Let's Finish What We Started

We've all done it before at one time or another. Working on a document and when we did not have a the exact figure we put in XXX or $$$ to note we needed to add that fact or figure in. Either because we were in a hurry or sheer stupidity we forgot to go back and put that in. For most of us, that error may have been noticed by one or two or maybe a dozen people tops, right? Well, leave it to Phil Richards of the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly to make that type of error where thousands of people will see your stupidity!

In the Sports section of Monday's paper an article on the Patriots-Colts game had a table showing Peyton Manning's stats versus the Patriots since 2003. Granted it is a nice table. Unfortunately, Phil the fucktard forgot to go back in and add in Peyton's stats for last night's game before it went to press. There at the top of the able next to yesterday's date are a row of X's all the way across. In the column right next to it we have all of the stats from the game, so Phil cannot say that the game ended too late and missed his deadline. Did we fall asleep before the end of the game? Were we updating our My Space page and forgot? Did we get sidetracked on HotChicksWithDouchebags.com and lost track of time?

And once again we have a prime example of editors asleep at the wheel. Is there anyone proofing anything anymore? Come on! A cursory glance at the page should have been able to catch this error. It was the first thing I noticed on the page!

Honestly, I do not know if Phil did the table or not, but someone at the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly really screwed the pooch on this one. And they wonder why their readership continues to decline.

Homer to the Extreme - D'oh!

I've been a fan of Bob Lamey, the play-by-play broadcaster for the Indianapolis Colts radio network, for quite a while. I have preferred to turn the volume down on the CBS broadcasts and turn on Bob because I knew I would hear better game calling than the 'tards on CBS. However, Bob has gotten to be a bit too much of a homer.

Granted, I want the local play-by-play broadcaster for a team to be a bit of homer. It is not like a national broadcast where you really need to be a neutral party. I want my local person to have an interest and root for my team. Yet, over the past few years, Bob's homer-ism is reaching an extreme. I mean Ron Santo homer-ism extreme. It is hard not to enjoy Bob's enthusiasm on a Colts touchdown or an excellent play. And I get a chuckle everytime Slut does his Bob Lamey "It's Good!" imitation.

Listening to the Colts-Packers game last weekend, as the game went worse and worse for the Colts, you could just hear Bob get more and more disenfranchised. Every penalty against the Colts is made out to either be a crap call or a "Jesus F-ing Christ" not another penalty call. When the Colts finally scored late in the game we got a half-assed, "Touchdown, Dominic Rhodes." I do not expect a broadcast to be a Mr. Positive in a blow-out game, but give me an honest broadcast.

Howard Kellman has been broadcasting for Indianapolis Indians for 33 years and does play-by-play broadcasting the right way, in my opinion. I can turn into the game at any time and never know if the game is tied, or a blow-out one way or the other. He just seems to be able to deliver a broadcast that will keep the listener involved in the game, regardless of the score. Although Howard just seems to have that voice and personality that I would probably enjoy hearing read Betty Crocker recipes.

Is it time for Bob Lamey to be replaced. Ehh, not quite yet. It is hard to imagine someone other than Bob broadcasting a Colts game. Yet, I would like to have the Colts or someone reign Bob in a bit.

Side note - I admit it has been fun to write for LomHenn.com. I never imagined myself writing for a blog or that it would be as fun as it has. It is funny though that you can spend five minutes writing a post and then spend ten times that amount trying to come up with an interesting or witty title for the post. A post just does not seem complete until you can come up with a good title.

I hope everyone enjoys our posts as much as we enjoy writing them.

This Explains Everything

Sometimes, there are just mysteries of life that cannot be explained. Examples: who built Stonehenge, how in the hell did the Electric Slide become popular at wedding receptions, and how did Home Alone become a hit movie?

Another mystery is how a certain sportswriter-turned Monday Night Football broadcaster can suck so badly (actually, he sucks really well). Of course I mean Tony Kornheiser of ESPN's PTI and MNF fame. Kornheiser has reached an almost Zen-like level of suckage on the MNF broadcasts. His performance has inspired millions of young people to either enter broadcasting or wear earmuffs indoors.

Until now, the cause of his suck-proficiency has been unknown. But now we may know why:

Tony, glad you asked; I can't really answer

Later this week, I will get my usual pre-"Monday Night Football" Indianapolis Colts telecast phone call from Tony Kornheiser. It will probably come right in the middle of "Dancing With the Stars'' and ruin any chance I might have of seeing Warren Sapp light up the stage with a killer bossa nova.

Oh, God. It's the Suckage-Convergence-Zone (SCuZ)! Tony Kornheiser will call Bob Kravitz to ask Kravitz's opinion on the Colts. Honestly, this is not an uncommon practice, but it shows just how ill-informed Kornheiser is. He watches sports for a living; he should be able to see enough Colts games to do his own analysis.

Can you imagine Kornheiser and Kravitz together? I can imagine them together--in a bus, going over a cliff.

Anyway, let me save Tony the time and trouble, because here are the questions and here are my answers. Well, unless I'm two Johnnie Walkers into the night; then all bets are off:

What's wrong with your team out there?

You have an hour? First, the injuries. Peyton Manning had two knee procedures during training camp -- although it might have been seven for all we really know -- so No. 18 got off to an uncharacteristically rough start.

How ridiculous. Peyton did not have 7 knee surgeries. He did, however, have both legs amputated. What we see out there playing is really a hologram.

In all seriousness, I find it interesting how upset some members of the Indianapolis media are about not knowing about the second knee surgery. There was no reason for the Colts or Manning to divulge the 2nd surgery, since it happened well before the first game of the season. Since Manning practiced the entire week leading up to the Bears game, the 2nd surgery wasn't relevant.

Kravitz is right about the injuries, which Zinglebert noted the effects of in the comments section of the previous post.

Is it possible this team has tuned out coach Tony Dungy?

I'm glad you asked that question, and I hope you noticed how I used this particular literary device in such a way that I could blame the rhetorical "you" for bringing up such a touchy subject.

Ugh. That would have been clever if Bobby didn't draw attention to it--it may have actually worked. And I get the idea that he's doing this tongue-in-cheek, since he doesn't care if people give him crap about bringing up a touchy subject. But it's Kravitz's idea, so he should just present it and move on.

