No football column today, at least not right now.

For new readers:  sometimes I review movies.  Why?  People asked me to.  Feel free to check back when football is on the menu. I'm sure it won't be a long wait.

Last night I went to see Avatar at the IMax in Buenos Aires with some friends.

To be 100% honest, I still don't know what to make of it.

My first impression was that I was watching The Empire Strikes Back.  Not because it was good and amazing like the best movie ever was.  It was as if I was watching Big Hollywood fire back at internet pirates everywhere.  Avatar is a movie whose value is entirely wrapped up in the experience of seeing it in 3D on a massive screen.  It is more like an amusement park ride than a movie.  As the images flooded over me, challenging my mind's ability to concentrate on anything plot or story related, I recall wondering to myself, "How could you ever watch this movie on a television set?".  Everything you've heard about the amazing world created by James Cameron is true, to an extent.  While there were parts of the visual experience that felt derivative of the Star Wars Prequels, Terminator films, and a half dozen video games, Cameron did manage to create a world that fooled the eyes into believing...as long as the mind stayed distracted enough not to question the improbability of it all.  The floating mountains, for example, were breath taking, but I found myself annoyed that Cameron made precious little effort to explain why they were floating at all.  Yes, I realize that makes me a huge geek, but good Sci Fi has to either attempt to explain the impossible, or at the very least provide a skeptic with whom the audience can identify.  Too often the world was filled with the impossible and the characters showed remarkably little curiostiy about it.  If they don't care...why should I?

Immediately after seeing the movie, I had a favorable impression of it.  My mind was still on a sensory sugar rush from the experience.  Now, all that springs to mind are the massive problems with the film:

• The dialogue.  No one had ever dare rip George Lucas for 'wooden, cliche ridden' lines again.  He's David F. Mamet compared to Cameron.  Ugh.
• The preachy plot.  The was an hour in the middle where I lost myself in the story and the world.  That's an amazing experience, and I give him credit. However, for too much of the movie, I felt like I was watching Dances With Space Wolves.  District 9 is the perfect example of how to work a metaphor into a sci-fi flick without beating the life out of it.  The metaphor made that movie richer.  The ham-handed attempt to preach about Iraq and the treatment of Native Americans (issues I actually care passionately about) almost ruined the movie.  I wept aloud when I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and even I felt assaulted by the over the top tone of this movie.
• The bad guys with no discernable motives.  There was Military Bad Guy.  He just wanted to kill him some natives.  There was Coorporate Greed Bad Guy.  He just wanted money.  Together they committed unspeakable attrocities on the level of Hitler with no depth, pathos, or explination for their actions.  Horrible, horrible writing.
• The score.  A good score should leave you with the music in your head at the end of the film.  Avatar had the most forgettable music of all time.  Play three bars of most great movie themes, and you can immediately get people to name them.  You could play me the whole sound track of Avatar 12 hours after I watched it, and I still wouldn't be sure it was the music from the movie.  If you are going to spend $500 million on a movie, why not bother to write some decent music for it?  Don't even get me started on the train wreck of a final song at the end. I have no idea what that was that played during the credits, but it caused me pain.
• The MacGuffin:  Unobtanium?  Really?  They didn't even bother to explain why it was so valuable.  They killed scores of people on screen for something that was never explained.  Awful.  People would have burned Lucas at the stake for such a crime.
  

There was a lot of good in the movie as well, perhaps more than I anticipated.

• Cameron created a world I would like to know more about.  I would love to see a movie about first contact with Pandora.  I would have loved more scenes at the end showing the cease-fire negotiations where they escorted the miners off the world.  He created a valuable sci-fi world and some great concepts.  He gets lots of credit in my book for that.
• The animated characters were utterly believable.
• The acting was acceptable whenever the actors were given anything decent to say.
• The middle hour is engrossing
• The plot was essentially sound.  Sure, it relied heavily on borrowed ideas, and wound up with a typical mano a mano fight, but the subject matter was sufficiently epic for the quality and scope of the visuals.

Do I reccommend the movie?  If you can see it in 3D, especially at an IMax theater?  Definitely.  Without question.  You'll get your money's worth.  Our IMax is two hours from my house.  That means I invested roughly 7 hours in seeing this movie.  For the experience of it, it was worth it.

Whatever you do, however, don't rent it from Netflix.  You are better off with Star Trek or District 9.  On a normal TV, it's just another lame space movie.

