Agreed on both counts. I just find it hard to see Jets/Saints being anything other than a New Orleans rout. I think the Jets could beat Minny, though, if they ate their Wheaties.
It’s not cowardly, Bill Polian just doesn’t care about 19-0. I agree with you that he probably *should *care but, given that he doesn’t, resting those last two weeks is entirely reasonable.
I think there are two possible ways in which it could be considered cowardly. There could be a concern that if you really did try and failed, you’d break your team’s morale in a way that laying down and giving up didn’t. I’m not sure that’s actually true, but I could see it as a justification. The other issue is that he didn’t want to have his team feel the extra pressure that would mount if they did go into the postseason perfect - and failing in order to dodge the pressure of possibly making an amazing achievement also strikes me as cowardly.
I suppose those are plausible ways that the decision could be the result of cowardice, but it seems (at best) unduly speculative to think that either is probably at the root of it. Doesn’t it seem a whole lot more likely that the Colts just did exactly what they always do for the same reason they always have?
Well, you’re probably right. Even if that were the reason, I would still despise them for it, so I don’t particularly need the “cowardly” accusation - but I don’t mind throwing it around either.
I’m not quite sure what word to apply to them that would most apply describe what they did.
“Unbecoming”? “Discreditable”? “Selfish” and/or “myopic” probably get to the heart of it: even if you believe that resting their starters gave them a slightly better chance to win the Super Bowl (and I tend to think it has), going for 19-0 is good for the league, the fans, and (ultimately) the franchise.
(checks thesaurus) . . . “Malodorous”?
ETA: OF course, I’m not nearly as upset about it as many others, so, personally, I would just stick with “regrettable.”
I think once Manning and company kick the holy crap out of the Jets today, the word will be “meaningless”.
I disagree - even if they win the superbowl, big deal. Happens every year. Obviously a successful season for the team, but they could’ve made their case as the greatest team ever had they just tried hard in a few more games.
I mean - how often have you heard about the '72 Dolphins in your life? Compare this to… how many times have you heard about whoever won the superbowl in '68 or '77 or '82? A superbowl win is obviously great… for a bit, and then it fades into memory. They had the chance to achieve true greatness and threw it away.
The Vikings “questionables” make this game hard to pick. Ray Edwards, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Percy Harvin. If none of those guys play, or play but can’t play well, it’s hard to see the Vikings winning. I have high hopes and no expectations.
Without even bothering to look it up, that would be, in order, the Packers (over the Raiders), the Raiders (over the Vikings) and the Niners (over the Bengals, who couldn’t score from the 3 in four tries :(). I remember all three games, thank-you very much!
But I think your point is valid; as the numbers have crept up, winning a SB isn’t worth as much as it was back when there were only 10 or 15 of them played.
(and who remembers that the Raiders of that '77 SB were 15-1?? :eek:)
I think it’s lame that the Colts threw that game, but I don’t feel, like, personally betrayed like some people do. I didn’t care when the Patriots blew it either. I’m not inspired or obsessed with some team being “perfect,” and to me “perfect” would mean scoring on every possession and never letting the other team score. Winning every game is “excellent,” but not “perfect.”
No one says they are “perfect.” What they do say is that they had a “perfect record.” 
But I’m with you: I’m not outraged, just think it was a damned stupid decision. :smack:
I don’t doubt that people sometimes say “perfect record,” but more often they speak of a “perfect season” or “perfection.” And while they mean a “perfect record,” (and I do understand that), I think the word implies a transcendence of accomplishment that would be way more than what the Colts would have had. Eventually a team will have another perfect season, but it won’t even necessarily be more than a statistical standout. I don’t think anyone thinks that the 72 Dolphins were one of the great teams in NFL history, just a good team that had a flukey season.
When a baseball team does it, I’ll be impressed.
I sure hope the Jets win. Clothing 10 million Haittians in “Jets 2010 Superbowl Champs” windbreakers and sweatshirts next week would just be cruel.
Sounds like all four are going to play.
I have a good feeling about this one, but I’ve had good feelings about other games that turned out to be total disasters.
The closer it gets, the better I feel. The Vikings offense will basically be at full strength. The Pat Williams ankle thing is apparently very minor. I’m not sure what’s going on with K-Will, but he’ll play. Edwards, I’m not sure at all will be at full strength, but Jared Allen is fine, at least. I should be worried about the D-Line, but for some reason, I’m just not. I think this is the year that it happens. I don’t think Favre will melt down, and I think AP could have a big game against a vulnerable Saints run defense. It’s been a while since he had one. This would be a good time for him to break off a couple of those 60 or 70 yard homeruns.
Yeah, but you also thought Coakley would win. Just sayin’.
I didn’t really think that deep down.
That is a very admirable attitude. 
I’m only laughing on the inside, lest I be judged heartless.