Trailing Clouds of Heaven: Vikings 35, Chargers 17

At NFL.com:
Vikings-Chargers Box Score
Vikings-Chargers Play-By-Play
Vikings Chargers Game Center (with highlights)

296
Special. That's what this is. Special. I feel lucky to be in attendance at the game featuring Adrian Peterson's record 296 yard performance. Today was probably my most thrilling day as a Viking fan. The energy in the stadium was palpable. The appreciation of the crown for Adrian Peterson was sincere. Whatever else happens to me as a Viking fan, I'm going to always remember standing in the Metrodome giddy with excitement watching Adrian Peterson bust through and around and past the Charger defense again and again and again.

His day featured long runs, such 64 yard and 46 yard touchdown runs. His day featured speedy runs around the edge. His day featured powerful churning runs through the middle. There were cutbacks. There were moves. There was speed. There was Peterson, an incredibly intelligent and instinctive open field runner that does a spectacular job using downfield blockers and cutting the right way to use them.

Brooks Bollinger to Sidney Rice, 40 yard touchdown
When Bollinger let the pass go, I looked down to Rice, running toward the end zone. He had beaten his defender and was open. As has happened several times this season, I expected the pass to land just in front of the open receiver, or to float just too far out of bounds. But it was on target, and Rice scored an energizing touchdown to give the Vikings a lead they wouldn't give up.

E.J. Henderson
There's nothing secret about the Viking run defense. Pat Williams and Kevin Williams are incredible defensive tackles who simply don't allow space up the middle. And E.J. Henderson is playing Middle Linebacker like a Pro Bowler, which I can only hope he'll be this season.

Henderson has been a dominant football player this season. He makes plays all over the field, showing strength, toughness, speed, and agility. We're lucky to have #56 in the middle. Two years ago linebacker was, in my opinion, the team's biggest weakness. With Henderson anchoring the middle, it's now one of the team's strengths. Watch him: he's a dominant football player.

The Chargers looked like a bad football team.
Coming into the game, J-Rod and I talked about how no matter what, we'd be watching really talented players like Philip Rivers, Ladanian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates, and Shawne Merriman (whom of course we'd be rooting against). But they did nothing. Rivers was really bad, often badly inaccurate. Gates was completely shut down (1 catch for 10 yards). Tomlinson was completely unproductive and unimpressive. Merriman was a non-factor.

But this Charger team didn't really look like a good team at all. Today, at least, they couldn't run, couldn't pass, and got trounced defensively. During the first half, as the Vikings repeatedly stopped the Chargers on 3rd down, I lamented that the offense wasn't taking advantage of the defense's good work against a good offense. In the second half, the offense was very good (mostly thanks to Adrian Peterson, but Chester Taylor made solid plays and Brooks Bollinger was an effective QB), but the Charger offense continued to suck.

Before the game
J-Rod and I walked around the outside of the Metrodome, and who do we see walking around alone? Zygi Wilf. We wondered why he was just walking around pretty much by himself.

But we saw something even more special: the Kensington Runestone. The Runestone, real or fake, is now the Vikings' good luck charm. They should ask to bring it everywhere they go.

Thrilling Game
For a close, exciting game, the Metrodome crowd really gets into it, and this game gave us a lot of really exciting plays. The Vikes had good kick return and a good punt return, a 40 yard TD pass and many, many incredible plays running. We were completely incensed by the 109 missed field goal return before the half. We saw many great stops from the Viking defense, including a wonderful tip by Dwight Smith that surely saved a long TD pass. There was a lot of excitement, and the crowd was juiced. Good times.

Traffic
OK, Minneapolis, I think I've figured you out. I now know a quick way to get out of you. No big deal.

Last Thoughts
It's a thrill that the Vikings won. It's a thrill that Adrian Peterson had a record day (according to the PA, Peterson is the first RB to rush for 200+ yards twice in the same season--and he's done it in his first eight games). It's a thrill that the offense and defense gave us great plays and overall solid performances. For today I'm not going to talk about the problems, and I'm not going to look ahead yet.

Adrian Peterson, dynamic football player, rushed for a record 296 yards and 3 touchdowns to lead the Vikings to a 35-17 home win. He's indescribably good: so often, the Metrodome crowd was in awe that he was able to do it again. He just kept on making plays, spectacular, wonderful, jaw-dropping plays. I don't even have adequate words for the way it just kept happening. He just kept getting around the corner, kept getting first downs, kept making us cheer and shake our heads in amazement. The league's new phenom, and possibly the best running back in the league right now, wears purple. Let's just smile and appreciate the thrill.

Adrian Peterson is SICK!

I do not care what anyone says. Adrian Peterson is just plain sick. Even on the play where he fumbled he gained 6 or 7 yards he shouldn't have with his running ability. He is a monster. Come Thanksgiving day, I am going to give thanks that the Vikings decided to draft the guy I wanted even though running back didn't seem like a great need.

By the way PV and J-Rod I am sure are happy that PV bought those season tickets since they got to witness in person one of Adrian Peterson's dominant games. Lucky guys.

Update: Adrian Peterson has just broken the NFL record for most rushing yards in one game with 296 yards rushing. (If that San Diego Defender hadn't taken him down with a horse-collar tackle he would have decimated 300 yards rushing easily. That is now 1036 yards rushing through 8 games. He has done that on only 159 carries. Folks we are witnessing greatness! [that is a sick 6.5 yds/carry] PV got to see NFL history happen twice today (Peterson and the Cromartie 109 yd return).

Fantasy Flukism: Garbage Time Touchdowns

At Epic Carnival, wwtb? gives the true meaning of Chris Cooley's touchdown while down 52-0.

Speaking of fantasy football, in the Hazelweird League we start two running backs and two wide receivers. As I apparently built a team on depth, now I have to choose from Adrian Peterson, Larry Johnson, and Laurence Maroney at running back and between Reggie Wayne, Steve Smith, and Roy Williams at wide receiver. After bye weeks end, I see this as a weekly problem, and it doesn't appear in our league that I can package any of these players for an upgrade. Thus ends my narcissistic fantasy football discussion for the week. It is after all Friday. Have a weekend, folks.

National Friday League, week nine

Week Nine Matchups
This week features four games between opponents with winning records: Seattle-Cleveland, Green Bay-Kansas City, Carolina-Tennessee, and New England-Indianapolis. There are several other competitive matchups, so it could be a fun week.

