Here's what's been bugging me in lieu of actual Colts football:

• Just before halftime last night, the Denver Broncos made one of the single worst play calls I've ever seen.  They had 2nd and 10 from the 39 with :06 seconds left (and a time out).  Instead of throwing a quick pass, they ran a QB sneak for 3 yards.  It set up a 54 yard field goal which ended up being short.  This was horrifically stupid.  They had time to gain the extra 5-10 yards they probably needed to have a makeable attempt.  Instead, they plowed into the line for 3 meaningless yards.  To make it worse, Jaworski and Gruden PRAISED McDaniels effusively for such a 'heady' call.  IT WAS STUPID. It was bone jarringly stupid.  McDaniels has his team off to an incredible start, and he should be praised for that, but in this instance, he cost his team a credible shot at a field goal.  Awful coaching moment.

• Alex Rodriguez's post season numbers are:  .288, .378 (OB), .535 (slugging), .913 OPS with 11 HR and 26 RBIs.  Over a full season that would be a 41 HR, 96 RBI season.  His regular season numbers are .305, .390, .576, .965.  Now there's a small dip there, which is to be expected considering the better pitchers and colder weather involved in the playoffs, but hopefully we can finally cram all this 'choker' crap.  I'm no ARod fan (the roids made that impossible), but I hate it when people cherry pick a handful of games and make them mean more than they do.

• Bob Kravitz set me off yesterday with this video (at the :55 second mark)
  

and then repeated his sentiments in his column today.  He says:

As for Johnson's surprising dismissal and the reasons behind it, call me mildly cynical. Sadly, history has taught us we can't always take the Colts at their word. It was only last year that they continued to deny -- or "refuse to address" -- reports that quarterback Peyton Manning had a second knee procedure.

This bothers me because I thought Kravitz was supposed to be a 'reporter'.  He doesn't take the Colts at their word about Ed Johnson.  Fair enough.  Do some research.  Make some calls.  Watch some film.  PROVE THEM WRONG.  Instead, Kravitz just tosses around accusations.  His reasoning is that last year they wouldn't answer questions about Manning's knee.  So what?  That's not analysis.  Here's what bothers me so much about the "there must be something more going on here" position:  there's no evidence for it.  We have four games worth of tape on Ed Johnson.  If a serious reporter thinks there is something phony about the Colts' decision to cut Ed Johnson he has avenues the rest of us don't.  He can make calls to agents, players, he can go to Ed's house and try and get a quote.  Moreover, he has access to what fans have as well:  the tape.  Comb over the tape and illustrate what a fine job Ed Johnson did.  Show that the Colts' claims don't make sense.

Even the dirty bloggers did more work on this story than Bob Kravtiz.  After 'Preston's' tape review, I rewatched the Titans game and came to the same conclusion:  Ed didn't play well (I'm saving my commentary on this for tomorrow night's 18 Plays).  Last night Polian gave a lengthy, logical answer about Ed Johnson.  It sounds sane and reasonable to me.  It sounds much more reasonable than suggesting the Colts are covering some thing up (which they have zero motivation to do).  Instead, Kravitz implies that Jim Caldwell is a liar, but gives precious little justification for his belief saying only:

I wondered, if Johnson was so bad, why was he still starting and getting so many snaps just two weeks ago at Tennessee? Why not demote him, as the Colts have with Tony Ugoh, or have him share time, as with Mike Pollak and Kyle DeVan?

"The feeling was it wouldn't do any good to demote him," Polian said.

Hm-m-m.

Again, Kravitz doesn't suggest who else the Colts should have cut.  He doesn't contradict the logic of cutting a guy who was on his last chance with the team, but was slowly getting fat and lazy.  He doesn't address the fact that a guy who is on a tight leash, but is letting his weight go becomes a serious conduct risk even before he does anything wrong.  And he does nothing to prove that Johnson deserved to be playing.  He just wants to imply the Colts are hiding something, but won't do the work to prove it.  The insinuation that the Colts' are hiding something doesn't bother me.  But for a reporter to make that claim without providing any support for it doesn't make sense to me.

