Letters to the Editor
-
Colts/Steelers
May I say that the second half of last night's game was the first that I was actually able to sit back and enjoy, with no worries, of the Colts' '05 run? Wow. Even when the scarily unpredictable special-team play gave the Steelers great field position, I was confident that the defense would stop them. Even when Pittsburgh scored, set up by Polamalu's INT and runback to make it first-and-goal, I thought the Colts' defense played admirably. The TD pass was on third-and-goal: one more stop and the final score could have been 26-3.
About the Colts' upcoming schedule: like you, King, I'm not holding my breath for a perfect season. But I do think it's more likely than your analysis assumes:
Jacksonville, even with no Leftwich, will be tough, but Garrard at QB is an undeniable boon for the Colts, particularly if they prepare with the same care that they have all season.
San Diego coming to town will be the biggest hump, with the Chargers fighting for their playoff lives and with one of the AFC's three most balanced offenses. Of course, another of those balanced offenses will be on the other side of the ball, and I personally would never bet on a Schottenheimer team. Remember what happened last year?
Don't forget, King, that Seattle can clinch a playoff berth next weekend and could very well rest its starters for its Christmas Eve game against the Colts. So it's not necessarily Jim Sorgi v. Matt Hasselbeck, Dominic Rhodes v. Shaun Alexander.
Do you really think that at 14-0 or 15-0, Manning, Harrison, or James will be content to sit on the bench?
-
who cares about the perfect season
I completely agree King, that the Superbowl is what the Colts care about. I don't think they would trade a perfect season for the superbowl. if it happens they will be ok with it, but in the end it is just icing.
And they will not go undefeated because they will take out Manning probably as you say for the last two games, and while the Seahawks are not as good as their standing I think they have a chance against a Manningless Colts. If it is wise to take out Manning for the last two games, I don't know, but I would assume they will do it just to avoid any potential injuries.
-
What is the equivalent of 1972?
Say the Colts are 14-0 with home field wrapped up. Then they rest their starters and lose one or both games. Then go on to win the Super Bowl.
Is that as good as the '72 Dolphins?
I don't know. I don't know if the Dolphins rested their starters at the end of their regular season. But the Colts have to play two more games than the Dolphins in the regular season, in a league where parity is king (no pun intended).
So if the Dolphins did not rest anyone you could make a case for the Colts accomplishing what Miami did. Get to 14-0 with two regular season games left and win the Super Bowl, I'd argue that is a similar accomplishment. Won't be official, but still amazing.
Of course, I don't think they will get to 14-0 anyway. Just a gut feeling.
-
14-0 = 14-0
I would argue that yes, if the Colts get to 14-0, then lose a meaningless game or two with their subs playing, then win the Super Bowl, it's a comparable achievement to Miami 1972. Maybe better, given the general parity in the league and the famous easyness of Miami's '72 schedule.
Dungy has said he'll rest his starters once home field is secured. I would guess, as Peter King did in yesterday's column, that they'll treat those games like exhibition games 2 and 3, playing the starters for several series to keep them sharp, but getting them out before halftime. With a regular season roster, you can't get 'em all out, but I mean the stars.
Seattle can clinch a playoff spot next week, but there's a good chance they'll still be fighting for home-field advantage in Week 16. And home-field advantage is no small thing for the Seahawks, who have to go a long way to get to anyone else's home field -- and everyone else has to come a long way to get to theirs. Seattle teams in any sport get a snootfull of travel by the end of the year.
-
Can they? Should they?
More interesting to me than the argument about whether the Colts *can* go undefeated or not is the argument about whether they should try their best for the 16-0 season. Peter King was the latest to weigh in on this in his column yesterday. I find compelling arguments for both sides of the debate and it seems to be one of those semi-dramatic sports subplots pitting heart vs. head with a heavy dose of history as a side dish. I think if given the opportunity, they should go for it.
-
The Case for Going Undefeated
I understand that for an individual team, winning the Super Bowl is the highest priority. And especially for the Colts, who have been so good for so many years, but haven't been able to win it all. But, as a football fan, the idea that they would rest their starters for the playoffs would piss me off.
First of all, I don't watch football to see the second string players out there. If I wanted that, I'd pay more attention to the preseason, which has always seemed like a total waste of time to me. I remember during the '85 Bears run, they were 14-1 and had home-field advantage wrapped up by the last game. Someone asked Mike Ditka about the upcoming game, and he replied, "We play every game to win." And they went out and won the "meaningless" game. That's what every NFL team's attitude should be.
Secondly, a team wins the Super Bowl EVERY year. But how often does someone go undefeated? A team should strive to win all their games to separate themselves from all the Super Bowl winners. Who do we talk about more often, the 72 Dolphins or the 2000 Ravens?
-
Gee, more NFL...
King, I understand ignoring the NHL for the first month or so, until they got their feet wet. But it's now almost two months! And to completely lapse on the signature moment of the season so far (Ranger's D Marek Malik channeling 1988-era Mario Lemieux to win a shootout. In the 15th round. At MSG.)!
And while you were pouting about the shanks of the Giants' kicker costing his team the game (ahem... while ignoring at least one questionable TD call which permitted the Giants to be in the game anyways), you missed how an overtime football game ought to be played. I know that name-dropping the Eskimos and Alouettes won't increase your Google hits - but there was some flashing/situational lesbianism in the crowd, maybe you could work that in.