Chargers-Vikings
I'm slightly terrified that J-rod and I are making the trek to Thunderdome just to watch the Vikings get blown out of their own stadium. Not long ago, the Vikings were built for the Metrodome, so that even though they struggled on the road against mediocre opponents, they played good opponents very strong at home. But in the process of building a team that (at least on the proverbial paper) can compete in road games, they've lost the offensive speed that made them so strong at home. Now this Viking team can get its ass kicked in the Metrodome.

But there are reasons for hope. The Viking run defense is still dominating and can contain Ladanian Tomlinson, leaving Philip Rivers to try beat the Viking pass defense (which he still could). The Viking cornerbacks have struggled against WRs this year, but if the defense can bring a scheme to stop Antonio Gates, the Chargers might even struggle to pass. If the Vikings can run the ball with Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor (which they're of course capable of doing), they can keep the Chargers' good offensive players off the field.

Should I talk myself into an upset? Or should I expect the usual: the Vikings stop the opponents' run and keep the game close, but a complete inability to pass the ball offensively leads to a one score loss. The problem, as I see it, is that the Viking defense has kept things close by playing good red zone defense: even though they've given up a ton of passing yards, they've done a good job holding opponents to fewer points with a "bend but don't break" defense. Unfortunately, Ladanian Tomlinson is an excellent red zone runner, and Antonio Gates is always a dangerous red zone passing threat. If the Chargers move down the field easily, it's not going to be easy to hold them to three.

We're still getting to know Adrian Peterson. He's only played seven games and he's already the most recognizable player on the Vikings, the face of the franchise and legitimate superstar. But we Viking fans aren't yet comfortable and familiar with his movements. It's a fun time: we're getting to know Peterson's style, and style that (hopefully) we'll be completely familiar with in a few seasons. Now it's fresh and pretty much anything he does is exciting.

So no matter what happens, Sunday is another chance to get to know Adrian Peterson.

Eghgh! I just read at the Pioneer Press that Antoine Winfield is doubtful for the game. I'm actually going to just pretend I don't know that.

Patriots-Colts
2007 Patriots
2007 Colts
A lot of people compare this game to the 1990 Giants-49ers game. But Patriots-Colts reminds me more of the Cowboys-49ers games in the early and mid 90s. Like the San Francisco-Dallas matchups, New England-Indianapolis always features two primary championship contenders, loads of talent all over the field, and teams very familiar with each other.

Which was more fun, Dallas-San Francisco or New England-Indianapolis? In 1994, 49ers-Cowboys featured Hall of Fame players like Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Deion Sanders, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and Emmitt Smith. That's a whole lot of skill position star power. In 2007, Indianapolis-New England features Hall of Fame quality players like Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Peyton Manning, and Marvin Harrison (and a whole lot of other exciting skill position players). Though this matchup is extremely good, and the Colts and Patriots are very deep, balanced, and dominant, I don't think we should forget how fun those Dallas-San Francisco matchups were.

Anyway, the game.

Both teams can consistently pick up first downs in the passing game. Both teams are capable of big plays in the passing game. Both teams are capable of picking up first downs in the running game. Both teams have dynamic running backs averaging 4.8 ypc. Both teams have defensive playmakers and defensive schemes capable of dominating opponents.

Do you get the impression that the way the Pats have slowly brought Laurence Maroney back from injury was with the intention of exploding him onto the world this week? and yet the Colts have a great running game with Joseph Addai.

Perhaps this game will come down to the running game. When it gets to the fourth quarter, I have trouble seeing either Peyton Manning or Tom Brady making mistakes or failing to pick up first downs to drive their teams to points. Either team could win, because each team is capable of winning in a lot of different ways.

Dallas-Philadelphia
The Sunday Night matchup could actually be exciting--I expect a combined 600-700 yards passing between Tony Romo and Donovan McNabb. Dallas is leading the NFC East, but New York is right behind, and division losses will hurt the Cowboys. Philadelphia is at the bottom of the division but has a chance to crawl back into contention with a division win. Fun times all around.

Weekend
My weekend is already off to a disappointing start, as I had to turn down free tickets to the Timberwolves' opener. On the bright side, I had to turn them down because there is a small party at my house, so the possibility of gin and rum screwdrivers might make up for missing the Wolves game live (and good company, of course). And it is the end of daylight savings, so the weekend is an hour longer than usual. So that's good.

Enjoy the weekend everybody. Except Packer fans.

On Chief Illiniwek

I'm a firm advocate for free expression. I believe there should be as few limits on free expression as possible, and that university campuses particularly must be committed to free expression.

However, I am also convinced by Charles R. Lawrence III's argument in "The Debates Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims" (pdf). Lawrence argues that because a college must commit itself to allowing equal educational opportunities to all students--including minority students--reasonable restrictions on bigoted speech may be necessary to allow a safe and open educational environment. Essentially, a university's commitment to equal rights must trump its commitment to free speech.

Our nation's ideals of "liberty" and "equality" are, by their very nature, occasionally in conflict. There's always a delicate balance when it comes to liberty and equality, and I think Lawrence is right: reasonable limits on bigoted speech can still allow for free expression (even bigoted expression, but in a limited capacity), while promoting equality for all students.

Recently, the University of Illinois allowed previously banned images of Chief Illiniwek in its homecoming parade on campus; as the university stated, "The university values free speech and free expression, and considers homecoming floats, decorations, costumes and related signage all representations of such personal expression. Therefore, Chancellor Herman has directed the Homecoming Committee to strike the existing policy from the homecoming float guidelines” (Susan Saulny, New York Times).

Dave Zirin, rightly critical of the racist iconography of Chief Illiniwek, dismisses the free expression argument: "Yes, our forefathers fought and died to protect the right to display caricatures of the conquered at public institutions of higher learning." There's irony in this statement, of course: most of "our forefathers" hated Native Americans and probably would defend mockery of them. But there's a larger point: it doesn't matter what the particulars of expression or ideas "our forefathers fought and died to protect." It doesn't matter what particular forms of expression "our forefathers" would approve or disapprove of (I suspect many of them would disapprove of a whole lot of 21st century expression). The point is they "fought and died"--and created a Constitution--to protect our rights to express pretty much whatever we want. We don't have to consider whether they would like it or not.

