"Plus, Peyton basically imploded on the field during the playoffs, blaming everyone on the offense but himself."

I think saying "I played like an absolute dog" is taking a lot of the blame. Anyway, frustration brings out the worst in most people,no matter their position or salary, and apparently Brady and Belichick are no exception. Both franchises are infinitely more classy than most in any sport--there's no class quota.

But I won't even bring up Willie McGinest's faking an injury to get another timeout the last time the Pats visited the RCA Dome, enabling them to set up a defensive formation to block the Colts' fourth-and-goal TD run....

Would it be too difficult to stick a transmitter in the ball (or two: one for each end) and track the position of the ball electronically? That would allow perfectly fair and impartial judging of touchdowns, out of bounds, and some incompletions.

In 1972 the media was much less prevalent (no SportsCenter, no internet) and much less aggressive than today. A local writer's career could be hurt if he found himself in the coach's doghouse. An article criticizing the personnel decisions of the coach of a 13-0 team was much less likely to be written then than it is today.

In 1972 a successful coach like Shula had more respect and job security than any coach today. Even if that article was written I doubt Shula would have felt pressured over it.

Combine those two things and you come right back to the point you made yesterday. Shula was coaching to win, not to avoid the blame for losing.

Regarding that Dolphins team specifically I'm not sure that playing the starters all the way to the end of the season was a bad decision. They finished 14-0 and the second place Jets were only 7-7. They were not even playing for home field advantage, which belonged to Pittsburgh regardless of the Dolphins' final record. They would have had to shut down the starters several games early to avoid playing them after the games became meaningless.

As you mentioned, they were already playing their second quarterback. They were sharing the load among three pretty good running backs, not just using Czonka as a workhorse. Their defense was good as a unit, not centered around the skills of one or two specific players. If any one of their best players had been hurt late in the season the drop off between starter and backup was not nearly as sharp as it is with the 2005 Colts.

Shula had to balance keeping his players healthy with keeping them in game condition. His approach was probably the right one with that particular team.

One injury in 1972 that pops to mind would be the one that knocked Bob Griese out for the year in Week 6.

I'm surprised you even ask why it's different today, because you just answered this question in yesterday's column.

"That's because with rare exceptions, they're not coaching to win. They're not even really coaching to avoid losing. They're coaching to avoid blame if they do lose."

I know what I said about now. My question is, what was different about 1972? Why wouldn't Don Shula have faced this same reaction? Did people not realize in 1972 that it was dumb to lose a star player right before the playoffs in a game that meant absolutely nothing? I don't remember 1972 that way.

And although I'll stipulate that injuries are more severe and frequent today (I'm not sure that's true, but let's say it is), there were certainly plenty of injuries in 1972.

JLS, please don't start attributing motives to Bill. The Patriots defense has forced five turnovers in seven games and not stopped anyone during that span. If Belichek was cranky, I would GUESS that it's because his team isn't performing, and he's not a warm fuzzy guy under the best of circumstances. Of course that's just a guess. Before we start dissing the guy who has won 3 of the last 4 Superbowls, maybe we should consider some alternate explanations.

And by the way, the Colts whined about snow on the field and claimed they were just as good as the Patriots (after losing last year's regular season game). Plus, Peyton basically imploded on the field during the playoffs, blaming everyone on the offense but himself.

I like Tony Dungy, but this isn't a team that suddenly has a monopoly on class.

King: everything was different in '72.

The risk of losing a player to injury was much lower then. First, the forces involved were just lower. The players were generally much smaller and slower than today's NFL players. The torn ACL was not a weekly occurrence the way it is today. Second, in '72 if you could walk you could play. Injuries that are taken seriously today, like concussions, would never have kept a player out of a game, especially a playoff game, in '72.

If you had suggested to Don Shula that he not play his best players he would have thought you were nuts.

I'm surprised you even ask why it's different today, because you just answered this question in yesterday's column.

"That's because with rare exceptions, they're not coaching to win. They're not even really coaching to avoid losing. They're coaching to avoid blame if they do lose."

If the Colts are 14-0 Tony Dungy would face heavy criticism from the press if he played his starters and everything went well. If he played them and one of the stars got banged up, he would never hear the end of it.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons why teams don't go undefeated anymore other than mailing in the last two games (when was the last time a team got to 14-0 anyway?). The first to leap to mind are free agency and the salary cap. The tendency of teams to change coaches (especially coordinators) constantly is also part of it.

Look at what happened to Michigan when Lloyd Carr watched the clock closely against Penn State and had two seconds added back. Chad Henne threw for the winning TD with one second left, and that was all that stands between Penn State and a perfect record. You'd think the Raiders would have at least wanted a chance at a kickoff return--or a play from scrimmage had the Chiefs kicked it into the end zone or out of bounds.