I think it's possible. I really do. I think today's athletes, like most of today's young people, have the attention span of a fruit fly. Pacers president Larry Bird says NBA players stop hearing a particular coach after about three years. Raiders owner Al Davis once said, in a moment of clarity, that NFL coaches lost their players after 10 years -- and he said that years ago.

Actually, pretty good use of examples, but saying "it's possible" is saying nothing. It's like saying, "it's possible the Colts will win 35-10 Monday night." Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. It's possible all of the Colts players just finished reading Dianetics and have become Scientologists.

What happened to Dungy in Tampa? All of his players professed love and respect for him, but when they needed to win a playoff game to possibly save his job, they got rolled by Philadelphia.

It's true: the Buccaneers (under their Buccan-hat) lost to the Eagles 31-9 in the 2001 NFC Wild Card round. However, the Eagles had won the NFC East and were the #3 seed. Tampa was the final wild card team, making the playoffs with a 9-7 record. Perhaps it wasn't that the Tampa players weren't trying--perhaps they lost because they weren't as good as Philly.

Kravitz seems to think that players can will themselves to victory whenever they want to--that all it takes is desire and love of its coach for a team to win. If that were true, every team would be 16-0 (okay, maybe some teams don't like their coaches very much). It's a little more complicated than that. Yes, sometimes you can see when a team has quit or tuned out its coach. But it's a little simplistic to say that a team doesn't care about its coach because it loses a game that outsiders perceive is necessary to save the coach's job.

There's a reason teams go from players' coaches to authoritarians to players' coaches to authoritarians. After Dungy left Tampa, the Bucs won the Super Bowl under crazy person Jon Gruden. It makes me wonder if associate head coach Jim Caldwell, who is something of a Dungy clone, is really the right guy to take the reins when Dungy leaves, but that's another column for another time.

True. Then why bring it up? None of this is relevant to your point.

Would I save you grief if I asked whether Dungy's long-distance family situation is making some kind of impact?

Again, Tony, brilliant use of a literary device.

Again, great way to ruin its effect by calling attention to it.

Answer: I dunno. But the issue is out there, and before the season, I wrote that if the Colts struggled, we would all wonder whether Dungy's split existence might leave him conflicted. Again, everybody knows Dungy is here and his family is in Tampa. How often does he go home? I'm not sure, and if I asked, I would be told the Colts don't address such questions. But it's fair to wonder, if the players see a coach with one foot in Florida, does it affect their level of commitment and focus?

"...the issue is out there." It is? It's out there because you put it out there! Also, we are not "all wondering." Personally, I don't think it's an issue. Can the team not practice without him? Considering that most, if not all, of the daily work with players is done by the coordinators and position coaches, he's not completely necessary on a daily basis.

Also, Kravitz's earlier point about Caldwell actually hurts his argument here. If Caldwell is a "Dungy clone," then the players shouldn't miss Dungy as much.

I don't buy the argument that the players would either be a) less committed, or b) bothered at all by Dungy's agreement and commitment to his family. I suppose it's possible, but it's also possible that Dungy's agreement could be perceived by the players as making him more committed: "He wants to spend time with his family, but the Colts organization and this team are so important to him that he wants to help us now." Maybe that's not how everyone would react, but it's certainly possible that some of the players feel that way.

Be honest: Is Marvin Harrison finished?

When he struggled the first few games, I said it was too early to tell. When he was great against Baltimore, I said it was too early to tell. I still think it's too early to tell when the entire offense is sputtering.

You can't really disagree here, though I maintain that Harrison looks fine. The offense as a whole has issues, but Marvin is doing his thing. However, one thing I will say is that I think opposing defenses are on to some of the "bread and butter" plays. They seem to be jumping routes (e.g. the Marvin slant) more often.

I will say this, though: I don't see Harrison as a Colt next year, not unless he returns to form the second half of the season. He's scheduled to count for more than $13 million against the salary cap next year, which is a lot of cash for a fading player on a team that's top-heavy on payroll.

Valid point. But will they release him, you think? That seems a bit far-fetched. Then again, in the hard salary cap era, anything is possible.

This is a must-win for them, right?

Yes, absolutely yes.

Technically, no, but I'd hate to see them try to come back from 4 down at this point.

They can't go four games down in the division with nine to go. They're fortunate that nobody besides Tennessee is pulling away in the AFC, so 10 wins might get them a wild card, but as far as the division, they lose Monday and they're done.

Ten wins "might get them a wild card"? As Zinglebert pointed out awhile ago, 10 wins in the AFC usually gets a wild card. If the season ended now, the Colts would be out of the playoffs, but its only due to a head-to-head tiebreaker.

I'll make a prediction now: if the Colts win 10 games, they are definitely in the playoffs.

So, you want to be a guest host one day on "Pardon the Interruption"?

If that ever happens, welcome to the 8th layer of Hell: Fucktards on Parade.

Using Stats To Confirm What We Already Know

Sorry for the lack of posts lately--it's been a very busy time here for everyone at LomHenn.com. Of course you already know about the birth of Hildegard Bembledack, which has kept Zinglebert busy. I've taken an extra part-time job at a kanuter valve plant in Oolitic, Indiana. Kringlebert has had an extra project thrown on him at work that involves replacing dirty-bomb components with used pinball machine parts. Oswald is doing only God-knows what. And as Lom Henn is a millionaire playboy author/celebrity gynecologist, he is jet-setting and isn't around to post very often.

But enough excuses...now on with the countdown!

Colts stats worst in Dungy era
Stats reveal why Colts have stumbled to 3-3 start this season

As you probably know, the Indianapolis Colts are 3-3. Of course, no one can just say that right now--what they say is that the Colts are 3-3, but could easily be 1-5. This due to the 4th quarter combacks against Minnesota and Houston.

They could also be 6-0, if they tackled better and had scored more points in the games they lost. But I digress.

Mike Chappel's article doesn't really have any big problems in it. Even though the headline indicates the article will talk about statistics, there aren't many included. The article focuses more on the fact that this is the worst start for the Colts since Tony Dungy arrived and that the upcoming Monday night game against Tennessee is a "must-win."