I've had a great time writing for Cold Hard Football Facts this year, and today marks the final edition of the Monday Morning Hangover column that I contributed to. I want to say thanks to Kerry Byrne for giving me the chance to contribute.  I've paid him back by systmatically ignoring all the snarky stuff he's written about the Colts recently.  I've decided to stop defending this team against every little slight because they are about to shut everyone up once and for all.

Sigh, I wish that were true.

Oh it's true that they'll win it all, but when they do, the media will just find something new to complain about.

Anyway enjoy the last Hangover of the 2009 season.  I'm sure you'll miss such gems as:

The Browns and Jags are like two ships passing in the night, assuming both are the Titanic and their offenses are icebergs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me now present the Main Stream Media award for the most annoying team of 2010:
YOUR....

INDIANAPOLIS....

COOOOOOOOLTS

You see, the Colts violated their solemn pact with the media to provide them story lines. Now that the Colts can't go 16-0, everyone has to wring every last drop out of the story possible because in two weeks it'll be gone.  The Colts have irritated everyone because they accomplished exactly what they wanted:

They are perfectly set up for a Super Bowl run.

Note the things the MSMers say.  First Bob Kravtiz, who chastises the team for playing starters for a quarter yesterday:

Even if this wasn't all about statistics -- and you can still color me dubious, by the way -- why expose Manning, Clark and Wayne to the risk of injury at all? If it didn't make sense to play them one additional series against the Jets, what was the logic behind keeping those players on the field Sunday (and in weather conditions a penguin would find unpalatable)?

Ah, but Master Bob isn't so dense as to miss the other real truth behind the Colts' playing:

Moreover, rust will not be an issue this time. While you might wonder why they played anybody this Sunday -- clearly, I do -- the fact is, they didn't shut it down the way they shut it down completely in 2005.

The offensive starters went more than a half against the Jets and played three series against the Bills. While I question Caldwell's timing, especially in the Jets game, he gets credit for taking a more gradual approach than former coach Tony Dungy did.

For all the madness of the past week or so, the fact remains the Colts have the No. 1 seed and the best opportunity to reach the Super Bowl. When the biggest issue surrounds the health of the kicker -- Adam Vinatieri didn't make this trip -- it's a pretty good sign you're in fine shape heading into the playoffs.

You see, Bob is angry.  The Colts are set up perfectly.  He can whine all he wants about playing for stats, but at the end of the day, he is forced to admit that this team played enough in the final week to take rust out of the equation.  How can any sane person argue that they were just playing for stats while also recognizing that it was a good thing they were playing?  Those irritating Colts!  How dare they execute their strategy to perfection?  How dare they lose to a crappy team who they could well face again in the playoffs just like in 2004?  Boo!  Boo, Colts, boo!

Kravy isn't the only one who is annoyed.  Peter King isn't happy with them either.  He calls them weirdos.  Drops them to second in his rankings behind San Diego (who also benched starters but won because they have a real back up QB).  But at the end of the day, he lists them among the Super Bowl favorites and has to admit:

Now, what I like about the Colts is because they've conserved Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis down the stretch, both should be ready to attack the quarterback in two weeks.

What?  You mean having two elite pass rushers healthy is a good thing? So the very thing you don't like from the 'weirdos' is the very thing you do like.  Gotcha.  I see how that works.

Today, everyone woke up, looked at the bracket and said, "Damn.  The Colts are going to the AFC Championship game where they'll play at home."   In a couple of weeks they are going to realize that Indy has been among the most beat up clubs all year long, but is finally going to be healthy...just in time for the playoffs.  Tim Jennings won't be covering Vincent Jackson on a key third down.  Raheem Brock won't be huffing and puffing after Mark Sanchez or Carson Palmer.  This team is stacked and loaded for bear.

No matter how bad anyone in the media (or on blogs) wants the Colts' brass to look bad for their choices, the unquestionable truth is this:

Indy is right where they want to be.

They are healthy.

They are at home.

They have a manageable draw in a conference with only one other serious contender.

The Colts and Chargers will likely play for the right to go to the Super Bowl and when that day comes momentum won't matter.  Records won't matter.  History won't matter.  It will make no difference that Billy Volek beat the Redskins and Curtis Painter couldn't beat the Bills.

