http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6441418 Are the Colts an all-time great team? This could be the dumbest article EVER. Basically the idea is that the Colts are a great team because â€śthey were able to be downright awful for long, long stretches and still prevail.â€ť The article lists all the mistakes that Colts overcame in the playoffs to win the Super Bowl. Per the author â€śYou might think that so much poor play would relegate them to the middle tier of NFL champions, but I think it means that the 2006 Colts, playoff edition, were so dominant that they could fall asleep for entire quarters and still win convincingly. The team the Colts put on the field for Super Bowl XLI will go down as one of the best in history.â€ť What? Here is another gem: â€śThe Colts dispatched four formidable playoff opponents without once playing a game that was sound offensively, defensively and on special teams. In other words, they had a rather sizeable margin of error, meaning not only are they a worthy champion but a team so talented they could wade through four opponents with a combined 47-17 (.734) record without once playing their "A" game.â€ť I would argue that this was one the WORST Super Bowl winners because of how bad they played. How soon we forget greatness. The 1985 Bears went 15-1 and won their 3 playoff games by a combined 91-10. They pitched 2 shut outs before dominating the Pats 46-10 in the Super Bowl. How about the 2004 Patriot team? IN the play offs, they beat a 12-4 Indy team that averaged 32.6 points a game in the regular season 20-3. They went into Pittsburgh to face the 15-1 Steelers and won 41-27. In the Super Bowl they faced a 13-3 Philly team and beat them 24-21. So the Pats played teams that were a combined 40-8 (.833), flat out DOMINATED two of the opponents and beat the third but they are not as good as the Colts of 2006 because the Pats didnâ€™t play â€śdownright awful for long, long stretches and still prevail.â€ť So the key to greatness is to play crappy and win.