Here is the graphic that ran with this story in the newspaper. Basically, it shows that the Colts are 3-3, which is their worst record after 6 games in the Dungy era. As a reasonable person might expect, each of the statistical columns included on the graph show this year's Colts are not very good compared to Colts' teams of the last few seasons. However, this year's team is not the worst in every category.

So what does this story tell us that we didn't already know? The Colts are 3-3. Going backwards, the Colts were 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, 4-2, 5-1, and 4-2. Do we need a statistical analysis to show that this year's team is worse than the others? Basically, the Colts aren't scoring as much as in the past and they are allowing more points than they did in previous years. But their stats are pretty typical for a 3-3 team.

This article is merely another attempt to answer the question a lot of people have been asking thus far: what's wrong with the Colts? The simple answer is just that they haven't been playing very well. And the best stat that indicates this is the only stat that matters: 3-3.

Superstitious Tendencies

Yes, we all tend to have our superstitions. Whether they are simple gestures or a ritualistic game day rites, many of us knowingly do things that we feel will influence the outcome of that day's game.

Watching the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, I found myself standing in the doorway to the kitchen watching the game because while I was standing there, the Colts starting doing well and I was not about to jinx the game by moving back to my seat on the couch. Not be left out, the rest of our group watching the game were also having the same thought as everyone maintained their seating or standing arrangements as well.

Fast forward to yesterday. I hopped into the Bembledack Family Vanagon to take a load of furniture to storage. My daughter, Hortencia, had been listening to a children's book on CD. As I was turning off the CD to listen to the Colts game, in my head I hear, "You really need to listen to the remainder of the disc for the Colts to win." Uh-huh. Whatever.

I tuned into the game and proceeded to hear the Colts were down 20-10 and the current Colts drive stall to force a punt. The Texans immediately rumbled off a 40-some odd yard run and quick march down the field. Before they could score again, my mind drifted back to the thought before I turned the game on. Not really wanting to hear the Colts lose AGAIN, I turned the CD back on and listened to rest of the CD, about 15 minutes or so.

When I turned the game back on, the Colts have the ball on the Texan 5-yard line trailing 24-27 with 2 minutes to go. Of course, they scored the go-ahead touchdown and went on to win the game.

Coincidence, I don't think so...

Comeback Aftermath

If you watched the Colts' 31-27 victory over the Texans on Sunday, you witnessed a great and stunning comeback by the Colts. As wonderful as the comeback was (at least, for a Colts fan), there are some issues with how it is being described.

First off, a common way the Colts' comeback is described by sports media is to say that Houston blew a 17-point lead in the final 4:10, as if the Colts got the ball down 17 with that little time remaining. That's a bit misleading. The Texans scored their final touchdown with 8:18 left in the 4th; on the ensuing possession, the Colts took just more than 4 minutes to score a TD to make it 27-17. So the Colts had 8+ minutes to come back--still a very impressive (and unlikely) comeback, but not quite as madcap as only having 4 minutes to do it.

Secondly, some people seem to have not watched what happened in the game. For example, Tom Jackson, ESPN football analyst, said that the reason the Colts came back is "they have #18. He's the guy that sparked this comeback." Granted, Peyton Manning did his part in the victory--he led the drive to cut the lead to 27-17, and he threw the pass that put the Colts up 31-27 on Reggie Wayne's circus catch. But I didn't see Peyton on the field playing defense and forcing the Texans into 3 turnovers in the final 4 minutes. As great as this comeback was, I expect that Peyton will probably get more credit than he deserves from the media.

But this was a team win for the Colts that was helped out by dumb decisions by the Texans. The defense, which had been pretty lousy all day in giving up 27 points, made big plays to get the ball back. The Texans helped, and not just Sage Rosenfels and his spinning fumble-ruski. Houston's play selection late in the game was very suspect: after the Colts made it 27-24, the Texans still could have killed enough of the clock by running the ball and making the Colts burn their final time out. Instead, the Texans threw incomplete on 2nd down, which stopped the clock and saved the Colts time out. It also seemed to make Houston more desperate to make a first down, so instead of running on 3rd down, the Texans tried to pass, which led to the sack/fumble and the Colts taking over on the Houston 20.

As for the Colts offense, they didn't play well most of the day, but still put a drive together to make it 27-17 when all looked lost. And then they executed when the defense got the ball back with a chance to win the game. Again, this was a team win--snatched from what would have been a team loss. Many members of the media will ignore this and instead focus on Manning.

Oh, yeah: finally, this also from Tom Jackson on Sunday night's SportsCenter: "That's the third time this season that we've looked at the stat sheet and wondered how the Colts won a game."

Really? The Colts are now 2-2 after this win. Maybe Tom Jackson can see into the future.

Remain Calm. All is Well!

Hello, folks. Our local fucktard sports columnist actually took the time to write an article this week and it is his usual half-assed drivel with horrible and asinine attempts at humor. Oh, well. At least Kravitz gives me something to write about.

The Indianapolis Colts don't currently reside in Panic City (pop. 53).

Right off the bat we have a shitty attempt at trying to covey the fact the Colts are on the verge of needing to panic and all 53 players are the entire population. I would think if the ENTIRE team was on the verge of panic the population would also include, at a minimum, the coaches, the front office, the owner, just to name a few. I would think you could also include Colts fans in that number as well.

They are, however, keeping a residence in the suburbs.

Oh, and what is the name of that suburb? Anxiety Acres? Consternation Creek? Trepidationopolis?

A victory Sunday in Houston would make most of the doubts go away, at least for a couple of days. A loss, especially a loss combined with another Tennessee victory, and Eli Lilly and Co. will be forced to spike the city's drinking water with Prozac.

Could someone please hook Bob up with someone with a sense of humor? I’m tired of his poor attempts at comic relief.

Let's be honest: This team, a Super Bowl front-runner the minute New England quarterback Tom Brady went down, is one road loss in Houston from a national what's-wrong-with-the-Indianapolis-Colts story.

Well how about this international article on what’s-wrong-with-the-Indianapolis-Colts stories or this? OK, there Canadian, so you can make your own judgment calls on them.