Seems like a weenie move to me.

As I picked over the still warm corpse of the Steelers/Browns game yesterday, I thought, "Could anything be more miserable than Bye week Sunday?".

The answer, "Yup.  Bye week Monday".

Normally on Monday, there's a bevy of fun recap articles to read.  There's analysis to criticize.  There's articles to link.  There's something to do...

Today, however, my excitement was limited to waiting for the Monday Morning Hangover to come out.  That was only exciting because I wrote the part about Baltimore having a terrible defense, which is a point I've been making to every thing that moved since week 1, but only just now got the chance to hammer home to a wider audience.

If anything, yesterday just taught us a bunch of crap we already knew:  The Pats will win the East, the Steelers are still the best team in the Central North (though not as good as a year ago), the Saints are for real, and the Titans are the most done team in the history of football.

I admire BBS's enthusiasm over the trade market.  I have to confess I'm too beat down by that slate of clunkers yesterday to generate any myself.  Well, that and it doesn't feel like a trade kind of year.  Everything BBS says is true:  the Colts often make a minor deal, Cribbs or Rudd would add something for sure, Polian has to think this team is right on the cusp of something huge so making a move would make sense.  Even so, my hopes are low just because my mood is.  It would be great just have something to say.

Instead, my team has back to back bye weeks.  Oh I know there's a game this Sunday, but let's be real.  I'm better off analyzing Tom Brady than worrying about the Rams.  By the way, I'm utterly unfazed by that beating he gave the Titans.  I said a couple of weeks ago that Brady looked fine to me.  Now after one game against the league's worst team, his numbers are back to normal.  His YPA is normal, his completion % is actually high for him (64%), his TD % is a little high (but essentially normal), his pick % is a little low, and his rating is a little high.  He's on pace for the second best year of his career, but that will level off now that the Titans game is behind him. He'll wind up with a typical Tom Brady year:  28-30 TDs, a completion % around 63%, a rating of 90 and a YPA of 6.8.  That's who he is.  That's who he's always been. Yawn.

See what I've been reduced to?

Sigh.

I hate the bye week.

1.  Rough week for the NFL.  Some really tough games to watch, with few exceptions.  Hopefully the primetime games will be more entertaining.

2.  OT against the Rams?  My goodness.  The Jaguars find new ways to wow me each week.

3.  The Patriots are going to win the AFC East.  I've been saying it for several weeks, but Mark Sanchez isn't any good yet.  Actually he's pretty bad. 

4.  The Pats love running up the score.  Not exactly a newsflash.  It is good for the league to have Moss, Belichick, and Brady (listed in order of importance) relevant again.

5.  Tennessee is the worst team in the league by a wide margin.  Just not a lot to say about them right now.  Fisher and Collins need to go.  Scapegoats?  Yes, but they still need to go.

6.  Oakland has two wins?  How?

7.  I said it last week, but Houston is going to win more than people think.  I'll amend that slightly by adding:  Houston is going to the playoffs. 

8.  The Saints deserve the hype, and they are welcome to it.  The more the media focuses on Brees and Favre, the happier I'll be.  Expect the Colts and Manning get ignored in the weeks leading up to the Pats game. 

9.  That's another heartbreaking loss for the Ravens.  Three in a row.  They're still in the thick of the AFC North race, but at some point you have to beat a good team.  And play a little defense. 

10.  Bye weeks suck.  Actually I already knew that, but watching Fitzpatrick and Sanchez slop around in overtime has reaffirmed it.

While I'm thrilled the Colts have this bye week to get back to close to full strength, I does make for a bland Sunday of football.  If you are so inclined to watch the NFL tomorrow, here's a quick look at what will help the Horse.