The free speech argument is not so easily dismissed, but it is not so simply triumphant in this case, either. The University of Illinois' "Student Code: Article I: Student Rights and Responsibilities" (pdf) allows for free expression on campus (1-103 (a)), but that in such expression students "speak only for themselves," not the academic community as a whole (1-106 (b) (1)). What the University must determine to its own standards is whether expression in a parade on campus constitutes the students' free expression (which it cannot really stop), or whether the parade itself is a University-sanctioned event, and thus in some way approved by the University. If it is the former, then students can freely present images of Chief Illiniwek (however much you or I may disapprove of such expression); if it is the latter, then the University could prevent such images, as it does not itself wish to promote such expression.

Zirin does come back to the free expression issue, quoting a letter from Antonia Darder comparing Illiniwek to other forms offensive speech. It's an effective comparison, and should give us pause--but it still may not diminish the free expression argument.

Ideally, a college community responds on its own that it will not accept racist expression. A few years ago, somebody graffitied a racist slur in the college community I've been a part of for nine years. The campus community responded with a rally to make clear that we would not accept racism, and that we would continue to strive to be an open and tolerant college. Students didn't need legislation to resist bigotry; they resisted organically because it was and is right. But as Saulny and Zirin state, at Illinois many students attended the parade supporting the image of Chief Illiniwek, and there were no protesters at the parade. Sometimes students don't organically rise up to fight against racism. And so I do accept that there are times that a university may impose limits on bigoted expression.

So here's the line. I find Native American "mascots" like Chief Illiniwek distasteful, offensive, and disrespectful. But I also recognize individuals' right to expression that I find distasteful, offensive, and disrespectful. I still believe universities and franchises should abolish the use of racist iconography--I just also recognize the rights of individuals to their own expressions of racist iconography. If the homecoming parade was student-driven, then the individual students in and at the parade have their individual rights to free expression--including expressions of the offensive image of Chief Illiniwek. If the homecoming parade is University-driven, then the University should not allow images of Chief Illiniwek in the parade, as it should not itself sanction the offensive image of Chief Illiniwek.

According to Saulny, "Robin Kaler, the university’s associate chancellor for public affairs, said the nature of the event, a public parade, overrode concerns about the university’s sponsorship. 'We wouldn’t ban a member of the campus community from wearing chief paraphernalia to class or work,' she said. 'We’re not going to ban them from doing that in the parade either.'" Apparently, the University has seen this line between university support and student freedom, and sees the parade in terms of student freedom.

Read Susan Saulny's reporting on the story. Read Dave Zirin's essay on the story. Read Charles Lawrence's essay on racist speech on campuses. There are important ideas here.

Thursday Morning Blizzard: running up the score

The Patriots are indeed running up the score, but what of it?
It's difficult to deny the Patriots are running up the score, but there are different interpretations to what it means.

Many (for example, the Big Picture) have responded in anger, suggesting the Patriots are doing something immoral and showing disrespect for opponents. It can be silly to apply the standards of sportsmanship we learn playing sports growing up to professional sports. One team of grown men being paid a lot of money to play a game is deliberately beating another team of grown men being paid a lot of money to play a game by as many points as it can. I can’t get outraged about that form of disrespect. Disrespect in professional sports? Consider that the team on the losing end of the latest Patriot blowout has a racist nickname, a nickname directed at a group of people who have faced centuries of domination, oppression, and injustice--that is real disrespect. Consider that several NFL stadiums have been built partially with public financing--with money that might have been used for schools, for social programs, for police, or money that could have been left in regular folks’ pockets. I’m glad we as sports fans aren’t so cynical to give up all ideas of sportsmanship and morality in the game, but there’s too much disrespect in pro sports to worry about highly paid professional adults being embarrassed.

Dwil suggests the criticism of Belichick is another example of the media creating a villain. This may be a fair assessment of media response, but it downplays the reality that Bill Belichick is a fan-created villain. People who grow up around sports can recognize running up the score on their own; they don’t have to be duped by columnists into believing it. So too can fans react organically and independently to running up the score without being told to do so. Much of the backlash against New England has come pretty organically from fans observing events, not media members creating a story. And admittedly, much of this backlash stems from non-Patriot fans frustrated and resentful over New England’s dominance and wanting to be able to in some way criticize it and diminish it.

Patriot fans, like Bill Simmons (here and here) have found all sorts of reasons to justify the Patriots running up the score, including the absurd logic that they are getting revenge on the league for…getting caught cheating and being criticized for cheating. At least Simmons is smart enough to know he doesn’t have the objective distance to make a clear assessment of this; it appears to me that some Patriot fans are naïve enough to think they’ve separated themselves from their homerism enough to make an objective assessment.

Dr. Z takes a more practical approach. Sidestepping the morality of running up the score, he puts it into historical context to examine the concrete consequences.

I don’t think the Patriots are “good,” “right,” or “justified” in running up scores on their opponents. However, it’s professional sports, and I’m not concerned over the embarrassment suffered by adults getting paid to play the game (their real embarrassment comes from their inability to stop the Patriots, not from the Patriots piling it on). The Patriots are extremely good, and they can try to score as many points as they possibly can. I root against the Patriots (not out of hatred of anybody on the Patriots, but because the Patriots have already won three championships this decade and I don't care to see another, and their fans have been treated to more sports pleasure in seven years than I'll likely get in my lifetime), but I don't want to justify my anti-rooting by complaining about running up the score.

Other Links
Tarvaris Jackson should be back on Sunday (Star Tribune). Crap.

The Vikings have to stop Antonio Gates (Star Tribune).

Pro-football-reference.com provides the data on some interesting point differential numbers for previous Super Bowl champs. I now have a new idea of the greatest team ever: the 1984 49ers went 15-1 and their only loss was by a field goal. And yet the 49ers' 1989 team and 1994 team were each probably much better.

Thanks to Fanhouse, I'm for some reason looking at a Star Tribune article from the business section. It's about Brad Childress. It's interesting enough. My understanding of the business world is based primarily on American literature (Death of a Salesman, Bartleby the Scrivener) and television (Seinfeld, Kids in the Hall). I have no idea what that's all about. What do businessmen do all day? I figure they're like Kids in the Hall portrays them. Anyway, the article is good though--it's actually a reasoned, analytical approach to Childress' shortcomings (so you'll get 1,000 times more out of this article than a Jim Souhan column).

Dave Zirin writes on the University of Illinois' mascot. Though he's quickly dismissive of the free speech angle (something I could develop more in the future), it's a solid article.

Daily Norseman looks at Brad Childress lookalikes. I sort of wish Tobias Fünke were the Viking coach. Although not really.

Timberwolves start tomorrow! And they signed Al Jefferson to an extension! Fun times. We're hosting a Halloweenish party on Friday--hope nobody minds if the game's on in the background.