This team, which has a golden chance to win its second title in three years with New England out of the way, is one poor 60-minute performance from being this year's biggest and most inexplicable flop.

Yo, fucktard! There are still 12 games to go after this game. Yes, being 1-3 and then making the playoffs is difficult, it is not impossible. What if we have a decent 60-minute performance, but still lose? With the injuries and retirements and waiving of players, I don’t know if that makes us the biggest flop. I would put the Lions and Bengals ahead of the Colts. While the Lions have sucked for a while, I felt that they could have battled for a .500 record or an outside shot at the playoffs after a decent finish last year. The Bengals have been just awful this year.

There's a thin blue line between a must-win game (that would be any game where a loss would mean elimination) and a need-to-win game. This game resides in that nether region in between. If they lose and the Titans win, the Colts would be 31/2 games behind the AFC South leaders and in last place in the division for the first time, not counting the season's opening week.

If it is a thin line, then how the hell are we in between? We might be right on the line, but personally I feel it is only a need-to-win game. A loss is not the end of the world at this stage.

Consider this: Each year since 2003, the AFC South winner -- always Indy -- has had 12 or more victories.

Ummm, what about the first year of the AFC South in which Tennessee won the division with an 11-5 record?

Jacksonville won 11 games last year and was a wild card. If the Colts lose and past is prologue, that means Indy would have to go 11-1 the rest of the season to hit that magic 12.

Good luck with that.

A 10-2 finish is daunting.

Maybe daunting, but not impossible.

Shoot, 9-3 would get them to 10-6, a record that hasn't been historically good enough to make the playoffs out of this division.

It kills me that the man can spent time to write an article but not spent less than five minutes to do even a minute amount of research. Because if he did, he would realize that most of his assumptions are totally incorrect. In roughly three minutes with the use of just basic search engines and a few pages on a website, I found out that not only do 10-6 teams generally make the playoffs, they even do it from the AFC South.

Year #5 Seed WC #6 Seed WC
2002 10-6 COLTS 9-7 Browns
2003 12-4 Titans 10-6 Broncos
2004 10-6 Jets 10-6 Broncos
2005 12-4 Jaguars 11-5 Steelers
2006 10-6 Jets 9-7 Chiefs
2007 11-5 Jaguars 10-6 Titans

So five out of the six years the AFC South has been around, at least one 10-6 team has made the playoffs. Better yet, the Colts did it back in 2002 with, yep, a 10-6 record. And both wild card teams we from the AFC South last year! Wow, just a quote bit of research and once again we proved what a lazy fucktard Kravitz really is.

"Can you remember one stretch this season when you've played really good football?'' defensive end Dwight Freeney was asked.

He shook his head.

"Nah, nah, nowhere near that, and that's in all phases: defense, offense and special teams,'' he said. "Across the board. I don't think anybody can sit in here and say we're playing the way we want to play. I don't think anybody's happy.''

Yes, Dwight understands the team has not played well.

That's why Sunday is one of those really-close-to-a-must-win games. At 2-2, the Colts would have survived the first quarter of the season despite injuries to key players, the defection of Quinn Pitcock and the release of Ed Johnson. At 1-3, they'd be in trouble -- even more trouble if the Titans beat Baltimore and move to 5-0.

The Colts still have not played the Titans. If the Colts do go 1-3 and beat the Titans both times this year, they would have the tie-breaker if they finish tied at the end of the year. See, not impossible to come back from.

It's often said that a team can't win a division in September, but a team can lose the division in September. And that's where the Colts find themselves as they prepare for a Houston team that is winless, although better than its record suggests, desperate and preparing to play its first home game in front of rabid crowd that is still rebuilding from Hurricane Ike.

It is also often said, at least on this site, shitty writers will continue to write shitty columns as you prove week after week.

Remember, one week ago, the Texans were one play from walking out of Jacksonville with a victory. These are not you're slightly-older-brother's Texans, despite the uninspiring record.

And this is not your father’s Oldsmobile.

The keys:

The Colts must slow somebody's running game. Seriously, if Steve Slaton pulls a Ron Dayne on this group, Indy should wave the white flag of surrender. Or at least think about another Booger McFarland-type trade. Maybe talk Warren Sapp off the dance floor. Something.

Or how about actually tackling someone? How many times have we hit a runner in the backfield and have him still go for plus yardage or even for 44 yards?

I do think we are at the point where we need to consider revamping our defensive line paradigm. I understand the Colts like to have lighter, but quicker D-lineman. But we get pushed around so much in the running game that is keeps biting us in the ass. I can understand having a Freeney on the end, but we need some honking big guys at the tackles to make it tougher to run on us.

Pressure quarterback Matt Schaub the way they used to torture David Carr. Schaub can throw if he has time. Against pressure, he's just another guy.

I do miss watching David Carr get repeatedly driven into the ground.

Re-involve Anthony Gonzalez, who was so active in the first two games. Against Jacksonville, the Colts didn't have enough plays from scrimmage to incorporate their blossoming wide receiver.

The main issue against Jacksonville was not that the Colts did not involve Anthony Gonzalez, it was they did not get enough offensive plays to run. Another factor is that Dallas Clark was back in the lineup against Jacksonville and it seems that when Dallas in on the field, Anthony is not.

Win the turnover battle. Since coach Tony Dungy came to Indy, the Colts have been on the right side of turnover differential in five of six seasons. So far this year they've forced two turnovers and committed five (four interceptions), leaving them an uncharacteristic minus-3.

It would also help to have defensive backs actually catch the interceptions when they get their hands on the ball. There have been at least a couple of instances that we have had sure interceptions dropped and then the opponent continue on downfield and score on us. But Kravitz is actually right (damn that hurt) in that when the Colts win the turnover battle, they have won.

One national writer with a strong football pedigree, Sports Illustrated's Paul Zimmerman, suggested the Colts look "spent.''

Could he be on to something?

He might be, but you never are.

They have looked unorganized, especially against the Bears. Could it actually be that players do need to have a preseason in order to get ready for the regular season? Peyton has been rusty and it did take longer than expected for him to recover from the bursa sac surgery. The bye week should have helped him and the team get more on track and recover from injuries and dings.