Houston @ Cincinnati

Personally, I have to go with the Texans here.  Indy already has three games in hand over Houston, and while a loss would only create more distance between the Colts and the second best team in the division, at this point, I'm taking the division title for granted.  Let's lock in on the top two seeds by dropping the serious AFC contenders.  The Bengals have to be considered a serious contender, and while I find the odds of them finishing with a better record than the Colts remote, it's mathematically possible.  So in order to keep the tiebreakers from getting weird, let's pull for the Texans.

Again, NFC/AFC games are easy calls.  Grab some horns, glue them to your head, and you are covered for both teams.  If the Rams beat Jacksonville, Del Rio doesn't last the week.

Titans @ New England

You don't need me to tell you what to do here.  Hate away.  It's surprising that this game suddenly feels so unimportant.

Cleveland @ Pittsburgh

Woof, woof, as they say, woof.

Buffalo @ NY Jets

Again, not that easy a call.  Do we really want the Pats in the playoffs? I know the Jets are 'contenders' but with two games in hand on them, I'm inclined to pull for them just to keep New England in second place.

Denver @ San Diego (Monday Night)

Numerically, it makes sense to root for the Chargers, but my Colts' fan genetic coding screams that Denver we can handle, and San Diego will be tough.  I usually love the math, but I'm bucking the trend.  I want the Chargers dead in the warm, soft, San Diego ground.  The last time Denver was all great with a super defense, it took Peyton Manning 4 quarters to expose them as utter frauds.  I'm sensing that's about to happen again this year.  No way I want to see San Diego in the mix.

Demond Sanders:  I like the Texans too.  They are a long shot for a wild card, and Cincy needs to drop a game.  The Bengals have a tough closing schedule, but they seem focused.  I'd rank them as the biggest threat for home field advantage.  But it is still early. 

I see a minimum of four losses for Denver left on the schedule and possibly five or six.  They have a tough final ten games.  San Diego has an easier slate with games left against the Chiefs (twice), Browns, Titan, Redskins, and Raiders.  This is a huge game for both teams.  The Chargers will be in wildcard mode if the lose.  I was initially pulling for San Diego, but after looking at the schedules... I'll agree with your reasoning on rooting for Denver.  I won't be sorry either way, obviously.

The Jets are going to lose their share of boneheaded games thanks to Mark Sanchez.  Like you say, we want them to stay in front of the Pats.  Their next 8 games look like this:  Buffalo, @Oakland, Miami, Jacksonville, @New England, Carolina, @Buffalo, @Tampa Bay.  That's a minimum of five wins, and possibly more.  Problem is New England has an equally easy slate of games.  I think the Pats are headed for the playoffs and probably the divisional title.  So I'll go with your reasoning.     

It's the bye week, and we've pretty much pounded every available issue into the turf this week.  That means it's time for me to make a small announcement.  Those of you who have been reading for awhile know that I've been working on a book for the last 10 months or so.  Well, it's done.  Done, done.  It's been written, rewritten, re-rewritten, and I've finally got it where I want it. And honestly, I'm proud of it.

I liked it.  My wife liked it.  My dad said, "Well, I haven't finished it yet, but I think you are a good writer.  You've got all that bulls**t in there that a book has to have if it's not going to be boring."

He has a way with words.  Apparently, I come by it honestly.

That means I've begun the soul killing process of seeking representation and publication.  As anyone who has ever shopped a book knows, writing is the easy part, selling it is the hard part.  I'll spend the next several months trying to find an agent to represent the book, but if all avenues come up dry, I'll self-publish.  So don't worry, if you are truly desperate to read it, you'll get your chance.  I promise.

For now, if anyone is or knows of an agent or publisher interested in a novel about Indiana high school basketball complete at 79,672 words entitled Invincible, Indiana, please contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .  I'll be happy to send you a query letter.

For the rest of you, the book is coming...some day.

You may all now bate your breath.

With no game this week to distract us, all we have to talk about is Ed Johnson.  What's interesting is how two of the primary sources for Colts information differ in their opinions of the move to release Big Ed.