Masochism

Marty Burns has the Timberwolves last in his power ranking. Bill Simmons predicts they'll finish with the worst record. So why am I so excited to start following the Wolves' season?

It's probably because they're so much like the Wolves teams I grew up with. For a while in the 90s, I was watching every T-Wolves game I possibly could. Doug West. Christian Laettner. Chuck Person. Man, those teams were bad. Every year preseason stories focused on whether the Wolves were capable of breaking the franchise record for wins in a season (it was 29). Of course, they never did (and the next season routinely got a lottery pick that left them just missing out on really good players).

Now the Wolves are like that. Nobody thinks they'll be any good at all. A lot of people think they'll be the worst team in the league. They've got all these young players that we recognize but that have never been any good.

Gone is the man, the myth, the legend, the big ticket and face of the franchise, the soul we knew and understood, the spirit that spoke to us, the athlete whose very movements and demeanor seeped into our beings, Kevin Garnett. I understood KG's movements. I knew the looks on his face. They were familiar.

And now it's new. And apparently everybody thinks it will suck.

I don't think it will be quite that bad, and that there's enough hope to make a surprise. I'm ready to root for Sebastian Telfair to become the next great NBA point guard. A part of me really believes it will happen. Why not? Why couldn't it happen? Is this just another Great Pumpkin?

When I look at the roster, I see all sorts of young players that could be good and are worth rooting for. Telfair. Jefferson. Foye. McCants. Smith. Brewer. Green.

Why not? The last three seasons felt heavy. This season feels light. That's all I can say. Let's have some fun.

Charlie Brown and the Minnesota Vikings

Poor Charlie Brown. All he wants to do is kick that football. And that stupid girl always pulls the ball away so that he falls down. Charlie Brown, the archetypal loser. Everybody else gets candy; Charlie Brown gets rocks. But he's not the only member of the Peanuts gang to remind me of the Minnesota Vikings.

In "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown," Linus sits around all night waiting for the Great Pumpkin while all his friends go out trick or treating. They don't believe, and they go party; Linus has faith, and so he waits.

Linus writes letters to the Great Pumpkin. While he writes, his friends come to mock and ridicule him. There's no Great Pumpkin and he's a moron for thinking there is. Why is he wasting his time? It's worthy of mockery and laughter.

In a conventional plot narrative, the faithful hero withstands the scorn of society and is rewarded for his faith. But Peanuts never gives us a conventional plot narrative. We see characters suffering through a world they don't understand. We see failure and disappointment. We see cruelty and depression.

And so Linus is never rewarded for his faith. Ultimately, he spends Halloween out in a pumpkin patch waiting for nothing. His friends make costumes and get candy; Linus waits on an empty faith.

Tell me, Viking fans, you don't know this story. It's not surprising that Charles Schulz is a Minnesotan. He was writing Peanuts before the Vikings even existed, of course. But there's something here, something in the long, cold, snowy winters, that prepares us for emptiness and disappointment. It makes the Vikings the perfect team for us. We wait and wait and wait and withstand the scorn of all around us, but our faith is never rewarded. Eventually, some of us are like Sally: we realize it is all stupid and give up in anger, cynical and jaded. But some of us, like Linus, take this year's failure in sadness, but hope and believe that next year, maybe, perhaps, the Great Pumpkin will show up. "Just wait til next year Charlie Brown! You'll see!" Linus is intent, devoted to the idea of the Great Pumpkin, and no matter how badly he is disappointed, he'll be back. Because he believes.

We're all Linus sitting out in a pumpkin patch. Blockheads.

Memo to "Memo to:" go away

Last year, all sorts of people were thrown under the bus. This year, all sorts of people are getting memos.

The cliche of the moment that is all over English writing, including sportswriting, is "memo to." Usually, "memo to" is followed by some obvious bit of advice or information.

Mike Florio of PFT writes: "Memo to Ed: 'Ya think?'"

James Gordon of the Ottowa Citizen writes: "One last memo to Burke: the Oilers are now ahead of your team in the standings with a game in hand."

Jeff Potrykus of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal writes: "Memo to UW fans: Take a moment in the next few weeks to appreciate the skill of Mehlhaff."

Clark Judge of CBS Sports writes: "Memo to Dan Snyder: Find a wide receiver by next year."

The New York Daily News' Mitch Lawrence writes: "Memo to Steve Nash's teammates: Stay on the bench next spring."

Dan Connolly of the Baltimore Sun writes: "And, memo to a giddy Red Sox Nation: The other 22 have ended up as world champions."

People: this is just a sampling of sports articles I found from the last two days. What if I expanded my search out for the last week? What if I expanded it beyond sportswriting to include all writing?

Bloggers are really no better, but if I wanted to list blogs that included the "memo to" cliche recently, I couldn't finish this post in time to watch Journeyman.

Such repetitive, unthinking use of language suggests a lack of creativity. Essentially, one sportswriter could be replaced by any other sportswriter, and you'd get a similar result. Send Dan Connolly to Ottowa, send Jeff Potrykus to Baltimore, send Mitch Lawrence to Milwaukee, and you'll still get columns with "Memo to" followed by some attempt at witty obviousness.

On the couch, week eight

My thoughts on the Viking game (and even on military displays at sporting events) are below at "Coming off the ledge: Eagles 23, Vikings 16." "On the couch" is a chance to talk about other goings on in the NFL this week in a fairly orderless, unorganized fashion.

Week Eight Scores at NFL.com

Hype for New England-Indianapolis
Last week I already heard people complaining about the hype that was being given to the upcoming Patriots-Colts game. I don't complain about the hype for a very simple reason: if I don't like it, I can ignore it. Nobody is forcing hype for this game upon me. If I want to read about the game, I can. If I don't want to, I don't have to.

Not that there aren't valid complaints about hype that is forced upon you. PFT noted that during the Colts-Jaguars Monday night game, ESPN was spending a lot of time talking about the Patriots. This is hype that you can't avoid if you simply want to watch the Jaguars play the Colts.

And, if you think that you simply need to watch ESPN a lot during the week, then you'll probably feel it forced upon you. If you feel the need to listen to a lot of talk radio, you might feel like it's forced upon you. But if you get sports coverage through newspapers and the internet, you can choose what to read and what not to read. If you don't like the hype, for the most part, it's your own fault: you can avoid it.