It's understood that a slow start isn't a death sentence in this upside-down league. Last year's Super Bowl-winning New York Giants began the year 0-2 and looked miserable in the process. They turned it around late and got on a postseason roll.

They actually turned it around early and kept getting stronger late.

My sense through three shoddy games is that the Colts are still a primary player in the AFC, that the slow start is due largely to injuries, the Pitcock defection and the Johnson release. They are still the AFC South's sleeping giants, the team with the greatest potential to seize control of a conference that lacks a clear and present danger.

Bob, you do not have any sense.

I feel that the Colts are an 11-5 team, but it would not surprise me if they finished 8-8. Even great teams can have an off year where nothing goes right.

Tennessee? Fine. The Titans are better than anybody thought -- except for Colts president Bill Polian, who knows all because he is a football man and serves on the Competition Committee. I'll give the Titans 11 wins. Tops.

Since the Flaming Thumbtacks are also known as the Indianapolis Colts South or the home for the Colts Rejects, it does not surprise me that they are doing well. The Colts won with those rejects even though we were happy to see most of them go. The Titans have had the benefit of an easier schedule and having bounces go their way. The Titans have played three of their first four games at home and their only road game was against the hapless Bengals. Their only tough game so far was the home game versus the Jaguars in Week 1.

I’m going to put on my Nostradumbass hat on and predict that the law of averages catches up with the Titans and they will come into Lucas Oil Stadium in Week 17 with a 10-5 record and either the division title or a playoff berth on the line.

How would have thought that the final game of the season at home versus Tennessee could actually mean something?

Jacksonville? The Jaguars are still the Colts' biggest threat, regardless of their early struggles.

The Jaguars have struggled just like the Colts and are only a couple of plays from being 0-4 just like the Colts are really one play from being 2-1 and then we wouldn’t be reading crap like this. We could easily have a three-way battle for the division this year. Or even four-way battle if the Colts lose this week, but turn it around the rest of the season.

If the Colts lose Sunday, it's not over. But it's moving perilously in that direction. Then it's Panic City, here they come.

Oh for fucks sake. It’s not over until you are mathematically eliminated, so until then you keep playing to make the playoffs.

1-3 is not the end of world and an 8-8 season maybe good for the team and the Colts faithful. We’ve been spoiled the past five years and fans begin to expect that every year. It’s been a fun ride and maybe a few bumps along the way will be the jolt the Colts need to point them in the right direction. Or it might knock the wheels off and turn ugly really quick.

If the Colts lose, this will be Bob on Monday morning.

Nothing like a dose of Kravitz-ripping to get you going in the morning.

The Objective Is To Be Objective

There has been a lot of attention given lately to NFL officiating. Last week, we had the now infamous Ed Hochuli blown incomplete pass call in the San Diego/Denver game. This past Sunday, there were a few questionable calls in the Indianapolis/Jacksonville game.

The call getting the most attention was made late in the game. Facing 4th and 1 with :28 seconds left, Jacksonville QB David Garrard threw a short pass that went incomplete. However, Colts LB Freddy Keiaho was called for pass interference. You can see the call at the 1:57 mark of the video below:




In breaking down the call, Keiaho makes contact with Williams after the ball was thrown (and more than five yards from the line of scrimmage, but that's actually a moot point). Williams was making a play on the ball; Keiaho was not. That, by all definitions, is pass interference. Period. If Keiaho was somehow making a play on the ball when contact had happened, it would not have been interference. But he wasn’t, and it was.

Almost all members of the Indianapolis media have been crying bloody murder over the call. Bobby Kravitz calls it a "garbage call," Anthony Calhoun and the knuckle-dragger doing analysis on Sunday night's WISH-TV Sportslocker implied the officials made the call despite knowing it was wrong, and WRTV-6's Dave Furst and Kip Lewis both questioned what the officials were looking at. And none of them used any kind of reasonable analysis to argue why it was a bad call; it was simply a bad call because it went against the Colts.

How can all of the sports media people in Indianapolis think it's a bad call, when other media analysts think it was a good call? It's easy: the Indianapolis sports media allow their rooting for the home team to get in the way of their objectivity. That's unacceptable.

This isn't about rooting for your team. You can root for a team and still be objective in your analysis of your team's play or of the officiating. As a fan, it would be ideal to not let your enthusiasm get in the way of objectivity when it comes to officials' calls, but that's probably too much to ask of the normal fan. And that's okay--we're fans, after all.

But sports anchors and reporters shouldn't be rooting for the home teams to begin with. I understand why they do it (ratings), but it really brings their credibility into question when their biases prevent them from doing any meaningful analysis. This goes beyond the games themselves--what happens when the story becomes more like real news (for example, Ed Johnson's arrest and subsequent release)? How can you take a reporter seriously when he or she can't be objective about a relatively simple call in a football game?

That being said, the biggest issue though is just simple accuracy. A reporter's main goal--whether he or she focuses on news or sports--should be getting the story right. And the Indianapolis sports media have failed in this by allowing their misinformed opinions to get in the way of accuracy.

And to conclude, in my opinion the interception returned for a touchdown by Rashean Mathis earlier in the game was definitely pass interference. Replays clearly showed Mathis grabbing Marvin Harrison's jersey, which helped in making the play. Those in the media who have used the replay as evidence on this bad "no call" are doing exactly what they should be doing. They just need to apply that standard to good calls that don't go the Colts' way.

It's Not the Team, It's Your Writing

Sadly, the Dolts lost yesterday. Doubly sad, we have another Bob Kravitz article to read today. Oh well. I’ll make myself happy by letting Bobby know his writing is crappier than the Colts performances this year.

It's not the call that should worry fans; it's the team

There will be crying and moaning about the late pass interference call, justifiable crying and moaning about a penalty flag that was thrown several seconds after the alleged offense.

Mostly from you, I imagine. I can remember a few dozen instances when it has taken a few seconds for a flag to be thrown by an official. Maybe he just couldn’t his hand on it.

