Prisco was his old self this morning. He thought he had a compelling argument, but I think there are some major holes in it. His argument was that the Colts appear to be the team "built for cold weather", not the Pats. Interesting, but not necessarily correct. His argument boiled down to the way the Colts run the ball, and the Colts' defense.
On both counts I think he lacked the ambition to look at how well Maroney has run in December, and how few points the defense has given up. Also, the Pats were judged upon having played in extreme pressure situations for the last few games of the year, whereas Indy had a lot of pressure removed. Indy was the defending champs but it was the Patriots taking all the pressure.
I also think that if you look at the apparently improving health of Richard, and the increasing contribution of Meriweather, the defense is not giving up much to Indy's. Indy has a younger, faster defense overall, but my response is "So what" if the Pats just gas them again with a no-huddle offense. You can take the speed out of a defense as we proved in Indy.
You can't take the size out of a defense unless you figure out how to get it out of position. Our guys have size, but they also have experience, and it's experience that keeps you right around the ball.
Cold weather play also benefits teams who live and play in it regularly and don't have as bad an attitude about it as a visiting team from FL or a dome. I'm not sure Indy passes that sniff test but Prisco was not going to even look at that factor. There is a mental factor to playing in weather. I can't see how that favors a dome team, Pete.
Prisco was also ignoring the fact that losing in Indy last year is still sticking in Tom Brady's craw. I don't know about you but if I beat Tom Brady in cribbage once, I am sweating the second game just a little more than the first. If motivation doesn't count in the playoffs, when does it? I think Indy is going to take a shot in Foxboro, "built for cold weather" or not, if all holds to schedule this weekend.
