Indianapolis Colts-New England Patriots 2009 speaks volumes on current state of NFL's best rivalry

New England Patriots QB Tom Brady (Nam Y. Huh/AP Photo)

Indianapolis Colts/ New England Patriots . . . a final look back . . .

NFL Wednesdays are for looking forward, but when it comes to Indianapolis Colts/New England Patriots, it's acceptable to hedge that time frame just a bit.

That's especially true considering this year's version.

Because this past Sunday's version --won by the Colts in unforgettable, unlikely and unpredictable fashion -- was despite Colts President Bill Polian's message this week to the contrary a game with far more ramifications and implications than the typcial midseason NFL game or even the typical midseason Colts-Patriots game.

As expected from a game that ended with Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick involved in controversy, debate has continued since in the blogosophere. Did Belichick make the right call going for it on 4th-and-2 with just over two minutes remaining leading by six points? Some statistical analysis since has indicated that the call perhaps wasn't as poor as many originally thought, but  what's notable isn't perhaps the result of the play, but what the decision says about the current state of the Patriots-Colts rivalry.

The Patriots, for the very, very few who don't know by now, did not convert the aforementioned attempt, after which the Colts drove 29 yards, beating the Patriots for a fifth time in six meetings when QB Peyton Manning threw his fourth touchdown pass of the game, a one-yard slant to a diving WR Reggie Wayne. The play provided the winning points in a 35-34 Colts victory, a game in which Indianapolis twice trailed by 17 points and trailed by 13 points with four minutes remaining.

WANT TO BE THE FIRST TO KNOW ABOUT THE COLTS. SUBSCRIBE TO JOHN OEHSER'S EXAMINER STORIES BY CLICKING ABOVE

*** CATCH UP WITH ALL THINGS COLTS ON INDY FOOTBALL REPORT. HERE

The wisdom of Belichick's decision is debatable. And it has been debated here, here, here, here and well, just about everywhere. Even whether or not the call was correct has been debated. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports says without question the official missed the call, while Colts Head Coach Jim Caldwell -- who was on the first-down line at the moment in question -- told me Monday afternoon without question Patriots RB Kevin Faulk was bobbling the ball when Colts S Melvin Bullitt knocked him behind the spot needed for the Patriots to retain possession.

Most notable about the game, though, was what it said about how the Patriots now play the Colts, and specifically, how Belichick coaches against them. Former Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach/turned ESPN analyst Jon Gruden touched on it here when he said that there was a whole lot more to the decision than odds and statistics. The fact that Manning was playing quarterback for the Colts, and that Belichick apparently believed after not being able to stop the Colts on two previous length-of-the-field fourth-quarter drives there was little reason to think they could do it with the game at stake, perhaps was the most important part of the story, and one that goes beyond the analysis of one memorable midseason game.

As Michael Lombardi noted on the National Football Post, the decision had more to do with the momentum of one game, and while Lombardi points to the AFC Championship Game following the 2006 season as influencing Belichick Sunday, my sense is it goes even deeper.

The Patriots in 2003-2004 beat the Colts four times, twice in the regular season -- 38-34 in 2003 and 27-24 in 2004 -- and twice in the postseason. In those postseasons, the Patriots stifled the Indianapolis offense, winning 24-14 in 2003 and 20-3 in 2004.

But since that 2004 meeting, and even including the 2003 and 2004 regular-seasons, the oft-cited idea that the Patriots -- and specifically, Belichick -- are somehow in the heads of the Colts -- and specifically, Manning -- just isn't supported by facts. Since 2005, the Colts and Patriots have played six times. The Colts scored at least 18 points in every meeting and three times have scored 35 or more -- a 40-21 victory in 2005, a 38-34 victory in the AFC Championship Game following the 2006 regular season and Sunday's game. In those six games, the Colts have averaged nearly 30 points a game and Manning has thrown 13 touchdown passes and six interceptions.

You'd gotten the feeling the last few years Belichick no longer had much confidence the Patriots could consistently stop the Colts. He went for it on fourth down early in the AFC Championship Game in February 2007, and had done so multiple times during that regular season. Going for it on fourth down isn't unusal for Belichick, but there was a little more of a feeling of necessity in those instances.

Then came Sunday night, a night when the Patriots for three quarters -- really, three and a half -- had the distinct look of the superior team. The Patriots defense forced seven punts, intercepted Manning twice. One interception came in the fourth quarter, but after Manning drove the Colts 79 yards for a touchdown in 1:49 to cut the lead to six, the defensive stops suddenly seemed a distant memory. The Colts' defense, which struggled much of the game to stop New England but which was doing so consistently in the fourth quarter, forced 4th-and-2 -- and forced the decision that has been debated since.