There won't be any curses or hoodoo deciding the game. It will be about which team is better and which team gets the breaks.

The Colts are going to the Super Bowl.

And the country is already pissed about it.

A funny thing happened yesterday in the NFL, everyone lost momentum.

The Chargers still have it, thanks to Billy Volek.  But they almost lost it.

The Colts and Saints waived good bye to it a long time ago.

The Cardinals don't have it, but they claim to not need it.

I'm hazy as to whether the Vikings have it or not.  Yes, they lost three of their last five, but they had a blow out win to close the season.  Does that qualify as getting it back?

The hottest team in the NFC going into yesterday was the Eagles who had won 6 in a row.  But then they lost.  Now they've still won 4 of their last 5, so I'm confused as to whether or not they have it.

DALLAS!  The Cowboys have it, right?  They won their last three. Ah, but they are just 3-2 in their last five, and the numbers show that going back to 1979, that's not hot 'enough'.

Green Bay.  That's an easy one.  They won their last game AND won 4 of 5.  They'll cruise to Miami, I'm sure.

The Patriots don't have it obviously.  Yesterday people were saying to watch out for them, but they lost their last game (and some inconsequential WR), so we can't take them seriously.  By the way, did anyone stop to notice that they won more games with Matt Cassel last year than with Tom Brady this year?

The Pats are playing the Ravens in the first round, who like the Pats, won just three of their last five, but they won the last game, so you have to think they have the momentum going in.  Momentum is, of course, more important than matchups and players.

The Bengals clearly don't have it.  They got blown out in the last game and lost three of their last five.  They are no match for the mighty Jets whose two game win streak towers as the second longest in the AFC playoffs.

So here's the definitive momentum list:

Have it: Chargers, Packers

Don't have it: Colts, Saints, Bengals

Had it, but lost it: Eagles

Lost it, but found it:  Vikings

Don't need it: Cardinals

Could have had it, but it blew out its knee: Patriots

Depends entirely on how you define it:  Ravens, Jets, Cowboys

Losses by the Jags and Pats and a win by Pittsburgh mean that Colts' fans who want the Steelers and Texans out of the playoffs need to root FOR Denver, Baltimore and the Jets.

A Denver, Baltimore, or Jets win eliminates the Steelers completely.

If the Ravens and Jets both win, the Ravens are the 5 and will play AT Cincy and the Jets would play AT New England. The Ravens would play at NE and the Jets would be the 5 and play at Cincy.

The best case scenario for the Colts would be a Denver win, a Jets win, and a Baltimore loss. That would send the Jets to New England and Denver to Cincinnati.  It would accomplish our dream scenario of the worst teams making the playoffs and the Pats getting the three seed.

Really, everything depends on the Jets game.  That would now officially give NE the three seed.

Perhaps no one in the NFL had as good a day as Bill Polian had on Sunday.

First, a blizzard sent on Buffalo, ensuring that even if the Colts HAD been 15-0, no fan in their right mind would have wanted the starters to play the whole game.

Then, Wes Welker blew out a knee in Houston (see!  Injuries happen in the NFL).

Now, neither of those two events excuse what happened last week at the Luke.  It was all handled badly and insensitively, and nothing that happened today alters that.  It does take the "what ifs" out of the equation.  What if the Colts had won the Jets game?  They would have done the same exact thing they did today.

There are three key issues to talk about in this game:

1.  This is not 2005.  In 2005, the Colts starters played just three series in the final two games.  Manning threw just 14 passes.  The Colts offense had just 3 points.

This year, the Colts clearly put more of an emphasis on keeping some semblance of rhythm.  The Colts starters played 9 drives.  Manning threw 39 passes.  The starting offense put up three touchdowns and a field goal in those drives.  This is a better, more sound method of resting guys.  It made a lot of sense to play the starters a full quarter, and I think that if the weather had been better, it would have been nice to see them play a half today.  In 2005, the Colts starting offense went nearly a month without mounting a touchdown drive.  This year, we managed a touchdown in the final game against a good passing defense in a snow storm.  The 2005 Colts played the offensive equivalent of one quarter over the final two weeks.  The 2009 Colts played the equivalent of a full game.

