business and then they wouldn't have had to worry about what we did...but thats just my biased opinion of course.

Why do the Colts need to rest their players for 2 weeks? The Colts had a bye week already.

The problem is that it wasn't a meaningless game. The fate of two teams play-offs chances hinged on it.

The issue has nothing to do with whether the Browns should have taken care of business and it implies that you are endorsing the Colts throwing the game so that the Titans can win. That is the whole crux of the situation.

indycolts685 · 04-05-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

For the same reason NE gets repeatedly puked on for what the uninformed classify as "cheating by stealing signals and using them in 2nd half of games" when the truth is they only violated arule about where taping can occur.

How does it feel that the "uninformed" feel your team laid down in a very unsportsmanship like way??

It does suck, and I for one think spygate has been way blown out of proportion. I just wish they would talk to this walsh idiot and get it over with and find out that he don't know anything. I have a feeling a tape might be in Walsh's possesion but what is that going to prove? Walsh could have done that on his own free will, and I bet BB has never seen it. I guess you can call me one of the few Colts fans that actually believes the Pats are innocent of this.

indycolts685 · 04-05-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

Why do the Colts need to rest their players for 2 weeks? The Colts had a bye week already.

The problem is that it wasn't a meaningless game. The fate of two teams play-offs chances hinged on it.

The issue has nothing to do with whether the Browns should have taken care of business and it implies that you are endorsing the Colts throwing the game so that the Titans can win. That is the whole crux of the situation.

They don't need to rest the starters for two weeks, thats the dumbest thing ever and he has done it twice now, I guess he didn't learn in 2005 when we lost to Pittsburgh at home after having one of our best seasons ever. Don't get me wrong I like Dungy but I was kind of hoping that he wouldn't come back this year, I think he is a great regular season coach, except toward the end of the season and the playoffs.

***fgssand*** · 04-05-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indycolts685

It does suck, and I for one think spygate has been way blown out of proportion. I just wish they would talk to this walsh idiot and get it over with and find out that he don't know anything. I have a feeling a tape might be in Walsh's possesion but what is that going to prove? Walsh could have done that on his own free will, and I bet BB has never seen it. I guess you can call me one of the few Colts fans that actually believes the Pats are innocent of this.

Much appreciated - I also feel TD did what he thought best for the interst of the Colts.

Yeah it sucked for the Browns, but they need to takr care of their own business during the season.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 04-05-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indycolts685

The Pats did the same exact same thing a few years ago against the Dolphins, I don't remember the teams involved but losing that game let the Pats play a team that BB wanted to play over the other. I didn't care and still don't, the Pats earned that right by being in that position, just like the Colts earned the right to rest players. I can't say for 100% there was or wasn't an agreement, but I seriously doubt it. But I am sure you would expect no less from a Colts fan. Again I am not trying to start crap on here, just having a civil discussion about the matter...off seasons are just way too long

No, it's not the same thing, because the playoffs were set at that point. That wasn't the case here.

JoePats · 04-05-2008, 12:46 PM

New England's situation in 2005 was completely different.

The Pats had already clinched the division and were locked into playing a game the next week, as the 3 or the 4 seed. Miami was 8-7 and had no chance of making the playoffs going into that game, as the wild card teams had won 11 and 12 games that season.

The Pats were playing for their own seeding and nothing else.

The Colts/Titans game determined who made the playoffs and who did not. And as DaBruinz pointed out, Kerry Collins came out and said that the two coaches had an agreement prior to the game.

JoePats · 04-05-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

No, it's not the same thing, because the playoffs were set at that point. That wasn't the case here.

Yes, you beat me to it.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 04-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indycolts685

The Pats did the same exact same thing a few years ago against the Dolphins...

I guess you missed the entire point of my post (1) regarding the claiming of high moral ground by St D and his myrmidions and the (2) significance of the game regarding teams in/not in the playoffs.