However, none of this matters. This is a great football team, but not one that was up to the level of the '72 Dolphins or '85 Bears. They needed fourth-quarter comebacks in half of their wins. They didn't beat anybody with less than FIVE losses. They didn't play the Chargers, Bengals, Saints, Vikings, or Eagles - the other top five teams in the NFL. Heck, I'm pretty sure the '07 Patriots would've left this year's Colts in their wake. But, who cares?
A Week 16 loss to the Jets doesn't mean that this Colts' team can't go down in history. Whether you're 16-0 or 10-6, the only truly memorable teams win Championships, and last time I checked that was something that the Colts still have a chance to do.
The only thing that made me really upset about watching Indianapolis basically forfeit the final quarter-and-a-half to the Jets, was the way that this team's franchise player conducted himself on the sidelines. Frankly, Peyton Manning looked like a spoiled brat more than a leader of a Super Bowl contender. Between keeping his helmet strapped on and constantly talking to offensive coordinator Tom Moore, I was disgusted with the display that I saw from Manning. Of course he has the right to be upset, because guys like Peyton Manning are so competitive, they want to be out there all the time. But what kind of message did that send to his backup Curtis Painter? If I was Manning and I was going to be forced to sit anyway, I would've thrown a headset on and been rooting on my rookie teammate from the sidelines.
(9:58 PM UPDATE: I'm going to back off on the "throwing Manning under the bus" argument after talking to DZ of 18to88.com. He said Peyton was pretty much in a lose-lose situation - if he stomps off in disgust, he's a primadonna. If he just grins and bears it, then he's a wuss. I can understand that viewpoint.)
The point of all of this is, the Colts haven't won or lost anything yet. The games in January and February are what is going to shape the legacy of this team.
Perfect or not, the Colts can still make history.
I was hoping to see a post post-week-17, but nothing yet. While I don't disagree with your comment that teams have the "right" to rest players in their team's best interest - does this mean that you also condone a team tanking in week 17 in order to improve their draft position? After all, that's in their own best interest, too. Interested in your take.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting take and something I hadn't really thought about. I was arguing more that teams like the Colts that had everything wrapped-up early had earned the right to do what they wanted.
I guess you don't really earn much by going 3-12 going into the final week of the season. I've never been a proponent of "tanking" but I'm not so sure if it really exists - especially in the NFL. The only blatant tanking I've ever seen was the 2006-07 Celtics who sat a healthy Paul Pierce for the hopes of landing either Oden or Durant.
Look at the teams this week with nothing to play for: the Chiefs whacked Denver, Oakland played Baltimore down to the wire, Buffalo and Cleveland both finished with wins. Washington, Detroit, and Tampa Bay didn't win, but they tried. Rarely do you see NFL teams "tank".
I know this isn't a direct answer to your question, I just don't think it's the best comparison. There are far more good teams that pull starters in a meaningless Week 17 game than bad teams that "tank" to improve their draft status.