2.  Playing the starters one quarter is the right move.  Stop worrying about the logic of it compared to last week.  It's the right move. It kept the offense in sync.  Clark and Wayne got their numbers without ever putting themselves or Manning in serious danger.  More importantly, the Colts offense showed that it can still move the ball effectively and get points.  We can argue all day about whether 16-0 should have been more important to the Colts than it was, but no one should argue that milestones for the players isn't important.  They do matter.  They should matter.  Two wrongs doesn't make a right.  Pulling the starters in the Jets game was a mistake.  Playing them today wasn't.

3.  Indy needs to sign a second quarterback NOW. Look, God forbid anything happens to Peyton, but let's say he does get hurt with a two TD lead in the third quarter of the Super Bowl.  Curtis Painter would find a way to lose that that game.  In two games he is 8 for 28 with a passer rating of 9.8.  Oh, he also lost two fumbles.  Don't give me that "he played in the snow" crap either.  So did Ryan Freaking Fitzpatrick.  He completed 16 passes for three TDs.  Painter is NOT an NFL QB.  The Colts should sign ANYONE.  Isn't Jeff Garcia around?  Anyone?  They cannot let everything ride on Painter. He may be the worst player currently employed in the NFL.  We need some kind of backup plan that doesn't involve a guy with a career passer rating under 10.

The final week of the 2009 NFL season is upon us, and the AFC playoff picture is wide open.

For Colts' fans, step one is deciding who you would rather face in round two, assuming the home teams win.  That's easy Cincinnati over New England (as we've discussed dozens of times before).  That means we want the Bengals in the four slot and the Pats in the three slot because Indy CANNOT play the three seed until the AFC Championship game.  Given the fact that Indy is extremely likely to play either the Pats or the Chargers in the AFC Championship game (should they get that far), there's not much point in rooting for bad scenarios for the Pats.  I'd rather force the Pats and Chargers to play each other, hoping the winner expends too much energy in the process.

Having settled (again) that obvious bit of business, let's rank the remaining wild card teams in terms of most favorable to least favorable matchups for the Colts.  There is obviously room for considerable debate on this topic, but I'm going with the following:

1. Jets-Awful QB.  They were not going to beat the Colts first string.  I'd play them again in a heartbeat. I want this team in the playoffs!

2.  Broncos-Circling the drain fast.  Indy put up 28 points on them, and controlled the beginning and end of the game.  The Broncos 'success', such as it was, on offense stemmed from Indy losing Jerraud Powers to injury and having to cover Brandon Marshall with Tim Jennings.  I don't think we're likely to see that repeat itself.

3. Miami-Without Ronnie Brown to run the Wildcat, I don't think they put up enough points to beat the Colts.  Indy's D played them ok, except when they had the Wildcat working, and they don't run it the same way they did early in the season.

4.  Ravens-I'm not a believer.  They played Indy tough at home, but Santi's fumble made that game seem a lot closer than it was.  It's never any fun playing Baltimore, but on the whole I feel good about this matchup.

5.  Jacksonville-Are they any good? No, of course not.  Are they a dangerous matchup for the Colts?  Yes.  There's no reason for it, but Jags Colts games in Indy have been close for the last six years.  Indy wins almost all of them, but it would be a tough game.

6.  Houston-They could match Indy score for score if they had to.  Already played us to the wall twice.  I want no part of a third game with them.

7. Pittsburgh-Roethlisberger and possibly Polamalu?  Um, no thanks.

So lets take the easiest games on the board first:

New England at Houston-A Pats' win clinches the three seed, and guarantees that Indy won't have to see both NE and San Diego in the playoffs.  It also serves to eliminate the Texans, who are near the bottom of the list of teams I want to play.  There will be no half hearted hoping they choke on Sunday.  It's go Pats all the way.

Cincinnati at New York Jets-This kills two birds with one stone.  First, it puts the Jets in the playoffs as the #5 seed, and almost guarantees a rematch in Cincinnati the next weekend.  While I don't think there are many teams the Jets could beat, the Bengals are one of them.  Suddenly, Indy is looking a probable opening game against the Jets or Bengals.  Either way is fine with me.

Now, should the Pats lose AND the Bengals lose, there is still one remote way the Bengals can wind up as the three seed.  The Bengals could win the strength of victory tie breaker from the Pats if ALL (yes, all 8 of them) the following games end like this:

Colts beat the Bills
Browns beat the Jags
Saints beat the Panthers
Seahawks beat the Titans
Steelers beat the Dolphins
Packers beat the Cards
Chiefs beat the Broncos
Ravens beat the Raiders

So there's your check list for the three seed.  If even one of those games goes against Cincy, they would be the four seed if they lose to the Jets, regardless of what the Patriots do.