Each team continues to impress. The Patriots won 52-7 and the Colts won 31-7 this week. And next week when these two undefeated teams play, I'll miss the first half because I'll be driving home from the Viking-Charger game (and now the Chargers are good, moving to 4-3 with a 35-10 win. Glad the Vikings get to play them while their hot--but more on that game later in the week. While I'm in the parentheses, we can also note that the Steelers moved to 5-2, and the Steelers and Chargers are each capable of knocking off the Colts in the playoffs. I'm not sure they can play with the Pats, though. I hope so).

The Cosmos
I just need to process this: in this decade, the Red Sox have won two World Series and the Patriots have won three Super Bowls (and are currently dominating the NFL to an unprecedented level). Meanwhile, in Minnesota, we haven't seen a pro team reach the championship round since 1991.

Of course we all recognize that life is not fair, that the universe isn't striving for equality, that any God in the cosmos isn't interceding into the outcomes of sporting events to try spread joy around (if He is while ignoring everything else, we're really screwed, which we probably are anyway). But this is where I recognize again that the Cosmos has placed me on the side of the losers. Oh, I'm not going to complain about my life, which is pretty good (and I'm very aware of the very real suffering that is occurring all over the world, making this whining about sports always feel irrelevant and stupid). It is just that it is not in my lot to be on the side of the winners, and this extends into my political, social, and moral views. I'm always picking losing sides and fighting unwinnable causes. Is sports reflecting life, or is life reflecting sports?

Stats
Let's look at the NFL's statistical leaders at ESPN for fun things. Adrian Peterson still leads the league in rushing--and still has an incredible 5.8 yards per attempt. Trent Cole leads the league with 9 sacks, and from my seat at the back of the Metrodome, it sure felt like he dominated the Vikings (or that Bryant McKinnie is an awful pass blocker). Tom Brady now has 30 TDs and 2 INTs, which really is a Tecmo stat (I don't think you could even pull this off in Madden, as defenders would get some tips or jumps on the ball and pick off more than two passes). Note that Derek Anderson is #2 in the league in TD passes, one of those things nobody has any chance of predicting before the season. I would have predicted that the Browns would throw fewer than 17 TD passes all season and that Anderson would have none of them. And Anderson is having a positive impact on Braylon Edwards, who is involved in a spectacular (and relatively unexpected) fantasy season. It looks like he's everything he was made out to be when he was drafted #3. And let me just point out as a fantasy footballer that Reggie Wayne has been everything I hoped he would be and more.

Parity
Three teams are completely doubling up their opponents' points: New England (331-127), Indianapolis (224-102), and Pittsburgh (184-91, and that despite two losses). If this is parity I don't want to know what a league of juggernauts would look like.

Tonight
Another good Monday night matchup, featuring Green Bay at Denver. It could be the Viking fan in my, but I'm predicting a Denver win (call me Metrodamus). Denver has the defensive backs to make things difficult on Favre. Perhaps I see only what I want to believe.

Coming off the ledge: Eagles 23, Vikings 16

Eagles-Vikings Box Score at NFL.com

The Vikings lost another game by a one score margin (the fourth such loss this season). And what is there to say that there wasn't to say for the previous three? The Vikes lost primarily because of their deficiencies in the passing game, offensively and defense. They can't mount a consistent passing game and they can't stop an opposing passing game. That's all.

At the beginning of the season, I thought the Vikings' ability to run and stop the run would allow them to keep games close and overcome the passing game deficiencies. I was right that they are able to keep games close, but obviously wrong that they could overcome the inabilities to pass or stop the pass. To win games, this Viking team needs to do the little things right. Like not field a kickoff while stepping out of bounds at the one (Peterson). Like bumbling a ball into the end zone when you have a chance to pin the opponent inside the three (Leber). Like not wasting timeouts on completely unwinnable challenges (Childress). The Vikings can win, but they don't. It's getting harder to find unique things to say about Viking losses, because they all seem the same now. So here's the new template:

It was a close, winnable game, but the Vikings gave up too many plays in the passing game, couldn't really make plays passing offensively, and made a few small mistakes that could have turned the game the other way.

Pass to Peterson!
Today it seemed that every running play with Adrian Peterson was the same play, just left or right. Can't the Vikings find ways to get Peterson involved in the passing game? It just makes such obvious sense.

A. The team doesn't have any consistent threat in the passing game--meaning passing to your best skill position player just makes sense.

B. Peterson is an incredible runner capable of making big plays when he's in the open field--meaning that throwing passes to him gives him such opportunities.

If the Vikings want to score points, they need to throw the pass to Peterson. Today Peterson had 20 rushing attempts, for a pretty mediocre 70 yards. If Peterson catches 3-4 passes, doesn't he produce many more yards?

A pacifist at a football game
As a pacifist, I'm often bothered when promotion of the military is merged so prominently with professional sports. Today at halftime, marines came to the Metrodome put on a show marching around and twirling their rifles. I know that many see such displays as a chance to appreciate, support, and thank soldiers for their sacrfice. I hope you can also understand why I see such displays as glorification of militarism.

Why are marines practicing these exercises in which they march around in silent unison doing tricks with rifles? Yes, I understand it reflects and instills discipline (and perhaps boosts morale, I'm not sure). But what does it serve? If the terrorists could see the marines silently marching in step and spinning their guns, would they give up and stop fighting? The drill/performance of marching and spinning guns appears a deliberate attempt to promote militarism. There's little utilitarian benefit; the primary benefit is to promote the military and instill support among people for military values.

I understand that many people associate patriotism with support for the military. As a person with practical, moral, and religious objection to war, I do not do so. And I continue to be dismayed as sporting events are used to show off the military.

Traffic
I don't blame people who leave games early. I don't see them as inferior fans. They're just trying to beat the ridiculous traffic around the Metrodome. It's brutal.

Downtown Minneapolis makes it brutally difficult to get back to St. Paul. But that's only part of the problem. No matter where you go, you're getting there slowly. If I choose not to renew my season tickets, after game traffic will be a primary reason.

Who I like on the Vikings right now
E.J. Henderson. The Vikings were wise to sign him to a contract extention, and wise to move him to middle linebacker. He's all over the field making tackles.

Pat Williams. Williams is a monster; teams simply cannot run up the middle.

Adrian Peterson. He's still the only hope for a future offense in Minnesota. THROW him the ball!

Brooks Bollinger. It's not that I really think he's any good. But Tarvaris Jackson can't throw an accurate pass, and Kelly Holcomb gets sacked all the time (because he's immobile, and he holds the ball too long). Bollinger is mobile and throws quickly. Of all the QBs on the roster, he might give the team the best chance to win. Though I'm not entirely sure signing Bo McNobody off the street wouldn't give the team a better chance to win.