First note how Oehser handles his surprise:

One thing that really wasn't discussed by Colts players or Caldwell were a couple of fairly obvious questions -- one being, 'If Johnson was playing poorly enough to be released why was he starting?' and the other being "Are there really four tackles on the roster better than Johnson?"

The cynics among us will believe that because of those questions there is more to the release than the Colts are saying, and perhaps that's true. But the reality is the Colts were up front in the wake of Johnson's release last season, and while the Colts aren't always as forthcoming on injuries as we in the media might like, Caldwell is absolutely not a liar. If he says production was the issue, I believe it.

What does trouble me is his reports about how the players feel about the move.  It sounds like this was not a popular move in the locker room:

“Obviously, it's very, very unfortunate," Freeney said. "You never want to see a guy who's been around not here with you. As players, we can't decide who's there and who's not. I'm sure upper management had their reasons for whatever they decided to do. We just have to line up on Sundays and whoever's there we have do deal with it regardless of what we feel about it."

Freeney went on to say, "I was surprised to see it happened. Obviously, he's here today and gone tomorrow. That's part of the NFL. It's unfortunate. He's a brother. He's one of us. Life moves on and when things move on, you have to carry on. That's why the upper management – everybody has their place. That's their job, to make those decisions. Our job is to go out on the field and make plays and help this team win. That's what we're going to focus on no matter who's there or not."

Make no mistake:

This was a tough day for Freeney. This was a tough day for many Colts players

On the other side of the fence is Phil B Wilson:

I can't deny the inclination, as others have suggested, that there's more to the Johnson release than what has been publicly stated. If Johnson failed a drug test, violated his probation or this had something to do with an off-field issue, I don't see why the team would want to publicize this. First, the team can't be thrilled about admitting it was wrong about the guy again, especially if he did something stupid. Second, we live in a world where it's all about political correctness as far as confidentiality stuff goes. If Johnson had an off-field misstep, it's not legally wise for the team to discuss details.

But the part that doesn't add up, as most have asked, is why start a guy for four games this season, and also why bring him back after he let the team down once before, then release him and say it was performance? If it truly was based on his play, do you mean to tell me that LT Tony Ugoh and CB Tim Jennings aren't on that short list, too? I could hear someone say, "Well, we're thin at offensive line and cornerback and can't afford to get rid of either guy, regardless of performance." Perhaps, but Moala had yet to see the field. They started a guy who supposedly wasn't getting it done instead of throwing a rookie into the fire to see what he's made of. Nope, it doesn't make sense...

The hunch is that we will have to wait a while before the rest of the story comes out. As another blogger suggested to me, if Johnson signs somewhere else, then maybe it was just performance. But if he doesn't get a sniff, then it's reasonable to surmise the guy had another off-field issue, was possibly going to get suspended again, and enough is enough.

I don't quite see Wilson's comparisons to Ugoh and Jennings.  Jennings struggles, sure.  He also works hard and makes plays.  As for Ugoh, I think he's hurt.  I don't think the team wants to cut him until they are sure he's useless.  He found a rhythm (before getting hurt again) on Sunday night.

On top of everything else is this report by PFT stating that a grievance filed by Johnson was the reason for the dismissal

Per a league source, the team only told Johnson that he weighed in at 320 pounds, three more than his target, and that the team was letting him go.

And so there's a belief that Johnson was dumped because of the grievance that he filed after being cut by the team in 2008 following an arrest for marijuana possession.  The grievance contends that the teams have no authority to discipline players for violations of the substance-abuse policy. 

Per the source, the Colts asked Johnson to drop the grievance when he was re-signed in May.  He refused, and we're told that the team wasn't happy about it.

So there could now be another grievance -- and that's why the Colts are pointing only to Johnson's performance as the reason for the decision.

Regardless of whether it really was.

