Exile on Waveland

OK, already anxious/nervous (actually this isn't a phenomenon new to just now). Much different than the Super Bowl three years ago, when I felt extremely comfortable the Colts would win (sorry Bears fans). The Saints are very good and the Colts may be playing with their second best player ineffective (I've never much doubted he'd try play). As to Dwight Freeney, this changes the entire complexion of the game. He's easily the second most important player on the team, the defense is built around him. I still have nightmares about the Charger playoff game two years ago when Freeney was out and Billy Volek had all day to stand in the pocket and shred the Colts defense (though Robert Mathis and Raheem Brock both were playing injured that game as well). However, I don't think lack of pressure will be the salient issue for the Colts sans healthy Freeney. I didn't expect tons of pressure from Freeney anyway -- there's basically no way Jermon Bushrod could block a healthy Freeney. The Saints know this, and would have been compelled to leave an extra blocker to help Bushrod on Freeney. Freeney would have been a great decoy taking two blockers, freeing up Mathis and, most importantly, limiting the pass receiving threats for Brees. The Colts secondary is banged up (two guys on IR, and Jerraud Powers coming off some mysterious surgery). The less blockers, the more receivers and the more difficult it will be for the Colts to cover them. That's what I'm most worried about -- not the lack of pressure from Freeney, but the extra receiver to defend and probably the extra blocker on Mathis. Luckily, Brock isn't a chump and shouldn't get dominated -- he's just not Freeney. I thought the Colts defense could slow the Saints offense down a decent amount; now I think the Saints will move the ball relatively easily, hopefully the Colts can force field goals. I'll be thrilled with any forced punt. On offense, I think the Colts will actually be able to run the ball well. If so, count on a lot of points. When the Colts can run, they are almost impossible to stop. They're coming off probably their best ground performance of the year, too. I still don't fully trust the coverage units, though the Colts kick much better (Pat McAfee has been revelatory as a punter and kickoff man). Bush worries me. Hopefully the Colts can avoid game-changing turnovers and special teams plays unlike the Vikings/Cardinals. In the end, though Freeney's absence changes the complexion and my (score) prediction, I think the Colts will find a way at the end (that's been their modus operandi all year). I'll say Colts 34, Saints 30.

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that? Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason. Picking the winners of 79 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots will be much harder for the average fan than picking only 64 games based on the names of the schools and their mascots. Warning...math of the top of my head may be wrong or completely made up. Yes, as it grows I think it will become more daunting. It's not just the extra 15 games (didn't double check . . . hope you're right . . .); it's also the decreasing of font size and such since the bracket will need to fit on one page (if it's not on one page, I really think you'll see slacking off). It's not about being "hard." It's about people being lazy and stupid. Edit: Assuming you're correct about the 15/16 extra games, that's almost a quarter more games that would need to be picked. I'd say that's a rather substantial percentage.

Seconded. I really, really hate this. College basketball's postseason is basically perfect and you're going to change it? Meanwhile, college football's postseason is mostly a farce and we can't change that? Also, while this isn't my own independent thought, I think this could decrease viewership and interest. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime, and it becomes way more involved and complicated with 96 teams. The NCAA may not want to admit that, but a lot of people that aren't big basketball/sports fans enjoy the tournament for that very reason.

And Seattle has a player that likely will be a first-round NBA draft pick. i didn't even know there was a seattle university. Elgin Baylor led them to a runner-up finish in 1958.

Indianapolis may be extremely bland, but that shrimp cocktail is the polar opposite of bland. Outstanding stuff.

And Seattle has a player that likely will be a first-round NBA draft pick.

I'd settle for Harrison but I doubt he shows up as he as shown his true selfish colors and seems no longer involved in the franchise whatsoever. I thought losing Harrison was going to irrevocably damage the Colts to the point they weren't going to be good this year? Because it was foreseeable that two no name WR's would turn out to be pretty damn good? Without them it would have been a big loss as the passing game would be much easier to defend. It also wasn't foreseeable that a third-year, first-round draft pick at wide receiver would be lost for the season on the first play of the game with no contact. So the reliance on the two players you mention wasn't as necessary when you made your original statement; therefore your framing of this issue is sophistic. Next, you didn't argue losing Harrison would simply negatively impact the passing game, you argued that losing Harrison would render the team subpar overall. A great disparity exists between the two.

Post of the century.

I'd settle for Harrison but I doubt he shows up as he as shown his true selfish colors and seems no longer involved in the franchise whatsoever. I thought losing Harrison was going to irrevocably damage the Colts to the point they weren't going to be good this year?

Assuming the money isn't outlandish, I'm quite pleased with this. Nady is solid.

He's a stud. Watch what he does to a blitzing Rey Maualuga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWdvfRhTruw

That's a good question. Normally we try and tie in the cities involved for the menu. Obviously in this case you'd have to go all New Orleans, because Indy offers nothing. I need to get on that menu. Get some carry out from Applebee's or Chili's or something. Chain city USA!!!!

