https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-startersPersonally I just don't understand this decision. Of course the objective is to win the Superbowl, but going 16-0 is arguably a better achievement as it happens far less often.They get a bye week to rest anyway so it is debatable whether an extra 20https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559930#423559930no beacuse i needed miami to finish above jets in division. can still happen i guess. miami win jets loseThu, 31 Dec 2009 03:46:43 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559926#423559926Priest well stated, have to agree with point 1 most. This from a league that used to censor "Jimmy the Greek" from giving point spreads on the air, for INTEGRITY reasons.Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:51 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559634#423559634That may as well be Lori but im pretty sure the fans expected the Colts to be winning by a comfortable margin first.They knew on the run to 14-0 that they had the mighty Pats record in sight and i bet 99.9% of them were rooting for them to equal it aWed, 30 Dec 2009 11:08:38 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559610#423559610Pretty sure the fans will have expected it, they said they were going to do it.Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:38:03 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559594#423559594A couple of points i'd like to make here.1) It was totally unfair on the paying public, the rest of the teams fighting for play off spots and puts the NFL integrity to shame.2) Every time Indy have rested there players they have been stuffed in the pWed, 30 Dec 2009 09:20:07 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559590#423559590I don't like starters rested unless they're carrying a niggle. 'Rust' has probably done for more teams than injury over the years.Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:40:50 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559582#423559582Gets more terrible the more I think about it.Even if they win the superbowl (which i now cant see)...they will just be another name on the list in 30 years time...they had a chance to go down as the only 19-0 team ever and bottled it....dumb dumb dumWed, 30 Dec 2009 07:56:10 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559570#423559570Agree with KR here..Injury can happen at any point in a game or training you cant wrap players in cotton wool. Manning could have been hit in the first half so why start him at all???Fans have been scr.ewed but really depends what players thought. IfWed, 30 Dec 2009 04:03:47 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559546#423559546villa soon be 7th KR....the mug EBOUE will be silent now ;)Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:46:27 -0600https://community.betfair.com/north_american/go/thread/view/94138/23638414/were-the-colts-right-to-rest-starters?post_id=423559534#423559534@knight rider.....them wheels are starting to fall off the aston villa ;)Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:02:42 -0600