Thanks Florio.  Too bad he never seems to know anything about the Colts and routinely accuses them of conspiracies.  Cutting Johnson because he was overweight and not playing well makes a lot of sense.  The part about the grievance makes no sense.  They asked him to drop it in May when they resigned him, but only now they cut him for not doing it?  That defies logic.  Why would they have ever signed him back in the first place if that was the case?  Secondly, why is there no report anywhere that a grievance was ever filed?  I can't find any record anywhere saying that Johnson filed a complaint about his dismissal.  If he had, wouldn't it have been resolved by now? Sounds like an agent made a phone call to help his player to me.

I've stated my point of view.  I'm taking this at face value for the following reasons:

1.  Ed hasn't played well.  The evidence for it is on the tape and in the numbers.  The Colts had a ready replacement for him who has battled some injuries and is now healthy (Moala).  Sometimes, things are what they are.  They needed the roster spot and took his.  Maybe when Gonzo comes back and they can cut Baskett we see Ed back.  Although if weight was sighted as the reason I doubt his time away will help him much.

2.  I don't see that why it would make the club look bad to admit they cut him due to behavior.  I think that it would have made the team look consistent and firm.  "We gave him a chance.  He blew it."  Giving someone a second chance that doesn't work out doesn't make you look bad for giving the chance. It makes the offender look bad for blowing it.  I see no reason for the Colts to cover up anything to save face.

3.  I don't think they would have covered up something to help Johnson.  A failed test, a run in with the law, whatever...those things would come out eventually if he signed somewhere else.  I don't know what would be gained for Ed by lying now.

4.  I think the whole "starter to cut" argument isn't important.  The Colts have played a rotation at DT all year.  The fact that Ed Johnson started didn't necessarily mean he was best player at the position or even that he was getting most of the snaps.  He was just the guy that fit into that particular rotational scheme.  People are making too big a deal out of that rather meaningless designation.  Remember that Robert Mathis only started 2 games last year.

As I prepared to board a bus at 11:30 last night, I got an email on my IPod that Ed Johnson had been released. Needless to say, I was a little disturbed, but thought at the time that I had noticed him making a lot of plays.  Still, like everyone else, I assumed Big Ed's release was conduct related.  Like everyone else, I assumed it would hurt the team at least a little.  I was only saved from saying so because I was far, far from home.  As comments from the blog began to show up, I noticed some nice film work by "Preston" who wrote yesterday:

I'm sorry but I rewatched all of the first half of the Titans game after this news with the idea of evaluating Ed's play, and i came to the conclusion that he had NOTHING to do with our success against the run in that game. Instantly jumping the the conclusion that we won't be good against the run with him no longer on the team is silly. There were several run plays where Ed got blown off the line of scrimmage and the rest of the d stepped up and did a nice job. In my opinion, he was easily our worst dt in the Titans game, to heavy, not fast, and not particularly strong (didn't use good leverage). He also didn't show good effort. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Preston later followed up his assertions with this post, detailing Johnson's performance

11:20 first quarter, 1st and 10: Chris Johnson gets stopped for no gain, and the Titians get flagged for holding. Ed was on the back side of the play but was blocked up the entire play by Jake Scott and is pushed back 10 yards off the line of scrimmage.
11:00 first quarter, 2nd and 16: gets walled off completely one on one, gain of 8 to his side.
7:20 first quarter, 1st and 10: Screen pass 6 yards to his side, Ed is left virtually unblocked takes a poor angle and doesn't even get close to making the tackle (could have been a play for no gain).
6:40 first quarter 2nd and 3: It is a run to the defensive right he is play side, does a nice job stretching it out along the line of scrimmage, along with the rest of the d. doesn't make a play thou doesn't get penetration or push in the back field. Clint shoots his gap and makes a great tackle.
4:30 first quarter 3rd and 4: Ed gets singled by the center who keeps him nearly on the line of scrimmage in pass pro, which allows the left guard and tackle to double Freeney. Lacey makes a great play on the ball and breaks it up. ed is ineffective on this play
3:05 first quarter 1st and 10: Run to the defensive left. The colts slant their line in the same direction. Ed is in the right tackle spot next to Freeney, Roos gets on Ed and pushes him 10 yards down field all the way to the defensive left sideline the rest of the defense picks up the slack and makes cj cut it back right for a gain of 4, ed is ineffective.
Plays one more play that drive that is blow dead on a false start.

