You are aware that the Colts had some injuries as well? They were (and always are) missing Bob Sanders. Their #2 WR, Gonzalez, was also out. Injuries are part of the game, don't bitch about them unless the Jets are banged up and playing a completely healthy team. Also, just because Peyton played better when Strickland left the game doesn't mean he wouldn't have played better (figured out the defense) at some point. Peyton tends to play better as the game goes on. Don't fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. This is what occurs when one mistakes temporal alignment for causality. Strickland left and Peyton played better. By the same token, you turned on the game and then the Jets lost. You need more stats than merely the fact that Strickland left and Peyton played better to pin the game being lost on that. And NO, I'm not saying that Strickland leaving had no impact whatsoever; only that it wasn't the only important factor. I know you don't like the guy, but give Manning his due. He's the best QB I've ever seen play live. He can't help it if his fans are fat, obnoxious, slovenly, bandwagoners, that are only separated from being Patriots fans by the noticeable factors of geography and less use of the word "dahkie."
Well I don't know how the game would have went down with two perfectly healthy squad. Sanders and Gonzalez were injured (IRed?), but Jets also had Jenkins (Best defender behind Revis), and Leon (most explosive offensive player) on the IR for several wks. Shaun Ellis, Bart Scott, Lowery, Strickland and Greene were also injured while Mangold and Lito weren't 100% either. Leon and Greene were out. TJ was done with the season two wks prior. Jets offense was run heavy, that pretty much stalled half way through the game due to injuries to their RBs. These injuries would have made this game much closer than it looked. Healthy RBs would have helped the Jets score more pts in the second half and a healthy DL/LB/DB group would have somewhat helped keep the Colts offense in check. Would the Jets have won? IDK, but it would have been a much closer game.
I'm not trying to make some sort of counterfactual argument about what might have happened if there weren't any injuries; you can't argue a counterfactual and it's just silly to talk about a conference championship game and say remove the injuries. Injured players playing would have changed the game,that's all we can say with certainty. The only reason I even posted in the first place is because it's silly to say "if {insert player} wasn't hurt, we never would have lost that game." Yeah, and if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon. The only manner in which it is acceptable to harp on injuries, IMO, is when you've won the game and you're just trying to rub it in. Lines like "yeah, your QB couldn't complete a pass against our banged up secondary" are both insulting while also making legitimate points. Look at Tony Romo in the 2006 playoff loss to Seattle. EVERYONE focuses on the bobbled snap (a moment so glorious it makes my penis happy) but people disregard that Seattle had 2 street FAs in their secondary that night. It should never have come down to a field goal, but Romo didn't play well against obviously inferior competition. The game would be interesting if everyone was healthy. How much pressure would Jenkins get? Would Gonzalez have allowed Peyton to spread out and pick apart the defense similar to how he actually did? Would Bob Sanders have made a play on a Sanchez pass? Would the Jets have consistently good field position thanks to Leon? There are too many variables to consider. In any event, it's silly to blame the loss on your own injuries when the other side had injuries too. That's all I wanted to say, really.
^not that I disagree with you. IMO, game would have been closer, but I still think Colts would have won. You have to admit Colts were a better team. Jets became even weaker with the in game injuries. Jets probably weren't going to play in the Super Bowl even if they didn't have injuries.