Now for the other games:

Jags at Browns-The Sparkle kitties are trying to avoid limping home with a fourth straight loss.  I'm thinking they go down.

Steelers at Dolphins-Who would you rather play?  There's no question in my book.

Chiefs at Broncos-Some one HAS to qualify from the AFC.  Might as well be Denver.  Now Brandon Marshall is freaking out again, so I can't imagine them going anywhere in January.  Should they make it to Indy, I think the colts stomp them.

Conveniently, all three of those games match up with what we need to happen in the event of a Patriots loss at Houston.

Baltimore at Oakland-too early to call, but I'm leaning in favor of Baltimore.  If the Steelers win, it becomes easier to root for the Ravens to win, to crowd out Pittsburgh.  If the Broncos win, it could help for the Ravens to lose.  So who knows at this point?

In a perfect world, the playoffs would wind up looking like this:

1. Indy

2. SD

3. NE

4. Cincy

5. NYJ

6. Denver

That would guarantee the Colts a second round game against either the winner of the Bengals Jets game, or the Broncos if they upset New England.

7 Things to Watch for During Sunday's Colts Bills Game

This guy doesn't inspire confidence

Last week...well let's talk about something else.  This week Indy travels to the frozen wasteland that is Buffalo, New York.  While Peyton Manning is expected to start the game, the Colts' chances for victory will rest largely on Curtis Painter.  In his honor, we bring you seven things to watch for this Sunday.  Be on the look out for:

1.  Watch the pitch count. Weather permitting, I would love to see the starters play a half.  I realize that is unlikely, but surely any reasonable person would allow that it would be plenty of work for the starters to stay in sync.  More likely, we'll see Manning for a drive.  If we even get a second, we'l all feel lucky.

2.  Watch the weather report. The reports are calling for 18 degrees with snow.  Caldwell has said he doesn't expect the weather to affect his plans, but I have to think that if conditions are too bad, we won't see Manning do much other than hand off into the line three times.

3.  Watch another top pass defense.  The unfortunate part of Curtis Painter having to play the Bills and Jets is that they are top two defenses in the NFL at opponents passer rating.  He doesn't have a chance.  The Bills are going to force 3 sacks and two picks from Painter.  If he's lucky.  Remember Painter has NEVER lead a touch down drive, not even in the preseason.

4.  Watch for milestones.  Several Colts have personal goals they'd love to attain, but it seems unlikely they will.  Manning will almost certainly lose the passing title (which isn't bad considering no one has ever lead the NFL in passing yards and won the Super Bowl in the same year).  He only needs 152 yards to set a career high, however, and if the Colts decide to let the starters play a little more than we expect, he could get there.  Dallas Clark needs 7 catches for 100.  Reggie Wayne needs just five.  Austin Collie, who could see more action than the other starters needs 7 catches to set the Colts' rookie record for receptions.  Fans will howl if the Colts go for them, but it would be the right play, within reason.

5. Watch the kicking game. Priority number one for the Colts offense needs to be getting in field goal range to let the team evaluate Vinatieri.  Granted, kicking outside in Buffalo will be a much tougher test than anything he'll have to do this postseason, but the team needs to know what he can do.  They have a tough decison as to whether or not to keep Stover.  Getting AV some live attempts would be a major accomplishment for what is sure to be an anemic offensive day.

6.  Watch for a live chat.  The Colts are treating this like a preseason game, and so will we.  That means we'll do a Cover It Live blog/chat during the game on Sunday instead of the normal game day blog.  Stop by at game time and we'll hang out and shake our heads in dismay together.

7.  Watch for 14-2. The Bills are horrible.  Curtis Painter is worse.  Unless the Colts let the starters play more than a series, they aren't going to win this game.  Buffalo takes it 17-10.  That may be optimistic.

My final thoughts on Painter-gate.  I haven't been this ready to move on from something since high school.  Fittingly there are seven of them.

1.   It was good that Irsay said something.  He took responsibility (which he should have).  I agree with him that the move was courageous because it was rooted in principles.  Personally, I believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and that there are moments where your principles can be exposed as inadequate for the circumstances.  That's what happened here in my opinion.  You can call this decision whatever you want, but cowardly isn't an adjective that can be used.  It was sloppy.  It was unnecessary.  It may or may not have been stupid.  It was not selfish (it cost Caldwell a Coach of the Year award).  It was not cowardly.

