No, I remember what the Rams and Colts were like in the early '80s. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 31/12/2012 04:15:03 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.