No, I remember what the Rams and Colts were like in the early '80s.
Joel Send a noteboard - 31/12/2012 04:14:28 PM
While I doubt we'll win next week, I'd rather seen Peterson play in the postseason or even (gasp) the Superbowl than set a record that means nothing for the TEAM. As the radio has been saying for a week or two now, Dickerson has three of the top 20 placements: if Peterson is more than a flash in the pan as a contender to record-set, he still has another couple of years to do so.
The Colts are remembered chiefly as the team so awful they did not win a game in 1982 and drafted John Elway with the #1 overall draft, only to have him demand a trade and say he would go make millions pitching for the Yankees if he did not get it. The rest, as they say, is history: Baltimore traded Elway to Denver, where he carried the team to three Super Bowls by the end of the decade, and finally won a pair a decade after that; meanwhile, when the city of Baltimore refused the Colts own demand (a new stadium,) the team moved to Indianapolis the year after the Elway trade. Ironically, the Rams traded them Eric Dickerson the year after THAT, but even one of the best runners in history could not make them a decent team.
Thirty years later, here we sit lamenting the fact that, phenomenal as he is DESPITE tearing an ACL AND MCL at the end of last season, Peterson came up a mere 9 yards short of breaking Dickersons record. That context is pretty much the only one in which anyone will ever mention the early '80s Rams and Colts positively.
If I thought the Vikings had a snowballs chance (so to speak) of winning at Lambeau, let alone advancing further, I might feel differently. Setting aside the Vikings' notorious and consistent playoff choking all the way back to Super Bowl IV, they lost (probably their best) two starting defensive backs during the Packers game, and one of their best (remaining) receivers probably got a concussion. And, of course, Lambeau in January....
Here is the real question: What if the officials had not awarded the Packers a TD by replay DESPITE acknowledging McCarthy threw his challenge flag, which should have nullified the replay (sustaining the field ruling: Fumble recovered by the Vikings in the endzone; touchback)? Would Peterson have come up nine yards short? After the TD, the Vikings went three-and-out, then the drove down to tie the game with a field goal; what if there had BEEN no TD (as there should not have been) and the Vikings had managed even as much as a field goal after recovering the fumble? Instead of getting the ball back with just a few minutes to play and trying to get within range to break the tie, they would have been up by at least 7, and possibly 10, points, and fed the ball to the leagues leading rusher for the rest of the game.
Is Peterson nine yards short then? No chance.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 31/12/2012 at 04:15:03 PM
Nine Yards Short; Part of Me Wishes Graham Missed that Kick
31/12/2012 01:39:23 AM
- 766 Views
I'm not a fan of either team, but even I was disappointed about that.
31/12/2012 02:56:46 AM
- 573 Views
You seem to have forgotten that football is a team game.
31/12/2012 02:18:17 PM
- 472 Views
No, I remember what the Rams and Colts were like in the early '80s.
31/12/2012 04:14:28 PM
- 398 Views
The Dickerson trade was in the strike year. His replacement took over as NFC-leading rusher...
01/01/2013 02:33:51 AM
- 476 Views
Ah, it was better to see them win in regular time than for something to go pearshaped in overtime.
31/12/2012 03:59:54 PM
- 396 Views
The Packers D was gassed though; they could not have kept Peterson out of the endzone w/o the clock.
31/12/2012 04:20:46 PM
- 395 Views