4:58 second quarter 1st and 10: Collins goes back for a pass gets pressure put on him by Freeney stunting inside, while Ed slants outside, he is effective scheme wise getting Freeney free up the middle. This forces Collins to sprint to the sideline and throw it away. Ed chases takes a nice angle and Hagler comes up at the end to force the issue. Not bad not great by any means.
4:50 second quarter 2nd and 10: Ed holds his gap well and Chris Johnson hits it Ed has a chance to stop him for two yards, but he doesn't get off his block quick enough and Chris Johnson gains 7.
4:41 second quarter 3rd and 3: Pass play he gets decent push (he is only single blocked by a guard)(the double Antonio Johnson initially on the play center guard combo then slip the guard off to help with Freeney) has a chance to bat the ball down and misses. Not a bad play at all but nothing special. Results in a big completion down field.
2:15 second quarter 1st and 10: Pass play Ed gets double by the center and right guard not very exciting play gets his hand up when Collins passes short, but doesn't get a hand on the ball.
1:58 second quarter 2nd and 5: Quick pass not much he can do.
1:30 second quarter 1st and 10: Pass play Ed and Mathis slant inside to defensive right while Antonio Johnson loops outside gets pressure on on Collins. Nicely designed play but the coverage downfield is what makes it. The stunt is effective and prevents Collins from holding onto the ball. Nothing special here good or bad.
1:22 second quarter 2nd and 10: Pass play, the one where Lacey makes a great play on the ball on a post route in the end zone. Ed is ineffective gets no pass rush, however Antonio Johnson gets nice pressure up the middle.
Well that's the first half. Ed plays a total of 13 plays. (I'm pretty sure this is exhaustive) I'll let you guys make up your mind on how effective Ed was

Today, the news comes out that Big Ed was cut not because of what he did, but because of what he didn't do, namely make plays.  Preston was right, after all.  While I had noticed Mookie Johnson a ton, as well as Foster and Daniel Muir this year, other than one play in Arizona, Ed Johnson had been invisible.  With Adam Vinatieri out six weeks (talk about the buried lead!), the Colts needed a kicker, and decided Johnson wasn't getting it done.  Amazing.  Every big time analyst and small time blogger missed the story, as we all (every one of us...from Phil B to Oehser to BBS to me to anyone else you care to think of) jumped to the same conclusion while the truth was on the tape.

One of the best takes on the situation came from Paul Kuharsky who says that the Colts were unfair to Johnson by cutting him without comment.

Considering the fanfare that greeted his return, that he was a starter since he was reinstated from his Week 1 suspension and that there had been no public questioning of his play, the team had to know a release without explanation was going to prompt suspicions he’d done something wrong off the field.

Coach Jim Caldwell admitted as much when he began to address it Wednesday.

“I know some might wonder whether or not it was a character issue,” he said.

If you knew, coach, why wouldn’t you seek to clarify that it was not as soon as possible? Isn’t that what you would have liked for someone to do for you if you were in a similar circumstance?

The team could have simply put out a statement Tuesday or have word passed down from on high that it was a production issue, not a behavioral one.

I whole heartedly agree that it made him look bad, although I suppose that's as much our fault for making assumptions. This also means that possibly Ed could come back if there was injury or need.  He was first one on the chopping line, but that doesn't mean he's gone forever, although I think we'd all rather see Moala step and seize the spot that has been handed to him.

I was going to let the Rush Limbaugh-as-NFL-owner controversy go, but two things happened.  First, Jim Irsay commented on the story, thus making it vaguely relevant to the Colts.  Second, Jason Whitlock commented on the story.  As you know, we enjoy Whitlock even when he is wrong.  I think he's wrong in this situation.  Here's the facts as I see them, feel free to disagree. 

