Wednesday, December 19, 2007

No Rest For The Weary

For the Indianapolis Colts, life seems to be looking good right now, what with the fact that they've pretty much secured the #2 seed in the AFC. Sure, they're banged up & none more so than on the defensive front; yet somehow, someway they were able to defeat the Raiders last Sunday. This should give Tony Dungy reason to rest his starters for the last two games of this regular season, right?

Hope not.

If so, rewind to 2005-06 when in doubt. Most of the starters didn't play in the last two regular-season games; of course, when they entered the playoffs, they were going to feel a bit rusty & out of sync. And Pittsburgh took advantage of the Colts' rustiness in the best way possible as they marched their way on to the Super Bowl (& if that wasn't enough, grabbed all the hardware which comes with being Super Bowl Champs). Lest this should happen a second time (& what with Jacksonville & San Diego being two of the hottest teams in the AFC as we speak), the starters who are on the up & up status-wise should keep playing & for those starters who are honestly injured there's no pressure to put them out on the field at all. That's just one of my suggestions if Indy wants to work their way back into another Super Bowl.

True, the Colts have it made & are in control of their own destiny. But by resting their key starters, they're bound to lose some of the momentum which has won some key games for them all season (& the playoffs are no exception either). Dungy knows what's at stake here; only he & he alone can see to it that history doesn't repeat.

But then again, Dungy knows what's best for the Colts at this juncture. As one of the league's most respected coaches ever, he knows the routine & so does the rest of his ballclub. Like the old saying goes, there's no rest for the weary. For the inactives, there is rest & time to heal up just right until they're good to go. But for the starters who can play, they've got to suck it up & keep forging ahead; to settle for anything less is just wrong.

No comments: