Cleveland is really pissing me off

by BigBlueShoe on Apr 3, 2008 10:50 AM EDT in Analysis

The Browns and their fans still can't seem to let go of the end of the 2007 season. Apparently, it is Tony Dungy's fault that the Browns screwed up, again, and didn't make the playoffs. I will be the first to admit that, when it comes to dealing with things like these, Tony Dungy is a better man than me. And after reading this article, forwarded to me by TheSportsGuru, my opinion on Dungy is reinforced:

Colts coach Tony Dungy is aware that he's not the most popular person in Cleveland. He approached me outside a meeting room in the NFL headquarters hotel and said, "What did people in Cleveland want me to do, keep Peyton (Manning) in with a 30-0 lead?"
He was referring to the Colts' 16-10 loss to Tennessee in the last game of the regular season. The Tennessee win knocked the Browns out of the playoffs.

I told Dungy that Browns fans, hurt by their team's loss to Cincinnati the week before, wanted Dungy to play Manning long enough to get a lead and then play defense to win.

"That's what I wanted," Dungy said. "But we went downfield on our first drive and lost the ball."
Manning actually played in two series and was removed in the second quarter after getting a field goal on the board.

Dungy is a good man and doesn't deserve the abuse he's taken in emails and voicemails I've received. He knows he'll be booed when the Colts visit Cleveland this season.

"I just hope it's not in the second week of the season," Dungy said.

Why?

"Because it will be fresh in their minds that early," he replied.

Tony D is a good man to reach out to Tony Grossi of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and articulate his concerns. This is why he has such a great reputation around the league. If this were me, I'd tell the loser Cleveland fans still whining about 2007 that it is not the responsibility of the Colts to ensure the Browns make the playoffs. Had Cleveland beat Cincinnati in Week 16, the Browns would have made the playoffs. They didn't. Yet, somehow, it's not Romeo Crennel's crappy coaching or Derek Anderson's putrid QB play down the stretch that's the culprit. It's Tony Dungy's decision to rest starters in a meaningless game. Here's some of the wonderful comments to the article by Browns fans:

But it's still a load of garbage the way the Colts finished the season. Karma came back and bit them anyway. Look at the Giants......they were already locked into their playoff spot, but w/ an undefeated Patriots team coming to town, they went all out. Why? For PRIDE. I think Karma gave them the super bowl.

Football is the only sport where every game matters. It takes away from the game when teams pull that bull.

Ah yes, the pride and joy of the Mistake By the Lake, displaying all their magnificent wisdom on the subject of football. I particularly love how "karma" did in the Colts, undoubtedly a result of not playing starters so Cleveland would be assured a playoff spot.

It is truly amazing a stupid people can be.

Now, obviously, other fans in the talk-back comments disagreed with this yutz and seemed to have common sense. There's nothing wrong with Indy resting starters before a playoff game, especially if the team is not healthy. The argument for keeping starters in to build "momentum" is silly because if no one is healthy, momentum is kind of a problem. Even using the NY Giants as an example is stupid. The Giants didn't win it all because they played the Patriots tough in Week 17. They won it all because they were the best team of 2007. Period. It is literally that simple. It wasn't momentum, karma, Jessica Simpson, or little green men dressed in Tiki Barber jerseys that helped them win the Lombardy. The NY Giants were the best in the NFL, and they proved it. That is why they won. Their QB is one clutch muthaf*&ker. Their pass rush is sick! Their running game is solid. And their defensive coach is one of the best in the league. It also didn't hurt them to play a banged up Tampa Bay team in the Wild Card and a Wade Phillips-coached team in Round 2. Those, in my humble opinion, had a bit more to do with them winning and building "momentum" than the meaningless Week 17 Pats game.

Regarding the Colts, injuries were the reason Indy lost to San Diego, not a lack of momentum. I'm really getting tired of explaining this to people who simply do not understand basic, simple reality. Remember, the Colts came out smoking hot at the beginning of the playoff game and were dominating San Diego. Then, after halftime, they simply ran out of players, and out of steam. Robert Mathis, Raheem Brock, and Marvin Harrison were still hurt, and did little to help the effort as they limped all over the field. Reggie Wayne, Joseph Addai, and Dallas Clark went down in the game as well.

So please Cleveland, spare me the whine and cheese. If you want to make the playoffs, WIN! It is that simple. If any Cleveland fan is still complaining about that Week 17 game, that fan is a Grade A loser and his or her opinions mean about as much to me (and anyone else) as a Bill Simmons article on the greatness of Boston sports. Let. It. Go. Cleveland.

Because if you don't, karma will indeed come back to bit you big time when the Colts smoke your sorry ass during the 2008 season.

Update [2008-4-3 10:50:18 by BigBlueShoe]: I exclude Chris from this article because I truly believe he and the fans of Dawgs By Nature have moved on.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Injuries?

To say that injuries were the reason we lost to the Chargers is weak. I know that had we played full strength, most likely we'd have won, but football forces teams to deal with injuries. Remember that LT, Rivers and Gates, among others I'm sure, were injured. If you're going to write an article calling Cleveland fans whiners, don't whine about injuries in the same article.

by baptie on Apr 3, 2008 2:12 PM EDT 0 recs

Injuries

LT was replaced by Michael Turner, who has always been a starting caliber RB. Rivers, who sucks, was replaced by Billy Voleck: A very capable QB who had ZERO pass rush on him the whole time he was in there. He also knew the Colts quite well after playing against them for years while in Tennessee. Gates I'll give you. That's a tough loss.

Oh, and please, lose the straw man argument. No Colts fans are whining about injuries. Chargers beat the Colts fair and square. No one is disputing their win. However, when your team is minus Dwight Freeney and Marvin Harrison, and has most of its defensive line hurt (Brock, Mathis, etc.) you are not going to win many games against teams like SD.

There is a difference between providing a reason for the loss and finding an excuse. If you can't see that, I can't help you. This article wasn't an article "whining" about injuries. If you thought it was that, then I suggest Hooked on Phonics.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Apr 3, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm already hooked on too much...

I understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse. The fact is, in the initial article, no credit is given to the Chargers, no acknowledgment of facing a talented team, the only explanation given is Colts injuries. Which, whether intended or not, comes off as excuse making.

You accuse me of making a straw man argument, which in my understanding is me mistaking and misusing your point in the argument. So I will rephrase what I perceive to be your argument to prevent myself from making that mistake again. You say in the article that the reason the Colts lost was injuries. I could understand if you said a reason, or one of the reasons, but you said the reason. In the follow up you do begin to give credit to the Chargers but not without an emphasis on the Colts injuries.

To dismiss the Chargers injuries due to the quality of their back ups is unfair. The Chargers were capable of overcoming their injuries because they had depth at those positions while we were not able to overcome our injuries.

So while it may have been improper to label your article as whining, it surely is not improper to say that it is selective reasoning.

by baptie on Apr 3, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

Missing

What's missing here is the Chargers had three injuries during the game. The Colts had more than seven key injuries coming into the game, and the injuries mounted DURING the game. Freeney was out. Harrison, Mathis, and Brock were limping. Then, during the game, the Colts lost Clark, Wayne, and Addai.

To compare, make Merriman out of the game (to counter Freeney). Also, Castillo and Phillips get to play on one leg. And in addition to losing Gates, also take out LT and Vincent Jackson.

Do you honestly think the Chargers would have been able to overcome that?

San Diego overcame the injuries they did to win, and that's why they are a good team. However, San Diego's injuries were not on par with Indy's.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Apr 3, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's not about the injuries....

Playing devil's advocate, would Jim Sorgi and Kenton Keith have been able to lead a game winning drive?

I do agree with you that the Colt's injuries had a huge impact on the game, and I agree that the injuries were worse for the Colts than the Chargers.

What I do not agree with is dismissing the other reasons that the Colts lost that game. To say we lost because of injuries lets our team off the hook and discredits the opponent.

by baptie on Apr 3, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

Devil's in the details

I get where you're going with this and I can respect your nearly obsessive reluctance to make excuses. However, I have a couple problems with your arguments.

First, you ask if the Sorgi/Keith juggernaut could win a game-winning drive as Volek/Turner did. Comparing their backup QB and RB with ours in this manner is pointless. Different teams value different things in backups, and have different salary structures to consider. I think most of us would clearly prefer to have the Volek/Turner combo, but it is what it is. Having a young starting QB on his first contract and a starting-caliber backup RB also on a very affordable contract certainly helped the Chargers. And good for them. Depth is important, and that's to their credit. It worked out for them that time. But I wouldn't trade their QBs and RBs for ours.

And secondly, we can be as respectful and PC as we want, but come on. Sure, every team must deal with injuries, but the Colts were decimated. A healthy Colts team does not lose that game. The Colts lost primarily because they had virtually no healthy defensive line left.

The Chargers were an excellent team. But the Colts were better. Of course this is just my opinion, but it does not discredit the Chargers to say so. The best team does not always win. Explaining why an inferior team was able to succeed is one of the more interesting and provocative conversations you can have in sports. Does anybody really believe Villanova was better than Georgetown in '85? Or the Reds were better than the A's in '90? They were all better on that one day, but not in general.

So hats off to the Chargers. They were better on that one day. But to dismiss the particular circumstances of that particular game as unimportant or excuse-making is not valid.

by ctnyc on Apr 3, 2008 10:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

If Us Losing Is Karma

Then what did the Browns do in the 80s to get a sucky team that moves away, wins the Super Bowl, then gets a sucky team back? Did Art Modell steal cups of money from the homeless? Maybe it's because they hired Belichick.

coltshomer.blogspot.com

by Colts Homer on Apr 3, 2008 2:27 PM EDT 0 recs