Oh, CCP (I'm not intending to call you out, I just don't want to dig through this thread to quote you): I disagree with you, and evidently Nate Silver, that kicking the field goal on fourth-and-goal was the incorrect decision. I'm generally very aggressive in similar situations -- especially with the Colts -- but not against the Jets. Even with the un-Colt-like defensive performance in the second quarter, the Jets had a ceiling on the amount of points they are capable of scoring. The game was never going to be a shoot-out. (I also am unsure how confident I was in scoring, as running may have been hard and passing from the one always is.) In the Super Bowl against the Saints, the Colts sure as heck better go for it in a similar situation -- lots of points are likely to be needed. However, against a team like the Jets, you patiently take your points and eventually you'll have more points then their ceiling allows.

They didn't wipe the floor. Chicago was in it until the end. The yardage isn't that meaningful, since that was essentially what the Bears were designed to do, give up yards but not the big play. First, I didn't say they did. I said they came pretty close. And the Colts defense was designed the exact same way as the Bears, so I don't think that distinguishing on those grounds is terribly relevant.

But I wouldn't say Indy whiped the floor with us, even though we were outplayed. It was a 1 score game until midway through the 4th quarter when Grossman threw a pick 6.. The Colts came pretty close to wiping the floor with the Bears. You are correct that it was a close game on the scoreboard until the pick-6. However, while the Colts only won by 12, Vinatieri missed a field goal and an extra point. The Colts out-gained the Bears 430-265, and had 24 first downs to the Bears' 11.

I think the game will be close, but this isn't 2002. The Colts' defense isn't suspect at all. So far this year, prior to the mass resting, the Colts allowed 12-23 (wildcat)-10-17-9-6-14-17-34 (Pats, yuck)-15-27-17-16, and then in the playoffs 3-17. The Colts were fifth in the NFL in total defense and eighth in scoring defense (again, despite mass resting). By advanced stats, the Colts ranked sixth in defensive efficiency. This is a very good defense. I have concerns heading into the Saints game, however. I have been more bearish on the pass defense than most -- excepting when Freeney/Mathis run wild -- and the Colts uncharacteristically got beat deep Sunday. Jerraud Powers really needs to be healthy for the Super Bowl; it will be very difficult without him. The Saints have a ton of weapons and the Colts are already without Bob Sanders and Marlin Jackson, and Kelvin Hayden hasn't been as good since returning from injury. The Colts worked out Deltha O'Neal last week and he may be an option for added depth there (though this would be un-Colt-like). It should be a good game, and the Saints will score (probably a darn good amount). They're good. That doesn't mean the Colts have a suspect defense -- they don't.

OK, prediction time. First, with the caveat that previous games aren't necessarily predictive or indicative, I wanted to quickly review the previous Colts-Jets game (it's been about 50-50 but I've heard/read a lot of "it was only 15-10'). Even before the mass exodus, the Colts were playing with one hand tied behind their back due to resting players and a limited game plan. Further, the Colts had an extra point blocked and the subsequently failed on a two-point conversion, and the Jets scored seven of their 10 points on a 106-yard kickoff return (I believe the only such return the Colts have allowed and the Jets have scored). It was a pretty fluky 15-10. Not to say the Jets have no chance. I don't particularly think this is a very good matchup for the Jets, though. First, it's a Rex Ryan defense (so analogous to the Ravens) which Peyton Manning and the Colts have been very successful against. Second, the Jets rely on big plays offensively. Eleven of the Jets 38 TD's have been from plays 29-yard or greater, including three of five in the playoffs. The Jets struggle to sustain long drive -- which will surely be the goal today. The Colts defense, however, is predicated on not giving up the big play. The Colts allowed 29 TD's and -- excepting two scored by the Bills against backups -- only two were longer than 17 yards (a 64-yard Frank Gore run where two defenders ran into each other, and an irrelevant Brady-to-Moss bomb -- irrelevant because the Jets certainly cannot match that tandem). The Colts allowed the fewest passing plays of 20 or more yards. Excepting the Bills game, the Colts only allowed five runs of 20 or more yards (which would be best in the NFL). If the Colts take away the big plays -- as is their modus operandi -- the Jets will have to sustain long drives. Now, sustaining long drives would be in the best interests of the Jets, but I just don't see that as a very likely scenario. If the Colts play well and don't shoot themselves in the foot, they should be fine. Colts 23, Jets 9. Saints 27, Vikings 24.

Wait, New York City > Indianapolis? No freakin' crap.

No. No kidding. WTF Raw? Jones can't shoot 3's (22%) and is shooting 44% from 2 and 66% from the FT line. As a sophomore, Battle shot 34% from 3, 48% from 2 and 70% from the FT line. Plus his assist rate was 5 points higher, his turnover rate was 3 points lower and he grabbed 4% more of his team's boards. Maybe if Verdell just starts jacking up shots every possession he can score points, but he's not even close to what Battle was last year. That was just the statistical stuff. When I watch him I don't see that many similarities nor do I have the "wow, they're extremely limited offensively but he makes everything happen" reaction. IU is limited but he's one of their more inefficient guys. Starts?