2.  The net effect on this season will be negligible.  Nothing that happened last week nor this week matters.  I've now read scores of articles arguing that there is and that there isn't 'momentum' in the NFL.  Whenever you see that much noise on both sides of an issue, it means no one knows.  One thing is certain:  even if there used to be momentum, each of the last three seasons have produced a Super Bowl team that looked dead in the water going into January.  This season will too.  Maybe it will be the Vikings.  Maybe it will be the Saints.  Maybe it will be the Colts.

3.  If I hear one more writer bring up how resting didn't work in 2007 I'm going to scream.  You listening, Kravitz?  Everyone knows that rest had NOTHING to do with the Colts' 2007 playoff loss to the Chargers.  No one can honestly look you in the face and say otherwise.  Just shut up.  People need 2007 because without it, the evidence tilts in favor of rest.  1999 and 2004 outweigh 2005, but if you wedge 2007 in there, it looks like an argument.  I'm still waiting for ANYONE to explain how rest hurt the Colts in 2007.  Don't let them throw Marvin Harrison in there either, if he could have played before the playoffs he would have.  He shouldn't have played AT ALL in the playoffs.  That's a different issue.  Even mentioning 2007 in this discussion is intellectually dishonest.  Kravtiz has said before that he knows there is little real connection between rest and the 2007 loss, but he keeps waiving it about wildly anyway.

4.  This was not a "once in a lifetime opportunity". This is a third or fourth time in a lifetime opportunity already.  Seriously, no one even batted an eye when the Colts went to 10-0.  You don't think they could go for this whenever they want?  13-0 in 2005.  10-0 in 2006.  7-0 (with narrow losses late) in 2007.  This team will always be in position to rip off 10 or 12 wins in a row.  If I told you right now that in the next three years the Colts would have a season where they went at least 11-0, would you even blink?  Indy will be in this same spot again soon.

5.  The 2007 Pats were not noble.  They were perhaps the least honorable, least sportsmanlike team in history.  Their "quest for perfection" was not born of any great love and honor of sport and the essence of competition.  They also wound up as the biggest chokers in the history of football.  So save me interviews with those guys.  Their opinion is utterly irrelevant.  If nothing else, I'm glad the Colts have tried to be the opposite of that team.  They were evil.  They were not sportsmen.  If you don't think the arrogance got them in the end, just rewatch Brady's smug press conference before the Super Bowl.  They thought they were invincible and they took the Giants lightly.  They paid for it and will live in history as choking dogs.  So shut it, Teddy Bruschi.  I don't give a flying fart what you think about this.

6.  The Colts have to drop this "other records were more important" crap. Just say, "We didn't care!"  I can buy that. I can buy that you think it is all utter nonsense.  Just don't tell me that one obscure record is more important that an undefeated season.  That makes no sense.  Not 10 people in a 1,000 would agree.  Just say, "We only care about one thing...the Super Bowl".  There is a difference by the way between letting players get individual records and a team record.  The players use those personal records to make more money.  The players will revolt over the long haul if you suppress their stats.  Guys like Manning, Wayne, Harrison, Clark...they are all great guys.  But other guys see that stuff too.  By letting players hit personal milestones, you smooth things out in the locker room in the long run.  Now, the Colts only do this when it only takes a few extra plays to get the guy a mark.  In my opinion, it would have taken only a few extra plays to get the win on Sunday too. One or at the most two more drives would have done it. That leads me to the final point:

7.  I'll never be ok with what happened. I'll never ever agree. I'll never say it was necessary.  No matter what else happens from here on out.  Super Bowl or no.  There was no reason to take Manning out up 15-10 with the ball on the 10.  Taking him out? Sure.  Resting players?  Sure.  But playing a weird "in between" strategy of not announcing the move before the game "for competitive advantage", but then coaching the game like the outcome didn't matter (punting on fourth and 3 with just two offensive possessions left) just makes no sense.  That kind of half way coaching is indefensible.  Righ move, wrong move...whatever.  It didn't go down correctly.

They botched this.  I don't remember the Colts ever botching anything under this regime, but they botched this.

It's not the end of the world.

It won't matter in the long run.

But they botched it.