Keep Mewelde Moore active and let him return punts.
Just do it. Bobby Wade gives you no chance at a big return; Moore gives you some chance. The offense is crappy; it might be helpful if the punt return team gave the team some better field position.

Looking forward
Let's put off the "We can now give up on the 2007 season" post for at least another week. I'm not saying it couldn't come now, only that I'm putting it off for at least a week.

National Friday League, week eight

Vikings-Eagles
The Eagles have been struggling in the red zone; the Vikings have a good red zone defense. Sounds like a field goal game. I really do expect Donovan McNabb to throw for over 300 yards against the Vikings, but for the Eagles to still score fewer than 21 points.

To win, then, the Vikings need to establish the running game and stick with it. That may be a cliche, but for this team, it's true: If Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor combine for 35+ carries, the Vikings can win. If Peterson and Taylor combine for under 20 carries, the Vikings will probably lose (though that's more correlational than causal). We should be quite content if Kelly Holcomb drops back to throw no more than 20 times.

The Vikings really need to win this game. At 3-4, with 5 more home games, they'd have a chance to salvage a respectable season and just maybe fight for a playoff spot. At 2-5 after a home loss to what appears to be a mediocre Eagle team, the Vikings would really look like a team without hope.

Finally, I like Donovan McNabb: I think he's a good quarterback and a good person that has faced a lot of undue criticism. I really wish him well in his career, and if I weren't rooting against him, I'd really enjoy getting to watch him play live (which I still might). But if the Vikings hasten McNabb's departure from Philadelphia--and eventual arrival in Minnesota--by beating up on the Eagles, then by all means, beat up on the Eagles. Give me my fantasies of the 2008 Vikings with Donovan McNabb (fully recovered from his ACL injury) faking a handoff to rushing leader Adrian Peterson and throwing deep to Larry Fitzgerald. We all need our fantasies.

Week Eight Matchups

New England-Washington
Randy Moss has been a man possessed this season, but let's remember something about the Randy Moss we know: he doesn't like to get hit. On those two spectacular TD catches against the Dolphins, did you notice that the defensive backs were basically bystanders? If Tom Brady throws passes like that against Washington, I don't think Sean Taylor is going to prance about watching it happen. And when Moss starts taking hits, he starts not going after those jump balls with quite the blasé intensity.

I'm not saying Washington will beat New England--Randy Moss could stand on the sidelines all day and the Pats would still be the better team. But watch for Moss' performance when the game gets physical.

World Series = No Sunday Night Football
Why? There are 17 regular season Sundays a year; why does one of those Sundays have to feature less televised football because of baseball? Some football fans don't care about baseball. I would guess the majority of football fans don't care about two particular baseball teams. Why does the NFL need to give MLB Sunday night?

Starting your fantasy players against your favorite team is like having sex with a sadist: sure, you'll probably get an orgasm out of it one way or another, but you're not going to come out of it unscathed.
Sunday is the first time this season one of my fantasy players faces off against the Vikings. I'm sticking with the Donovan McNabb experience, even against my beloved Vikings. And I get to watch it all happen live. Obviously team loyalty trumps fantasy loyalty and always does, but it's still a mildly unpleasant experience.

Other wacky fantasy football situations
What do you root for when your fantasy quarterback starts against your fantasy defense? What do you root for when your fantasy quarterback is throwing to your opponent's fantasy receiver? I always liked when Bart Simpson said "George Burns was right: show biz is a horrible bitch goddess." So is fantasy football: it will turn your mind into a bakery twist.

Links
Pro-football-reference.com asks "what does 2007 say about Randy Moss?"

According to Cold, Hard Football Facts, the Vikes still lead the league in big plays and big play differential.

The Vikings signed punter Chris Kluwe to an extention (blah, blah, blah) (ESPN).

Weekend
I don't care if the Lions or Bears beat each other (ideally they tie), and the Packers play Monday night. So enjoy your weekend everybody. Except Eagle fans.

Addendum
Do you want to know why Eli Manning said "Screw you San Diego: I play where I want"? It's explained by birth order. What was that bang? explores more at Epic Carnival.

Uff da!

Check out ESPN's Timberwolves preview. Or maybe, don't. All the experts predict them to be in the bottom three in the Western Conference (actually most predict them dead last), and the comments...ouch. They actually sting a bit.

Oh well. When I was following this team in the early 90s, there was really no hope at all and it was still sort of fun sometimes.

Thursday Blizzard

Look at the Timberwolves' roster. There are currently 11 players on the roster born between 1981 and 1986. Win or lose, I actually think it's going to be fun watching the Wolves this year.

According to the Star Tribune, "Vikings coach Brad Childress said Peterson's role 'will increase as we go through the rest of the football season.'" That's a good thing. I've clearly stated that Childress is wise to mix up Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor to keep Peterson healthy and effective. Mixing them up, however, still means Peterson should be the primary back over Taylor, and needs to get 20+ touches. Of course, if you mix it up and struggle offensively, failing to pick up first downs and thus failing to run very many plays, Peterson might be underused (as he was against Dallas). If you can control the clock, churn out first downs, and sustain drives, then it's possible to get both your RBs 20+ carries (as the Vikes did against Chicago). Honestly, if I had this Viking team in Madden, I would just go to an old college football strategy, and run first, second, and (if possible) third down with Adrian Peterson, Chester Taylor, and Mewelde Moore. Don't bother establishing a passing game.

The Pioneer Press says Kelly Holcomb probably starts for the Vikes this Sunday.

Daily Norseman discusses the Viking QB situation.

Dr. Z goes off on the quarterback rating stat. I agree--I've never paid attention to the rating and I never will. I feel there are all sorts of numbers for a QB that you can analyze to understand his performance, and there's no reason to try simplify that into one meaningless number. With a QB, you can look at completion percentage, yards per attempt, yards per completion, TD passes, INTs, and yards. All those numbers can tell me something about a QB's performance during a game or season. A rating? Nothing. It means nothing to me.

I like that new show Cavemen, so this Outsports post on "The caveman as sex symbol" is sort of amusing.

At Deadspin, Bethlehem Shoals writes interesting bits on Dirk Nowitzki and on LeBron James.

The Starting Five has a piece up on "The Influence of the Black Athlete on Our Children."

Dave Zirin responds to Jason Whitlock's very odd and awkward column on race in the NFL (also posted at the Starting Five).

