I hold up 2 helmets and think to myself......

[Zaltana]

DAMN THESE THINGS ARE UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO SWAPPED OUT MY COLTS AND SAINTS HELMETS FOR COWBOYS AND PATRIOTS ONES?!!!!!!!??!?!?!??!?!?!!

Speaking of the colts and saints at the moment, no this isn't a boring "who's better" debate, I'm wondering something very practical; To sit em, or not to sit em.

Both teams have their division titles, which ensures they are in the playoffs, both teams are undefeated, both teams are riding a huge wave of momentum, and both teams have a very long injury history spanning the season. Of the two the colts is a bit longer, but beyond all that should these teams begin thinking about resting their start players? Many of the babbling fools on the NFL discussion board keep siting that players get paid to much to be rested. I'm looking for logical reasons from you all.

I know how strong momentum can be for a team. It motivates you more then anything, you get the mindset that makes you feel invincible, and you don't flinch at the first sign of trouble. Why? Because you are moving to fast and strongly to think about such things. Nothing gets in the way of your focus, and your goal means everything. I've won a few races because of this mindset.

But then you have the flip side. Imagine the Colts without Payton Manning due to an ill timed concussion? Imagine the Saints without Drew Brees because of a random tackle that broke his wrist. Now of the two the Saints would still be dangerous thanx to a potent running game, but their power would then be greatly 1 sided and the Saints win games by keeping opponents guessing. And the colts have no run game to speak of so losing Manning would be like a dagger in the heart.

Weighing these two thoughts carefully, if you were a head coach would you play it safe or charge forward?

 

[Anglis]

I say don't sit them. Injury is part of the game, and majority of teams play all season anyway. One of them could have gotten a concussion last week or the week before, so I personally never look at it as "an injury might happen". That could happen in week 1, ending someone's year.

Here is something. The Colts are the Braves of football. They've dominated this decade in wins, even more then the Pats. They've only won ONE Superbowl going to the playoffs nine times in a row, which isn't a very good % obviously. Something else to ponder, Manning has sat out a ton of those seasons going into the playoffs, guess the outcome? ONE and DONE. The year they won the SB? They were fighting for positioning in the playoffs and Manning did not sit.

Pats of 07, didn't sit and made it. I say play. By them playing for records, the players will treat the game like it means something, therefore they will try and play their best. Also, the Saints haven't wrapped up home-field throughout, so they HAVE to play till they do. Remember this, Payton has been keeping his injured players off the field, and has been slow bringing them back. He'll only play the healthy, and let the injured heal. So he's being smart about it.

 

[JP]

I've been telling everyone that you shouldn't sit em. Not only do I agree with about everything Anglis said, but everyone thinks that everyone can just turn their skill on and off. This is not always the case. If you are a player who hasn't played in some time, even if you've been practicing, you're most likely not going to be as good as you were when you were playing week-after-week.

That and if a team does end up beating Colts or Saints in the last 3 weeks, I don't wanna hear any "it's because Manning/Brees wasn't in."