Yes, it was a garbage call. Yes, the NFL owes the Indianapolis Colts an explanation, something the yellow-dog officials Sunday wouldn't do no matter how many times Colts coach Tony Dungy requested an audience during timeouts.

It was not a garbage call, but I would agree it was the wrong call, but we’ll get into that later. Ed Hochuli is one of the few officials who seem to be willing to admit he was wrong.

That said, the Colts didn't deserve to win this game. They just didn't. And the Colts, 23-21 losers to the Jacksonville Jaguars, knew the ugly truth better than anyone.

Win this game?

Well, the Colts were a “Steve Perry” psyche-out away from winning the game. You could also argue that the Colts should not have won last week either, and yet, they did.

Not when the defense gives up 236 yards rushing. The Jaguars didn't even try subterfuge; they simply lined up, told the Colts they were running and then ran through them.

The Colts have given up 200+ yards rushing in a game and still won. The 236 yards rushing is not the biggest problem. It was the 2nd half time of possession in which the Jaguars had the ball for 26 minutes while the Colts had it for only four minutes. FOUR FUCKING MINUTES!!!!!!

No wonder the Jaguars were running all over us. The defense practically lived on the field.

The Colts didn't tackle. They didn't wrap up. On one run, Fred Taylor, who's at least 60 years old by now, broke no less than four tackles on an ESPY-worthy run. They didn't "win their gaps,'' in the parlance of NFL defenses. The defensive linemen got pushed around, and the linebackers and secondary looked hapless against Jacksonville's runners.

Win this game?

Sadly, this has been an ongoing problem with the Colts for many years and it always seems to flare up when Bob Sanders is not on the field. We have a “speedy” but undersized D-line. It can work great for passing offenses, but many run-based offenses just seem to run over us. The draw play kills us too many times every game and then still send Freeney and Mathis every time.

Not when Peyton Manning throws two interceptions, including one that was returned for a touchdown. On that play, the Colts had a case that Jacksonville's Rashean Mathis grabbed Marvin Harrison's jersey before making the pickoff. On the other interception, though, it was all on Manning, a bad decision and a bad throw.

Win this game?

Peyton has had eight games in the past four seasons where he has had two or more interceptions. Amazingly, the Colts have won four of those eight, including the 15-6 victory over the Baltimore Ravens en route to the Super Bowl. I’m sure Kravitz had no way of looking up that information. Hell, the Colts nearly beat the Chargers last year after Peyton threw six interceptions in a game.

Not when the defense is giving up 8-of-14 third-down conversions, an obscene number against an offensively challenged team. With or without All-Pro safety Bob Sanders, that can't happen.

Win this game?

The Colts defense was lacking again with a 57% third-down conversion rate. But the Colts offense was 5 of 9 in third downs or 55%. That’s pretty close if you ask me. It’s not good when you allow a team to convert that many third downs, but since we were statistically that close, it is not inconceivable that we could not have won.

Not when the Colts offense had a chance to bleed the clock, or at least force Jacksonville to burn timeouts, with first-and-goal at the Jacksonville 2-yard line with 1:23 remaining. The Colts passed twice before giving it to Joseph Addai for a touchdown run.

I’ve had the luxury of hearing some comments from players on this that Kravitz may not have had…even though he has the ability to interview players or discuss with another Star writer who interviewed the players. I’m a huge, HUGE fan of running a quick run play up the middle immediately after a long pass play. Yet, when the Jaguars lined up with two linebackers in the middle, Peyton decided to check and run a passing play. Manning is trying to get the team into the end zone and hopefully eat some of the clock at the same time. What if the pass play on first down had resulted in a touchdown? Are you still going to blame Peyton for scoring too quickly?
Yes, the incomplete pass resulted in stopping the clock. I would have preferred to have run more time off the clock, but the ultimate goal is to score the touchdown. Our goal line offense has been piss-poor this year. I’m not going to fault Peyton for believing that a pass play has more chances for success that a running play at this point.

Manning and the offense did what they needed to do. They gave the Colts the lead and put the game in the hands of the defense.

They didn't deserve to win, but they deserve an explanation from the league. The phone lines between team president Bill Polian's office and the NFL will be burning up this afternoon.

In which the NFL will probably say your right. Tough shit, you still lose the game.

"What was your view of the late pass interference call on Freddy Keiaho?'' Polian was asked in the locker room..

"I can't comment on that, according to the league rules,'' he said, still shaking in anger. "I'll let the league know how I feel.''

And the non-calls involving Harrison and Mathis?

"I'll let the league know how I feel,'' he said.

You know he cannot comment unless he wants to dig into his pocketbook and pay a nice fine to Roger Goodell.

After the game, Keiaho was still trying to figure out what happened.

"I don't know. We were in a cover-3, I was just running to my drop and I never even saw him (receiver Reggie Williams),'' Keiaho said. "He just ran into me. I thought the game was over. I wasn't even trying to hit him. Then the flag came out late. I thought we were getting called for excessive celebration or something.''

The NFL rules on pass interference state that it is NOT defensive pass interference if the contact is incidental AND neither player is looking for the ball. I have looked at the replays (since I was on my way back from a Cubs game and could not watch the game) and neither Keiaho nor Reggie Williams seem to be looking for the ball. By the rule, that is not pass interference. Although it looks like it was supposed to be a timing route that Kieaho got in the way off.

He paused. "Still, a defense lives to be put in a position like we were, where we could win the game and close it out, and we didn't do it. It's as simple as that.''

Correct.

The Colts weren't going to cry, but the refusal of officials to talk with Dungy left the Colts coach uncharacteristically livid.

"I'm not going to get into blaming the officials for games,'' Dungy said. "We've got to play better.''
Similar to the Broncos-Chargers game last week, a bad call may have cost a team the game. And just like last week, the defensive team still had chances to keep their opponent from scoring.
By now, we know better than to lay blame to the Colts' defensive scheme. What Dungy and his staff do on defense works. We saw that in 2006, when many of us were calling for changes in the team's defensive philosophy. Then they pulled themselves together and rode the defense to the Super Bowl.

It obviously helped to get Bob Sanders back for the playoffs in 2006. Yes, part of the Colts sub-par performances are due to injuries, retirements and rookies. Most of it is due to just poor performances. If you can’t block or tackle or catch, you are going to make it pretty tough to win games.

