January 03, 2010

Huge loss for the Patriots. Say what you will about the likability of recent vintage Patriots, but Welker is a hard guy not to like.

posted by holden at 11:45 PM on January 03, 2010

Welker was hurt on the Pats' first series. Manning started the final game against the Bills and played the entire first quarter.

posted by rcade at 07:08 AM on January 04, 2010

I think Manning started because they get a bye next week. Caldwell wants his starters rested not cold.

posted by bperk at 09:42 AM on January 04, 2010

While I feel bad for Welker who seems like a really good guy and the affect that this could have on his playing ability.......I still have to say, "Awww Darn" couldn't have happened to a nicer team.

And if you notice, the same team didn't learn that you shouldn't tempt the fates miracle boy Brady was back out there in the third quarter. Even if he was "getting the feel" for playing with Edleman, it still was tempting the fates.

posted by Demophon at 10:17 AM on January 04, 2010

shouldn't tempt the fates miracle boy Brady was back out there in the third quarter

"I know. You take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street or sticking your face in a fan."

It makes little difference for the '09 Pats, but I hope Welker can overcome the damage long-term.

posted by yerfatma at 11:29 AM on January 04, 2010

Welker was hurt on the Pats' first series. Manning started the final game against the Bills and played the entire first quarter.

The only reason Manning played was because he's on some fool's quest to keep his consecutive games streak alive. He's put together such an amazing career, he doesn't need this for his legacy.

posted by grum@work at 12:46 PM on January 04, 2010

Please don't talk about testicular torsion. I have suffered from that myself and it is a terrible thing. Put me in the hospital for a week.

posted by twgibsr at 03:53 PM on January 04, 2010

So you like Welker but not the Pats and like Peter Gammons but can't stand hearing about the Red Sox. Is it the testicular torsion that prevents you from nutting up and holding an opinion?

posted by yerfatma at 04:03 PM on January 04, 2010

I would think the Pats have just as much to play for as the other 11 teams in the playoffs.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:30 PM on January 04, 2010

Welker's injury was a perfect example why resting players when you can is not an inappropriate decision. His injury was not even from a hit, he made a cut and there goes the knee. Also team depth is a big part of winning a championship and is why every player on the team gets a ring whether they play or not. I suppose the decision is always justified by the end result like going for it on a fourth down. When you make it was the right decision and when you don't it was absolutely the wrong decision. No one will ever know.

The Colts made a decision that upset a lot of people but of course if a valuable starter like Welker got hurt then the other decision would have been wrong. You could say it is a no win decision, but then again the Colts are going into the playoffs healthy and the Patriots are not.

posted by Atheist at 05:54 PM on January 04, 2010

I don't see any legitimate parallels between the Colts and Welker. At all.

The criticism directed at the Colts last week focused on their decision to ignore the chance at a 19-0 season and essentially throw the game against the Jets in order to rest starters for the playoffs. Your take on this decision largely comes down to where you stand on the "the Super Bowl is all that matters" argument. I believe that when you are that close to a perfect season, you owe it to the players and the fans to go for it. The Colts backed themselves into a lose-lose situation: fail to win the SB and you're pilloried for squandering your momentum, win the SB and everyone immediately thinks, "Damn, they could easily have gone undefeated."

I heard Ron Jaworski state "Nobody remembers the 18-1 Patriots." Seriously?! Nobody remembers one of the most impressive offenses ever, or the team that lost one of the most dramatic Super Bowls of all time, in which a team on the cusp of a perfect season was knocked off thanks to a miracle catch and titanic pass rush? At least the Pats had the stones to attempt the perfect season -- and I agree with Michael Irvin, there is nothing better than taking on all comers and emerging with a flawless record. (Hopefully that's the last time Irvin and I see eye-to-eye on anything.) Do you really think the 1972 Dolphins, a team that is repeatedly mentioned every freaking NFL season, was that great of a team on the field? The undefeated season is the greatest accomplishment in sports.

The Welker situation is totally different. Nobody in the NFL is arguing that a team in a non-historic situation that's already clinched the playoffs shouldn't rest injured players, and should play its stars for 60 minutes in a meaningless game. But neither is anyone in the NFL arguing that once you clinch a playoff spot, you should immediately bench all your starters for the rest of the regular season (which the Patriots would have to do in order to avoid this injury). Hell, you'd better keep them out of practice too, to follow that logic. The second the playoffs are clinched, non-contact drills for everyone until the coin toss of the first playoff game! Encase your Pro Bowlers in plastic bubbles to ensure they don't slip on some ice or cut themselves shaving!

As LBB pointed out, even Bill Polian and his fellow die-hard believers in resting starters sent Manning out there the last two weeks of the season for SOME repetitions. Welker got hurt AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the game, and his injury was more due to the crappy Texans turf than to some sort of Belichickian blunder. The resting-the-starters debate does not even enter into it.

It sucks, SUCKS for Welker and any unbiased NFL fans that one of the league's best receivers might not be back to 100% until 2011. That's pretty much the extent of the story here.

posted by Venicemenace at 07:02 PM on January 04, 2010

Belichick's comments on the turf (though apparently accurate, at least according to some Patriots beat writers) seem ironic given the NFL had to force the Patriots to switch to artificial turf to replace the WWI Flanders-esque field the Patriots were playing on back in 2004 or so.