The Colts defensive players made headlines about how the decision disrespected them. Perhaps, but what it says about Belichick's confidence in his own defense with the game on the line is more important.

The real error by the Patriots wasn't going for it on fourth down, it was using two timeouts on the series, each of which was taken when the clock was stopped. Had the Patriots had two timeouts instead of none they either could have challenged the controversial fourth-down play or, perhaps more importantly, they could have stopped the clock as the Colts drove for the winning touchdown and had 30 or 40 seconds with possession -- more than enough time for a team with Brady at quarterback to drive for the game-winning field goal.

Whether or not the decision was right, it's hard to avoid concluding the balance in the series has shifted, however slightly -- on the field and perhaps as importantly, in the minds of the teams. Since the Patriots dominated the series in 2003-2004, the Colts have been the better team by nearly any objective measure. Each team has been to a Super Bowl during the span. The Colts won theirs; the Patriots did not. They have played six times since the 20-3 Patriots victory in Foxboro. The Colts have won five. The Patriots' lone victory over the Colts since the 2004 season came during their 16-0 season in 2007 -- 24-20 in a game the Colts controlled for much of the first 50 minutes. The Colts haven't been drasticallly better since 2004, but they have been better.

But the more notable balance shift perhaps has been mental. In 2003-2004, even when the Colts played the Patriots very, very tough -- which they did each time, even in the postseason -- you got the idea entering the game while the Colts really, really believed the could win, the Patriots knew they would win. A small difference, and at the same time enough to be the difference between the Lombardi trophies from those seasons residing in Foxboro rather than Indy. The Patriots in those games seemed confident that the Colts and Manning would make the error, or that the Colts just weren't capable of making the play that mattered when it mattered most. And now, you get the idea that although the Patriots were better for three and a half quarters Sunday, the Colts knew on Sunday they were the team with the knack for winning the game it shouldn't, with the savvy -- and the quarterback -- capable of producing victory from the unlikeliest of circumstances.

Almost certainly, the Patriots believed the Patriots were that kind of a team. They are a proud, talented, elite team and such teams don't lack for confidence, But this time, they knew the Colts were, too, and five years ago, that wasn't close to being true.

Again, a small difference, but again, maybe one big enough to really, really matter.

REVIEWING BILL POLIAN'S WEEKLY RADIO SHOW

Bill Polian’s weekly radio show | Part One | “If we run this way . . . we’ll be perfectly fine”

Bill Polian’s weekly radio show | Part Two | Defense executed when it mattered against Patriots

Bill Polian’s weekly radio show | Part Three | Victory over New England garantees nothing

< RECENT COLTS STORIES >

CALDWELL: "STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE" | HERE

COLTS, 35, PATRIOTS 34: GAME STORY. HERE

QUOTING THE COLTS: FOR MORE OF WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AFTER COLTS-PATRIOTS, CLICK HERE

SAVOR THE COLTS-PATRIOTS RIVALRY WHILE IT LASTS. HERE.

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN XIV (PART ONE): ON COLTS DE DWIGHT FREENEY AND THE WEEK'S KEY MATCHUP. HERE

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN XIV (PART TWO): ON COLTS TE DALLAS CLARK AND HEAD COACH JIM CALDWELL. HERE.

COLTS 2009 MIDSEASON REPORT: PART ONE. HERE.

COLTS 2009 MIDSEASON REPORT: PART TWO. HERE.

*** READ JOHN OEHSER'S INDIANA PACERS COVERAGE. HERE.

MAGNIFICENT SEVENS: WEEKLY COLTS THOUGHTS . . .

Magnificent Seven I: Seven training camp thoughts and observations

Magnificent Seven II: On the Colts' defensive tackle position and WR Reggie Wayne

Magnificent Seven III: On the Colts' running backs and offensive line

Magnificent Seven IV: On the Colts' offense, OG Ryan Lilja and WR Anthony Gonzalez

Magnificent Seven V: On S Melvin Bullitt and QB Peyton Manning

Magnificent Seven VI: On RB Donald Brown and the start of the season . . . at last

Magnificent Seven VII: On WR Reggie Wayne, the OL and blitzing

Magnificent Seven VIII: On WR Reggie Wayne, QB Peyton Manning and DE Dwight Freeney 

Magnificent Seven IX: On DE Robert Mathis, S Bob Sanders and DE Dwight Freeney

Magnificent Seven X: On QB Peyton Manning's start and life without DT Ed Johnson

Magnificent Seven XI: On RB rotation, DE Dwight Freeney and S Bob Sanders

Magnificent Seven XII: On WR Reggie Wayne, TE Dallas Clark and running game

Magnificent Seven XIII: On offensive balance and resting QB Peyton Manning