I was hoping that my post on Wednesday about the Colts game would've been my last mention of it until next season. However, I feel the need to respond to our Indianapolis Colts affiliate Brad Wells for insulting Cleveland fans. I'm not sure if Wells and Colts fans misunderstood or simply didn't bother to read what I actually said.
Brad Wells said: "In Chris' article, he follows the line that the Colts had an obligation to the integrity of the league to play their starters last weekend."
Chris Pokorny actually said: "If you don't want to risk injuries to your starters, I understand that."
I don't believe I've ever said the Colts had an obligation to play their starters against the Titans. I constantly stated that it was extremely frustrating knowing that the Colts could easily handle the Titans if they just kept their guys in longer, but never did I say what Wells accuses me of saying. If that were the case, then I'd have problems with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Jacksonville Jaguars as well. They earned the chance to rest their guys; more power to them.
Brad Wells said: "Sadly, Chris is now taking the side of known schmucks like Gregg Easterbrook, a man so vapid he needs multiple "g"s in his first name to make him feel special."
Chris Pokorny actually never even stated whether he supported or did not support Easterbrook.
Just because I quote someone's viewpoint doesn't mean I agree with it. Most of the time, I do provide a little mention on my thought of a quote. In this rare case, I merely decided to display someone's perspective from ESPN. Earlier in my piece, by the way, I mentioned several things that I "could've posted about". Do you want to know the reason why I didn't discuss most of those things? Because that would have been bitching without a fair reason to bitch. The only point I did address, Dungy's non-timeout, was my only complaint after the dust had settled.
Brad Wells said: "Bottom line: Anyone complaining about how Dungy handled the final seconds of the Titans game is a loser, and their opinion on the subject means next to nothing."
Whoa, what's with the insults? Especially when Wells himself, just a few paragraphs earlier, admitted that the potential existed for the Colts to block a field goal: "I agree, there was the potential for the Colts to block a potential Rob Bironas FG." And, by my accounts, there have been times in NFL history in which a team has blocked a kick and returned it for a touchdown. That would eliminate Wells' and Colts fans' accusations that Jim Sorgi would've been incapable of leading a drive.
At the end of his piece, Wells did say the following:
This is tough love. This is football.
Calling anyone who complained about the timeout a loser, with an emphasis on the phrase "Bottom Line", sure doesn't sound like something that's not insulting. Wells stated in his piece that he wouldn't be apologetic about what he said. I don't need an apology, but instead I'll suggest that he stop getting his quotations from dreamland. This is tough love. This is football. And, most importantly, this is reality.
I do still love Wells, the Colts, and his site. While my comments in this piece are still true, the purpose of bringing this up is also to stimulate necessary discussion rather than animosity.