Even with a top passing game, you have to have at least a decent defense. Also, with heavy passing game, if your QB gets hurt, your team sucks. Look at the Eagles for an extended time without McNabb or the Colts without Peyton. They're awful. If the Titans of 99-03 lost one defensive player, they generally could make it work with him hurt. With a running/defense mentality, you have to have more good players but also have more flexibility if one gets hurt. If you rely on the QB to win games for you alone, then you have to really hope he doesn't get hurt. And if he does, the team becomes terrible. Without a high quality defense, you're not going to win consistently in the NFL unless you have Peyton Manning and he never gets hurt. That just doesn't happen much. AH! AH! Furiously knocking on wood . . . furiously . . . knuckles bleeding . . . knocking . . . knocking . . .

Sad. I'm originally from Evansville and used to attend USI games occasionally (they were real good back then with Bruce Pearl -- yeah, yeah, Illinois fans, I know). Not that me being from there makes this any more sad, but hits a bit closer to home, I suppose.

I think the next two games are winnable (at Penn State, home to Iowa). However, I just don't see them winning on the road, and Penn State will be starving for a conference win. I do think they'll beat Iowa at home -- and probably relatively comfortably (8-12 points?). After that comes a stretch where one win would have to be considered an emphatic success: at Illinois-Purdue-at Northwestern-Ohio State-at Wisconsin-Michigan State-at Minnesota-Wisconsin. Where do wins come from? Maybe Wisconsin without Jon Leuer? I think that's a stretch and that's probably the best chance. The final three games of at Iowa-at Purdue-Northwestern allows two solid chances for wins (though I'm dubious about this team's chances against Northwestern). I think five conference wins would be significant progress -- and should be the goal. Even getting to five wins is going to take either winning on the road (at Penn State or at Iowa) and/or a rather significant upset at home (Ohio State, Wisconsin).

Picks; I'll start with a little Colts analysis (I'll keep it short). The Colts have matched up very well with the Ravens in the Manning era, winning seven straight. The Colts have mostly kept the Ravens out of the end zone, and slowed their running game too. The Colts have also always been able to throw deep/over the top of the Ravens' defense -- the exception being the playoff field goal fest -- which I consider perhaps the biggest reason the Colts have fared well. Previous results: 2009: Indianapolis 17, at Baltimore 15. 2008: at Indiananpolis 31, Baltimore 3. 2007: Indianapolis 44, at Baltimore 20. 2006/7 (playoffs): Indianapolis 15, at Baltimore 6. 2005: Indianapolis 24, at Baltimore 7. 2004: at Indianapolis 20, Baltimore 10. 2002: at Indianapolis 22, Baltimore 20. All that said, I'm of the mind that none of that really matters. Analyzing the game and matchups is irrelevant. This game will come down the Colts and how they play. They've had a tendency to start slowly (see e.g., 2005 playoffs 14-0 hole against the Steelers) and/or make inexplicable uncharacteristic turnovers/mistakes (e.g., 2007 playoffs four turnovers inside the 22 against the Chargers) in the first game of the playoffs. The first game has been the issue for the Colts. They are 0-3 with a bye and 3-6 in first games overall. They are 4-2 in the playoffs after the first game (obviously three wins came in the Super Bowl year). If the Colts play well -- watch the first quarter especially -- they will win (and I'd say a good chance it's by 10 or more points). If they start sluggish/rusty/nervous/whatever and/or they make boneheaded mistakes, they could, and probably will, lose. So how much do I trust the Colts today? Some. I think it could be an uglier start than I'd like but I don't believe the Ravens can/will be able to put them in a big hole (I do understand last week's Ravens-Patriots game). So I'll say 23-16 Colts. I think the Saints will most likely win, and I feel comfortable picking the Chargers. The Cowboys-Vikings is the most difficult to pick for me, as I'm sure most. My gut says the Cowboys and I've been bearish on the Vikings this year. Still, I'll say the Vikings can hang on at home.

I bet Bill Lynch would be interested if UT asked him. . . . Please?

I've posted many positive things about Indy's ability to host sporting events (it has great infrastructure for conventions and sporting events; including arguably the best combination of basketball-football venues in the nation). It would do a functionally fine job of hosting the World Cup, in my opinion. However, it should absolutely not host the World Cup. Indianapolis is simply not the kind of city you want to spotlight for foreign fans/visitors. You want the foreign fans to be impressed by the cities/locations as well as the stadia -- and Indy would be incredibly low on any such list. Functionally, it could succeed, but it lacks any je ne sais quoi whatsoever to host a major international event like the World Cup. I seriously doubt it would happen anyway, though. Chicago surely would make the final cut. It's exactly the sort of city that should host -- easily the flagship city of the middle part of the country. I would think both it and San Francisco, as USSoccer said, would be potential/likely venue candidates.