Tekla,
With all due respect I think that point of view is far too risk-averse. NFL coaches (except for Belichick) are PETRIFIED of taking risks, and that was what was at play in this situation. I might understand it better if the Colts were still trying to win their first Super Bowl, but they climbed that mountain already. This was their chance to become, without question, the greatest team of all time, and they were complete fraidy-cats about an injury. Guess what? They happen and you can't predict or control them.
Plus, if they really believed that this was the principled stance to take, why did Manning play at all during that game? Or in the finale at Buffalo? The Colts approach was completely inconsistent. By their rationale, all of their starters should have sat the entire final three weeks of the season... But they didn't.
And the 2007 Pats? If David Tyree doesn't make the most rediculous catch in NFL history, they go 19-0. Tyree's play had NOTHING to do with the Patriots going all-out for the undefeated season weeks before. Yeah I don't like New England either, but at least they were willing to put it all on the line.
Even if the Colts win on Sunday, I think this Championship will be haunted by the question: Why didn't you play for history?