The Kelly Reformation

Due to counter-revolutionary activities in Tarvaris Jackson's finger, the Kelly Holcomb Reformation is likely to revive itself on Sunday.

The Vikes were 0-2 in Holcomb's starts, averaging 13 points per game. An inaccurate long pass from Holcomb certainly cost the team a TD against the Chiefs, and another inaccurate long pass likely cost the team a long completion against the Packers. You have three days to convince yourself that Holcomb, who didn't join the team until August, still lacked timing with his receivers in September. Holcomb was also sacked 10 times in his two starts. You have three days to convince yourself that the protection problems have been solved.

The Holcomb Reformation seeks out a renewed faith.

Basketball does exist in Minnesota

With the trade of KG, I think many Timberwolves fans were left disillusioned and wondering what the point of life was. This was especially true for the writer of this post. In my short 27 years of life most spent as a fan of both the Vikings and Timberwolves, I had seen the Vikings trade away my favorite players Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper and now I had to watch the Timberwolves trade away the only face the franchise has really every had. Before this trade, when you said the Timberwolves everyone instantly thought of Kevin Garnett.

Now I think the trade was necessary if the Wolves were going to become successful long-term and I hope it allows KG to have the team success he deserves, but I also think the trade wouldn't have been necessary if we didn't have an inept owner and GM. I blame Kevin McHale for Kevin Garnett not being able to be a Timberwolve for life, but now I am starting to think McHale is learning from his mistakes (either that or Fred Hoiberg is really pulling the strings and McHale will soon be gone).

Today the Twolves traded Ricky Davis and Mark Blount to the Heat for Antoine Walker, Michael Doleac, Wayne Simien and a protected 1st round pick (lottery protected in 2008, Top 10 protected in 2009, and top 6 protected in 2010, unprotected after that).

This was a great move by the Timberwolves. First, it got rid of the team destructing attitude of me-first Ricky Davis (anyone remember when he missed a shot on purpose so he could get the rebound in order to get a triple-double?) and it got rid of the 3 year contract of Mark Blount. In return we get the 2 year contract of one time favorite player of Holy Hitter, Antoine Walker. Michael Doleac is a who-cares make it work and a big body. Wayne Simien is an intriguing players. A former first rounder who has had knee issues his rookie year and had solmonella poisining last year. He is 6-9 and a about 260 pounds which means he is another big body to put down low with the new face of our franchise Al Jefferson (who by the way is dominating the pre-season for the Twolves. He is putting up similar points and rebounds as KG but lacks the overall game in terms of assists, etc.). One article I read believed that the Twolves would probably pull off one more trade before the season began, so we will take a wait and see approach on this one. I am also excited that we now can get a 1st round pick back (making us about even with our worthless Clippers trade for Jaric where we lost a 1st rounder, which we should have until it is unprotected in 2012).

THE ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR MCHALE AND TAYLOR TO DO NOW IS SIGN AL JEFFERSON TO AN EXTENSION BEFORE THE OCTOBER 31st DEADLINE. (His price tag is only going to rise if he plays the season and then is able to receive offers from other teams)

The New and Improved PV's Sports Toothache

A brief explanation is in order for the new title and appearance.

We've changed the title and color scheme for a two reasons. First, we write on this blog about whatever in sports happens to be on our minds. A lot of the time (especially from September through December), that's the Minnesota Vikings. We're very happy to write about the Vikings, and are happy that we have a lot of Viking fans as readers. But a lot of the time, we write about issues and events in sports that don't include the Vikings. I feel the title "Pacifist Viking" with a purple and yellow color scheme tended to give the impression this was primarily a Viking blog. There's a lot about the Vikings (so don't fret, readers who frequent this blog primarily for the Viking talk), but there's a lot that's not. We want to make that a little clearer.

Second, we have three contributors. When one contributor has the same name as the title of the blog, it tends to a. confuse readers as to authorship and b. associate all the ideas with the person of that name. Last winter I briefly changed my own moniker to help it make sense, but I didn't like that. Now, with a new title for focus anyway, we can also make it a little clearer that there are several different voices here (and may be more in the future).

The URL is the same. And if you've already linked to us as "Pacifist Viking," I wouldn't bother changing it, since "Pacifist Viking" is fine shorthand for this blog (and I'm rather fickle, and could change my mind on the title again anyway).

There's also no reason to think the content is changing. As I said, we write about whatever in sports we feel like writing about. That's often the Vikings, and the new look and title won't lower the amount of Viking posts (we also don't want to drive away our Viking fan readers, who provide much of the commenting. We want this to continue to be a place where we can discuss the Purple). We just want to make it a little clearer that we also write about other things (mostly football, but a fair amount of basketball depending on the season, with the stuff on writing and theory thrown in on a lot of sports topics).

The title comes from Notes from the Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The man from the underground rejects the idea that science, reason, and "our own best interest" governs human behavior, instead claiming irrational desires (primarily the desire to assert free will) drives us. The man from the underground suggests there can even be pleasure in a toothache, as it allows you to bother people with your own groaning. As Minnesota sports fans, we have a massive toothache: we may as well try take pleasure in it and at least enjoy our own groaning.

This extended narcissistic explanation is complete. Enjoy your day, and enjoy the blog.

Wednesday Blizzard

Tom Powers on playing Tarvaris Jackson: "you can't flush an entire season down the drain while you try to develop a quarterback. [...] OK, they screwed up. Everybody makes a mistake. But do they have to pretend they didn't? There's no reason to live with this error week after week." Hey, if I read a lousy columnist long enough, eventually he'll write something I agree with.

Tarvaris Jackson says he can "play around" his injury, but if he's a 46% passer with a good hand, what's he going to do with a broken finger (Pioneer Press)?

PFT's Mike Florio writes at the Sporting News of Adrian Peterson: "the real question moving forward for Peterson and the Vikings is whether he is going to be a great player on a winning team. Or whether he is going to be the next Barry Sanders, who could run like no other but never really won? [...] Far too many great running backs -- Sanders, Gayle Sayers, O.J. Simpson, etc. -- never had a capable quarterback who could take advantage of defenses loaded up to stop the run." The article focuses on the short-term, so there's no need to hammer it, but it's pure speculation whether Adrian Peterson will be a great RB wasted on a bad team. He's a rookie, and we don't know who the coach or quarterback of the team might be in 2008, much less in the period 3-7 years from now when Peterson could be in his prime (and it's worth noting that the Lions went to the playoffs in 5 of his 10 seasons--pretty impressive since they have a total of 9 playoff appearances since their last championship in 1957. But this perhaps proves Florio's point about Sanders more than negates it).