I heard Ron Jaworski state "Nobody remembers the 18-1 Patriots." Seriously?!

Since joining MNF, Jaworski has gone downhill quickly. Watching him break down film used to be the one reason I turned on ESPN. Now he's just another of their sports screamers whose sole talent is the ability to hold a strong opinion, regardless of its veracity. Jaws' Mad Libs scripts look like this:

"I've been watching a lot of tape of [team name] and I can definitely say [controversial thing] [is/ is not] completely accurate!"

posted by yerfatma at 06:18 AM on January 05, 2010

Venicemenace - I agree with you for the most part, and I for one was very dissapointed that the Colts did not try for perfection. Even though some may say a perfect season is one in which you finish as Superbowl champs. My main point is it is a damned if you do damned if you don't decision.

Evidently the Colts played to win the week before the Jets game when they had nothing to gain, then suddenly decided to rest starters. Maybe they saw the last week of the season coming against a nothing to loose team like Buffalo in terrible field conditions and decided there was too much risk. In the end it seems superbowls are what counts the most. Sometimes in preseason and late season you have situations where someone has nothing to loose and everything to gain playing against someone that has everything to loose and nothing to gain. It is a very difficult balance. In preseason you have guys playing their hearts out to make a team and get a job, hitting hard and trying to force turnovers or make huge plays at the same time you have stars trying to get up to form without getting injured.

Would it have been prudent to for the Colts to have their starters on a slippery frozen snow covered field, in the freezing cold of Buffalo against a team with nothing to loose trying desperately to knock off an undefeated team? That game would have been the Superbowl for Buffalo but just a high risk adventure for the Colts. Personally I would have loved to see the '72 Dolphins finally shut up but it was the Colts call and they have to live with it.

They could have made history. Even though the broke the consecutive regular season victory mark, the went 14-0 ( which by the way is all the Dolphins had to do) and now they are going into the playoffs healthy. Hard to argue with that performance. Frankly I don't see them winning the Superbowl for some reason which will make the whole situation irrelevant.

posted by Atheist at 12:13 PM on January 05, 2010

I'm beginning to wonder whether Jim Cambell's decision and the Patriots 18-1 season have helped devalue the 1972 Dolphins, simply by showing that a perfect regular season isn't as big a deal as winning a Super Bowl. If the Colts go on to win this year, the next coach on a perfect season run is more likely to follow Campbell's lead.

I didn't see a single story about the Dolphins popping champagne when the Colts gave up their season. Time is shutting up the Dolphins by making their era less important to current fans. The '70s NFL is as distant to today's young football fans as the '40s were to me growing up. I'm 42, and I know jack squat about the league prior to the first Super Bowl.

Would it have been prudent to for the Colts to have their starters on a slippery frozen snow covered field, in the freezing cold of Buffalo against a team with nothing to loose trying desperately to knock off an undefeated team?

Not prudent at all. I wonder if knowing they'd end the season in Buffalo was a consideration for Campbell.

posted by rcade at 12:44 PM on January 05, 2010

I would like to know if the 18-1 Pats had a chance to do it all over, would they still try and go for that elusive perfect season?

Yes. They lost in the Super Bowl on a fairly fluke-y play. I don't see how playing all-out in the last few games of the year affected that.

the '72 Dolphins aren't even considered to be the greatest team of all time even though the were undefeated.

Which teams from the post-merger era do you see mentioned as better than the '72 Dolphins?

posted by yerfatma at 02:07 PM on January 05, 2010

Which teams from the post-merger era do you see mentioned as better than the '72 Dolphins?

A popular choice is the 1985 Bears for their dominating defense (not saying I agree, it's just a team that is mentioned). I would also mention the 1984 49ers with Montana, Craig & Dwight Clark and an entire defense backfield sent to the pro bowl that year. Both teams were 15-1. (The Dolphins, never far from the action, lost to the 49ers in the 1984 Super Bowl and beat the Bears in 1985 for their one loss.)

I don't know that either team is necessarily better though, just in the conversation.

I still think the Dolphins may be the best ever. They had a dominating rushing attack and a dominating defense. They set the NFL rushing record at the time as well as having two RBs (Csonka and Morris) who each had 1000 yards for the first time in NFL history as well as two future hall of famers (Langer & Little) and two pro bowlers (Kuechenberg and Norm Evans) on the O line. They were 1st in the league in both offense and defense (both overall defense and points allowed) as well as point diffential (15.3 points per game).

posted by cjets at 04:08 PM on January 05, 2010

I think the Patriots situation during their almost perfect season was a little different for one reason. They already had won quite a few superbowls in the decade and a perfect season was something I think they tried to achieve as a Superbowl win by itself was almost becoming passe. Besides at the time of their 16-0 season they were dominating every opponent. The Colts on the other hand have had only one superbowl win to their credit in recent years and all year have had to come from behind, or played close games. This must play into the decision to concentrate on the championship more than risking loosing it.

I think the way the Pats won and went 16-0 lends to a good argument that had they won the Suberbowl that year (and they came very close) they would have had to be considered the greatest team ever. Unfortunately for them they came up a little short. On the other hand I doubt anybody could consider this years Colts in the same league based on their lack of dominance against rather average opponents. As good as their record was and as much as I am rooting for them or the Vikings, I just don't see either of them as being the same calibre of the Pats that year.

posted by Atheist at 04:27 PM on January 05, 2010