It is also not inconceivable that the Colts can still make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. More fantasy at this point, but still possible.

Here's the real question: Are they good enough to do the things they're supposed to do? Do they have the personnel? Clearly, they miss defensive lineman Ed Johnson, who smoked his way off the team. They even miss Quinn Pitcock, the defensive tackle who quit the game in the preseason.

The problem is, there's not much Polian can do about it. There are no Pro Bowl defensive tackles on the market.

No shit, Sherlock.

Now comes the bye week, which suddenly seems to be at precisely the right time. The Colts need to take stock, and understand they are this close to being 0-3. One call didn't beat them Sunday. Several calls didn't beat them Sunday. Jacksonville beat them. And pummeled them. And embarrassed them.

I don't think the Colts were "embarrassed" by the Jags. I’m sure the Colts know how close to 0-3 they are. I’m also sure the Colts know how close to 2-1 they could have been. Change a couple of plays in the Bears game and the Colts could have been 3-0, possibly.

No excuses.

Correct, Bob. There are no excuses for your shitty writing.

Whisper To a Scream

For as much as we rag on sports columnists on this blog (and for good reason), we do understand that one of the ideas behind writing a sports column is to sometimes be controversial. Columnists can express their opinions--in fact, they should express their opinions--and as long as they are fair, they can take a controversial position or stance.

Or, you can take a passive-aggressive approach, as per one Bobby Kravitz.

Whispers starting about Harrison

Is Marvin Harrison done? Or at least reaching the point where he can see the finish line from his front porch?

Huh?? Can someone explain that metaphor to me, please? I'm serious. I guess it means, "he's so close to being finished, he sees the end of his career before he even leaves his house."

Okay, you come up with one better.

Before the season began, I opined that Harrison, one of the most fiercely prideful athletes ever to play this game, would have an epic comeback season, returning after injuries to both knees and reaching the Pro Bowl. And I still think it's way too early to write the epitaph on a Hall of Fame receiving career.

You're exactly right; it is too early. End the article.

But the whispers are starting. And the longer Harrison goes without having that Marvin-like breakout game, the louder the whispers will become, ultimately turning into howls.

"The whispers are starting." Who is whispering? Coaches? Players? Ghosts of receivers past? A group singing "Rock Steady?" If you don't say who is "whispering," then it's not really a story, now is it? Sometimes--and I'm not saying little Bobby Kravitz is doing this here--columnists will use the idea of "whispers" to get their own opinion across without saying it's their own opinion.

Frankly, I'm not worried about whispers. Alert me when the whispers become murmurs. Or guffaws, but that's different.

"I don't know how to say this, but it was almost sad to watch Marvin (against the Minnesota Vikings)," said former running back and current ESPN analyst Merril Hoge, speaking Wednesday on WFNI-1070 AM. "It's sad to watch him. It's like he's a shadow of himself. During the game, I've seen Peyton (Manning) throw that comeback to Marvin a hundred times, but this time, Marvin didn't have that explosiveness coming back to the ball and it got knocked down. And after that (play), he was never a factor in the game."

Oh, so they weren't whispers--that opinion was stated by an ESPN football analyst on your radio show. Why didn't you say so earlier instead of using all of this "whispering" nonsense?

In the season opener against the Chicago Bears, Harrison had a relatively productive night, catching eight passes for 76 yards, but he lost a fumble that the Bears returned for a touchdown.

In the victory over Minnesota, he had just one catch for 16 yards, although that one reception was an important one in the red zone.

Doesn't this completely debunk the idea that Marvin is "done"? At least, doesn't it debunk the idea that anything definitive can be taken from the first two games of the season? Against the Bears, Marvin averaged 8.5 YPC (yards per catch), Reggie Wayne averaged 7.6 YPC on his 10 catches. Yes, Marvin had the fumble, and that could be a problem if that trend continues, but that was a pretty productive night.

Only having one catch in the Vikings game is a concern. But I think it's not a stretch to say that Marvin wasn't much of a factor because a) he was covered by a good defender and b) Manning had something like 1.2 seconds to throw for the first two-thirds of the game.

If Harrison was 26 and completely healthy, one or two sub-standard games wouldn't raise an eyebrow. We'd focus instead on how it took six quarters for Manning to shake the rust. Or how the Indianapolis Colts' young offensive line doesn't give Manning time to go downfield. Or how Harrison was defended by two of the league's best corners, Chicago's Charles Tillman and Minnesota's Antoine Winfield.

Those seem like good things to focus on to me. Manning was/is rusty. The offensive linemen are playing like they're wearing clown shoes right now. And the CB matchup for Marvin was tough in each of the first two games. So, Bobby, why aren't you focusing on these things? After all, this is your article.

Perhaps the first line of the above paragraph should begin, "If I knew even a little bit about football and wasn't trying to make a story out of a non-story..."

But he's 36, ancient by wide receiver standards. He had left knee problems most of last year. He had his right knee cleaned out during the summer.

And last year he was 35, and until he got hurt he was just fine. I know that age will catch up with him eventually, but if there's anyone on the team that doesn't look his age physically, it's Marvin.
However, coming back from the knee surgeries is a legitimate point.

Still, it's been two games--or one-eighth of the NFL season. Small sample size?

So there are whispers, people suggesting Harrison's decline has begun.

In this week's SI.com column, longtime NFL guru Paul Zimmerman wrote, "(Harrison) has come back from his knee problems as an old warrior who can't shake the coverage anymore."

Again: two games. Against good defensive backs. With a bad offensive line and a rusty Manning.

Sidebar: "Rusty Manning" sounds like a TV weatherman's name.

And there's this from Hoge, whose whispers are a bit louder than the others.

This "whispers" analogy is falling apart, if it was ever together in the first place. Do you mean that Hoge speaks louder than the others when he's on TV, or that he writes louder for his espn.com column (presumably in ALL CAPS)? Or do you mean that he is more adamant in his criticism? If it's the latter, perhaps you should say that.

"I'm not ready to say he's done, but he sure looked done in that (Minnesota) game. When Dallas Clark comes back, it's going to be hard to keep him (Clark) off the field."