Valid reasons to exclude Rush Limbaugh from ownership:

1.  Limbaugh has a history of prescription drug-addiction, for which he was prosecuted.  If the owners need a reason to ditch El Rushbo then look no further.  The addiction makes him a liability.  Although, and I'm seriously just remembering as I type this, I believe Jim Irsay struggled with very similar issues in the recent past. 

2.  He's too controversial.  This decision is voted on by the owners, and the NFL is a business.  If Rush is too hot to touch then so be it.  It's not like Rush has earned himself a lot of wiggle room with the other 50% of the country.  He's made his own bed etc... 

Poor excuses to exclude Rush Limbaugh from ownership:

1.  He is a racist.  The evidence Whitlock provides are a pair of discredited quotes from Wikipedia.  Quotes that may or may not be made up, and are given with no context.  Is that the best Jason can do?  Whitlock falls back on our preconceived notions of Limbaugh, which isn't enough for me.  I take charges of racism more seriously than that.   

Side question:  If Rush is a racist would he really be seeking entry into an industry where 75% of the workforce is black?  I don't know the answer, but it is worth asking.  If someone can come up with hard evidence of his racism feel free to provide it.  I haven't seen any yet, but I'm not saying it is not out there.

2.  Limbaugh implied that Donovan McNabb was being propped up by the media because of his skin color.  Was Rush right?  I don't know, but I don't think it was as outlandish as Tom Jackson and others claimed at the time.  The media badly wanted first Michael Vick and later Vince Young to be the next big thing.  They ignored obvious flaws in each each player's game.  It was truly embarrassing.  Was race a factor?  Probably not, but I can't say for certain.  Was it wrong for Rush to bring the topic up?  I'm an adult and I didn't have a problem with him asking an edgy question, but ultimately it was up to ESPN to decide what topics are appropriate.       

The important thing is that Rush was badly wrong about McNabb's ability.  Turns out McNabb is really good.  But in fairness a lot of people were questioning his skills at the time (actually people were still questioning Donovan as recently as last week). 

On a sidenote, I'm not sure why Whitlock thinks this is a publicity stunt.  Limbaugh recently signed a contract extension worth an estimated $400 million.  He doesn't need the publicity.  He doesn't need anything really.  Except perhaps a really bad football team. 

Final sidenote:  Does Whitlock still think the Titans would smoke the Colts? 

I'm stranded in a small city in the interior of Argentina, typing in a dark hotel room as my wife and kids desperately try to sleep.  Meanwhile my car is nesting happily in a mechanic's shop as I wonder how and when I'll ever get home.

Today, as I sat in the blazing sun waiting for the tow truck to haul my recently troubled vehicle back to civilization, I said a prayer, and fired up my Ipod to listen to my mp3 recording of the 2006 AFC Championship game.  When things look bleak (and they are bleak, friends), it pays to remember happier times.

So, instead of getting the sleep I need, I want to take a few minutes to respond to some thoughts in the comments and my emails and do a recap of a MUCH happier time...Sunday night.  As always, I caution you that I haven't watched the tape, nor am I within a 9 hour drive of the tape.  I have barely slept or eaten in a couple of days.  I did actually manage to watch the game live, however, because this is a crazy tripped out world we live in.  Mine just happens to be crazier than most.

Reasons to Smile:

• Peyton Manning.  Yawn.
• Collie was brilliant for a second straight week.  Tremendous game from him.
• The defense was brilliant all night.  Two turnovers by the Colts: zero first downs allowed was the defense's response.
• Tim Jennings and Tony Ugoh's play in the second half.  See the note below.

Reasons to Frown:

• The Colts still aren't running the ball with any regularity.  Neither back is getting it going.  To be fair, Indy has played 3 of the top 5 run defenses in the NFL through 5 weeks, so it may just be a scheduling quirk.  The bad news is that they play 3 more of the top 8 in the coming weeks, so it's not going to get better anytime soon.  This is the one GLARING weakness for this team.  We've all seen too many playoff runs aborted because of a criminal inability to move the ball on the ground.  I'm not giving up hope that the run game will find itself, but there is a long way to go before I feel confident this team can put away a close game when it matters.
  
