Lou, I couldn't agree more about the loss to an inferior NFC team--if you have to get one mulligan, it better be one that has minimal post-season implications, and on a week when all your playoff seeding rivals (except NE) lose. That's one reason those Miami and SD losses really got to me (aside from one being winnable and one being a complete no-show by the team)--AFC losses hurt more! Division losses even MORE! H2H losses against similarly successful AFC playoff teams the most of all. (cough, Cincinnati and cough, KC).
So id they DO bounce back for Tenn, if they CAN bounce back (come on, they have no QB!), then they have some breathing room in the form of a few extra days, they are not likely to fall into an AZ trap after already stumbling over the corpse of another mediocre team. I don't know what to make of our post-season chances (reading between the lines: I'd be happy with a playoff win, ecstatic with 2), but I'm pretty sure we'll acquit ourselves respectably the rest of the season. No dishonor in 11-5, but 12-4 is still possible, if not exactly likely.
Nicely played. (After that game, i thought maybe even you would take the week off. You know, like the Colts secondary did.)
Looking back, how the hell did Bradshaw have that second half against the 49ers? I have a theory that he was secretly wearing under his uniform an electro-magnetic body suit that was actually repelling tacklers. Why the Colts have not suited Richardson up in it, is beyond me.
@DougEngland The Colts are still averaging like, 110 yards on the ground ... strangely. And their secondary wasn't terrible. Vontae Davis was terrible. Didn't go full out on the kickoff, let those two long touchdowns go - basically a 21 point difference if he plays well.
@Lou Pin @DougEngland The colts have rushed for under 100 yards in 3 of the last 4 games, and the only reason we had 100 yards in the Denver game is because of the DHB end-around and Luck's 30 yards. Luck has chipped in 200 yards of the 992 we currently have.
If people think the Colts are actually a competent running team, they are fooling themselves, if they aren't an outright idiot.
@Payton @Lou Pin @DougEngland Hey, I'm an idiot and I object vehemently to your statement. Even I can see we can't rush (traditionally) well. But the traditional stats rely in the usual RB totals and don't really differentiate when a QB chips in 25 and a WR chips in 25.... but 50 yards is a HUGE swing in the stats when the #5 rushing team and the #20 rushing team are probably 25 yards per game apart.
I prefer looking at success rate, my idiot self. And recent trends, neither of which are flattering for us.
It was weird to think of us as an elite team when we had three guys getting 40 yards each. 40 yards? Barry Sanders could rack that up just going to the bathroom (it involves dodging through the den, heading toward the kitchen, then reversing field through one of his kids' rooms, up to the attic, out a dining room window, and finally making it to the toilet. Whew!) But add up those three 40 yard RB days (or two 50 yard RBs and Luck for 20) and you have an "elite" team on paper anyway.
It's just, I never realized that Indy's ground game was that good early on. To be running like they are and still averaging that?
I miss Vick Ballard.