Not really. Clark and Harrison play different positions. You see, Clark is a tight end. Harrison is a wide receiver. Those are two entirely different positions, altogether.

(All: "Those are two entirely different positions.") Thanks for playing!

If Hoge had said that when Clark comes back it will be difficult to keep Anthony Gonzalez out of the lineup, that would be a more valid point. And although Clark is not the typical tight end because of how the Colts use him (split wide, slot, etc.), he seldom--if ever-- is in the game in place of Harrison. Does Hoge watch the Colts on a regular basis?

"He's just not a factor. He's not as good off the ball. Not as good with his routes. It's just kind of sad to see . . . Maybe he's still working back off the injuries, and that's what I kind of hope, but I've been watching tape of him since I retired. I'm used to seeing certain things and what I saw was a guy who is a half-second slower in everything he does. He's not the same route runner, not the same intensity."

NBC's Cris Collinsworth said roughly the same thing during Sunday's studio show. "One of the problems this Colts offense has had thus far is that Marvin Harrison is no longer the deep threat he once was," Collinsworth said.

To be honest, Marvin hasn't really been a deep threat for the past 2 or 3 years. Yes, he can go downfield, but Marvin has become more of a possession receiver. That doesn't mean he's done, however.

So there are questions: Is he done, or close to being done? Or is everybody jumping the gun and failing to look at the bigger picture? Where is Marvin -- really -- in terms of his health?

To nobody's surprise, Harrison declined to comment for this column.

But Dungy did.

So Dungy declined to comment, too? Common-sense editing, anyone?

"What I've seen, it looks to me like he's running and practicing, doing everything the way he did before," the coach said. "So I've stopped worrying about him at this point."

This could just be a coach who doesn't want to admit his Hall of Fame receiver is on the decline. Or, he could really think that.

At this point, I'm not among those who are ready to count him out.

I should hope the hell not. Again: two games. Small sample size!

But there are ominous signs. The national analysts aren't making things up after watching the tape. They see what we all see, a legendary receiver who doesn't quite look right.

Do you really see that? Or do you say that you see that because three national analysts say they see it?

This article is classic Kravitz in that he takes an old story and recycles it. Hoge and Zimmerman made their comments on Wednesday; Collinsworth made his statement Sunday night. What is Kravitz adding to this? All he's doing is compiling the comments. I understand why the article was held until Friday morning's paper: it needed to be in the special Colts section. But theoretically, Kravitz could have done this column early in the week, since he "saw" Marvin's struggles on Sunday, too (and he still could have cited Collinsworth). The problem is, Kravitz didn't want to blow this article early in the week because he would have had to come up with yet another Colts article for Friday--it would have been too difficult to do something original.

Think about it. Anyone who watched Sunday Night Football probably saw Collinsworth's comments already. So, again, what is Kravitz adding? All he says in this article is "wait and see," which is a good observation, but it's also the obvious one. Instead, Kravitz takes another person's idea (in this case, other people's idea) and adds nothing.

It's the passive-aggressive guide to doing a sports column. Kravitz mentioned at the beginning of the article that he predicted that Marvin would have a "comeback year." But now, after two games, Kravitz isn't so sure, but he doesn't want to say so directly. So he uses these other opinions to show that there is doubt about Marvin. But he never admits that he shares those doubts, and he never says he stands by his previous prediction, either. He completely avoids giving his own opinion, instead spending 15+ paragraphs giving other people's opinions without adding any analysis. This despite the fact that it's his job to give his opinion--which should be a well-argued, thought out opinion that's both fair and insightful. That's exactly what is missing from this article.

Which makes it no different from his other articles.

Baseball Tonight: Scrubs Edition

There's nothing like preseason football. Watching 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers play one another in a game that doesn't count is quite exciting--if you like meaningless games. I'd prefer the starters and backups on my favorite team not play at all during the preseason. (Actually, it would be even better if there were no such thing as preseason games, but the NFL likes the automatic revenue.)

But isn't it fun to watch scrubs for both teams play each other after the starters play the requisite quarter or two? I get that there are a lot of players fighting for jobs, but it isn't exactly the highest quality football.

So what does this have to do with ESPN's Baseball Tonight? Watching BBTN on Saturday night is like watching NFL preseason in that ESPN is down to its 4th or 5th-string hosts for the program.

Tonight's lineup: Mike Hill, Chris Singleton, and Buster Olney. Singleton and Olney appear pretty regularly on the show, but aren't used as much as John Kruk, Eduardo Perez, and Tim Kurkjian, for example. The Hill/Singleton/Olney lineup is comparable to the Colts having Jared Lorenzen playing QB with Anthony Gonzalez as the #1 WR and Dominic Rhodes as the #1 RB (important note: if the Lorenzen/Gonzalez/Rhodes scenario happens any time after August 28th, riots will ensue in Indianapolis).

Anyway, on tonight's episode of BBTN (10 p.m. EDT edition), Mike Hill was at his 4th-string best. Highlights:

1. In trying to highlight Roberto Clemente's volunteer efforts, Hill could not say the word "humanitarian." Instead of just going forward, he explained that he's "not a good orator."

There are many broadcasters who are probably not good orators. But they are broadcasters, which would indicate that they can handle the English language. At least partially, anyway.

2. In reading Clemente's bio, Hill tried to read the last line, which ended with something like, "humanitarian efforts that went along with his illustrious career." However, "illustrious" came out "ill-us-troy-us," with the accents on "ill" and "troy."

3. Little League World Series highlights: Mexico vs. Curacao. Hill couldn't pronounce Curacao. The sad part was that he tried to sound it out on the air. Chris Singleton said it for him, then preceded to do the highlights for Hill when he couldn't pronounce any of the names.

Look, foreign pronunciations are difficult. And people have off days. But you'd think the Worldwide Leader in Sports would have production meetings and pronunciation guides to help their anchors, not to mention producers whose job it is to get the information to the anchors. My guess is that the producers did their jobs, but Hill just didn't get it. And this isn't the first time Hill has butchered the English language on BBTN.

I think Hill's in trouble when the rosters get cut to 75 players.