• Tony Ugoh's and Tim Jennings's play in the first half.  Jennings is what I said he was:  a not bad weakest link.  He makes plays, but largely because he gets more opportunities to make plays than most CBs.  He is always the #1 target out there, and sometimes he makes a play.  Other times, balls bounce off his head, go through his hands, and WRs break his ankles.  Ugoh could not have played much worse for the first 25 minutes or so, but was nicely invisible in the second half.  In the first half, it was stunning how bad he was.  I know he is still battling various injuries, but wow, did it ever look like he had gone seriously backwards.  In the end, he showed why he's still around.  It's not too late for him (yet).
  
• Jeff Fisher is a coach I always had respected.  I'm not sure how I feel about him any more.  His was a gutless, uninspired game plan.  In the end, he shocked us all...by playing it straight and getting destroyed.  Bad form, Jeff.  Bad form.
• Both roughing the passer calls were legit, but I HATE the first one.  I hate the Brady rule.  I know it keeps QBs healthy and what not, but I don't think it's fair to hamstring the defense that much.  The second call was a text book late hit, and Fisher should not have been whining about it.

Best Call

• Going for it on fourth and one early.  It's almost always the right play.  Caldwell has been forward thinking on this all year, and I for one appreciate it.

Worst Call

• Can anyone explain to me taking a 2nd and 15 over a 3rd and 8?  I guess I get the field position thing considering they were in long FG range, but it was a bad swap as the Titans threw for 11 yards, making it 3rd and 4.  This is tied with the pointless early blitz of Brackett that lead to an easy completion to the TE.  I'm quibbling, I know.  It's hard to find fault when you win 31-9.

Reasons I'm Flyin'

• The defense is for real.  It's now 15th in the NFL against the run, and other than Miami's wildcat, it has been 'gash proof'.  MJD had one big run verses a blitz in week one, but for the most part running against the Colts has been a no go.
• It's easy to point out that Indy hasn't played anyone, but as FO noted a couple of years ago, blowing out bad teams is a better indicator of success than beating good teams.  Indy has rolled three straight opponents.  That's a GREAT sign.  Regardless of what anyone thinks, it's actually a better indicator than Denver squeaking out close wins over teams with winning records.  The haters won't like it, but facts are facts.
  
• Two consecutive bye weeks is awesome.  What?  You mean I forgot about the Rams?  No.  I didn't.
• The AFC South is OVER.  Indy is playing for a bye.  At this point, anything less than 13-3 and a first round bye has to be a major disappointment.  Anything less than 14-2 and a #1 seed is a minor disappointment.
• When this team gets Hayden and Sanders back...watch out.  This defense is going to be incredible.

Reason's I'm Dyin'

• Uh, hello?  Did you read the first paragraph?  You don't want to be me right now.  Seriously.
• Argentina needs a tie verses Uruguay to secure a World Cup berth.  That's effed up.
• I also misidentified the Jets QB the other day as Matt Sanchez.  Cut me some slack.  That internet connection was crazy slow, and I never got around to fixing it.  Still, it was an inexcusable mistake.  Normally, I just misspell stuff.

The Bottom Line

This team isn't quite 2007 good (yet).  It still has to run the ball effectively, but it's close.  This defense might be the best yet in Indy, and it hasn't even gotten it's secondary anywhere close to healthy.  The big games are coming soon (NE, @Balt, Denver), but for now, the Colts can feel strong about where they are and where they are going.  Ladies and Gentlemen:  Your 2009 AFC South Champions...the Indianapolis Colts (well, more or less).

Bonus Trivia Question:

How many different Colts have had 100 yard games with Peyton Manning as their QB, and can you name them? (tip to Stan for the question)

Bonus Debate:

Would the Colts still win the AFC South if Peyton Manning didn't play another down the rest of the year?

Colts 31 - Titans 9