Outsports writes on a former Gopher basketball player coming out.

Cold Hard Football Facts writes that the Patriots are chasing not the 1998 Vikings' scoring record, but the 1950 Rams' scoring record (I agree--and we need to take note of more per game records to recognize the players and teams from the 12 and 14 game eras).

I take care of my son at home two days a week, and often while we play around with toys on the floor I have the TV on (this is my attempt at an excuse for watching Dr. Phil). Yesterday I saw Mitch Albom on the show, sharing the wisdom of Morrie to help save peoples' marriages.

To further explore my TV watching, last night's Cavemen episode featured one of the cavemen substitute teaching at a high school whose nickname was "The Fighting Savages." Students ran around with clubs saying "Ook! Ook!" and the mascot was a big caveman with exaggerated features. I think it was actually relevant to the controversy over sports teams and Native American mascots: the show presented a member of the offended group attempting to express his concern, and those in power and the majority essentially ignoring and dismissing his complaint.

Finally, there may be a few changes coming at this blog soon. The content will be largely the same, but I'm going to tweak with the visual presentation. Better get your popcorn, I guess.

Let us sing no sad songs if the Revolution is thwarted

In "Vikings have little choice with Jackson," Kevin Seifert writes "Either way, it's a lose-lose situation. Turn to Holcomb and Jackson's evaluation period flows undesirably into 2008. Stay with Jackson and risk a disastrous season if he does not improve."

But no matter what happens this season, there's no rule stating that Tarvaris Jackson must play in 2008. None at all. If the coaching staff benches him now, it could be his final benching.

Though the Vikings have made their 2007 season largely dependent on Tarvaris Jackson, from a draft/money perspective, they don't have that much invested in Jackson. Jackson was the 64th player selected in the 2006 draft. Let's look at Drafthistory.com for QBs drafted within ten picks of #64 in the last 20 or so drafts.

2005: Charlie Frye (#67) and Andrew Walter (#69): Each player got a chance to show his ability, and when each failed, their respective teams had no trouble cutting their losses.
2001: Marques Tuiasopopo (#59): A wasted pick, but the Raiders didn't make things worse by forcing him in there lest they prove they wasted the 59th pick.
2000: Giovanni Carmazzi (#65): I can't recall Carmazzi throwing a single NFL pass.
1998: Charlie Batch (#60): When Batch actually mustered out an OK career as a backup and occasional starter, it was more of a pleasant surprise than anything.
1995: Kordell Stewart (#60): There are probably varying opinions on Stewart: he was sort of good and sort of bad, and the Steelers gave him a long chance to be good.
1993: Billy Joe Hobert (#58): Did he ever throw a pass? I have no idea.
1990: Peter Tom Willis (#63): I once got a a football card of Peter Tom Willis. I don't know whhere that card is anymore.
1989: Anthony Dilweg (#74): Did he ever play?
1987: Cody Carlson (#64): I recall him as a competent backup and then starter on an awful team.
1986: Bubby Brister (#67) and Hugh Millen (#71): Brister had a solid career as a backup QB (never a great starter); Hugh Millen is Chris Miller's backup in Tecmo Super Bowl and that's all I know about him.

The point of looking at this list is to show that there's no reason the Vikings have to push Jackson's "evaluation period" into 2008. There are other teams that drafted QBs in a similar draft slot, and they didn't seem to feel the necessity to play him if it was clear he sucked. The Vikes could abandon the evaluation now if they wish, and it's a lost pick, but it's still only their 4th pick of 2006. And abandoning that 64th pick is a lot better option than pushing the suckitude into 2008. Stop now and it's a lost pick; push it unnecessarily because you feel you must find out if your 64th pick is good, and it's a lost two seasons.

In Les Miserables, after the uprising has been thwarted, Marius sings "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables," mourning the loss of his revolutionary friends. If the Tarvaris Revolution is thwarted, let us not singly mournful revolutionary hymns, and let us not perpetuate the problem by attempting to revive and continue the Revolution; let us move on and marry Cosette and have a nice happy life having sex with her (alright, at this point the metaphor has gone a little too far).

And if you now define me as another fickle Viking fan abandoning another struggling quarterback, C'est la vie.

Consider the Colts

On Sunday, the Patriots wowed us all with a 49-28 victory over the Dolphins. Tom Brady put up Tecmo Bowl stats (21-25, 354, 6 TDs), and Randy Moss continued his crusade to rid the world of competent defensive backs, bringing his season totals to a 732 yards and 10 TDs in 7 games (and I think Randy Moss is more likely to catch Jerry Rice's single-season record of 22 TD receptions than Tom Brady is to catch Peyton Manning's single-season record of 49 TD passes, but we shall see).

The Patriots are rolling. Football Outsiders points out that they've won their first seven games by 17 points or more each, an historic streak. I really do love Tecmo numbers, so Brady's 27 TDs, 2 INTs, and 73.8% passing is worth cooing over.

But let's consider that Sunday's win was against a still winless Dolphin team.

Tonight the Colts went into Jacksonville and came out with a 29-7 win. Jacksonville came into the game 4-1; the Colts won by 22 points and outgained them 384 yards to 226 yards. Peyton Manning and the Colts put up 29 points (27 offensive) against a team that had given up 58 points in its first five games (#1 in the league).

So consider this: the Patriots played an 0-6 team on the road that had been giving up 30.3 points per game, and and scored 49 points in a 21 point victory. The Colts played a 4-1 team on the road that had been giving up 11.6 points per game, and scored 29 points in a 22 point victory.

Which victory are you more impressed with?

The Patriots are impressively dominant, and deservedly Super Bowl favorites. But the Colts, winners of their last three games against the Patriots (two regular season games at New England and a playoff game at Indianapolis) are the defending champs.

The Patriots' division opponents are a combined 1-12 outside the division; the Colts' division opponents are a combined 8-2 outside the division (NFL standings). In a lot of their games, the Patriots are going to continue to look more impressive than the Colts. That doesn't mean the Colts (who have had some very impressive victories against competitive opponents) aren't ready to compete with the Patriots.

I'm not saying the Colts are better than the Patriots, and I'm not saying the Colts will beat the Patriots (in two weeks, or in three months). But while we're all admiring (or reviling) the incredible success of the 2007 New England Patriots, we have to remember that the 2007 Indianapolis Colts are looking rather impressive themselves.