NFL: Superbowl XLI Preview

Saj, how much to Americans care about this Superbowl? Due to the fact that I'm constantly bombarded with New England sports, it's difficult for me to gauge how interested the country has been in recent Superbowls. I hate this year's matchup and I'm unsure how the rest of the country feels. These are two bad Superbowl teams. If I had to rank the Superbowls of the last seventeen years (since I started following the NFL) by the combined potence of the two Superbowl teams, either this or Superbowl XXXVII would come in last, and at least Superbowl XXXVII had a very good defense in Tampa Bay. This Superbowl has no stellar unit, nor can we say either team is impressively balanced. There's a reason I didn't blog all week about the biggest sporting event in the country. It's a dissapointing matchup. No New Orleans, no San Diego, no Baltimore, no New England, no Dallas. One of those teams had to make the Superbowl to get me interested. Does the country agree with me?


No, the country does not agree with you. Because you are wrong. Dead wrong. Regardless of the regular season, where they combined for only 25 wins, two division titles, and one top playoff seed, these two teams played very good conference championship games. The Bears turned a close game against the Saints into a route while the Colts put together an impressive comeback in what was probably the best football game of the last ten years.

Take a look at how challenging the Colts' road to the playoffs has been. Counting Sunday, they will have faced the top three leagues defenses in points allowed in descending order. Has anyone every done that? Defeating the first two was no small feat and three in a row would be pretty incredible.

And the Bears: how many strong teams did they embarass this year (including the Saints in the NFC Championship game)? They have a knack for putting a game out of reach when they get a lead. Sure they tend to score unconventional points (returns for touchdowns, turnovers) but how consistently do they have to do this before people stop questioning how fluky these plays are?

You wait and see, this is the best Superbowl matchup we've seen in a very long time. For me, this is the most I've ever anticipated a non-Patriots Superbowl. Maybe it's the Grossman potentially winning a Superbowl before Manning subplot, maybe it's the strange Superbowl prop bets like how long it takes Billy Joel to sing the national anthem, I don't know. But I'm looking forward to it. Sidenote: how could even think to rank last year's Superbowl ahead of this one?


First, they skipped last year's Superbowl. It never happened. Second, the Bears stink. Third, the Colts stink. I should rest my irrefutable case there but I need a break from grading Ancient China quizzes.

This #1 ranked Bears defense is the biggest farce statistic in the Superbowl for several reasons.
1. As I outlined two weeks ago, they have not been the same since losing their best defensive lineman. Since the loss of Tommie Harris, they had given up over twenty points in five straight games. This streak was snapped against New Orleans, when the NFC South dome team went to Chicago to play in January.
2. They play in the NFC! THE NFC! And not just ANY division in the NFC, but the NFC NORTH. With Green Bay! And Minnesota! And Detroit! It is, quite simply, the worst division in football. To be a divisional winner and #1 seed coming out of that division means nothing to me, nor does winning a home game against New Orleans a week after getting outplayed at home by Seattle.
3. Teams that play in cold outdoors always keep low point totals. Domes and warm, calm-weather stadiums are tailor made for high scoring. It's the opposite up north.

So the Bears defense? Overrated. The Bears offense? How many Rex Grossman jokes can we make in one season? And don't you dare ask me "Then how are they in the Superbowl?" because I will just refer you to the aforementioned #2.

As far as the Colts go, they are the better team, and the 7 point line supports this. Their season and playoff run has been more impressive than the Bears. But if you want to push on me that the Bears defense is the best in the league because they're #1 ranked, than you must accept the fact that the Colts are ranked last in run defense. Don't rely on the Colts' stats coming down the stretch, because then the argument for the Bears being dominant goes up in flames. In this entire season, their only impressive win was in the AFC Championship, and they can thank an Ellis Hobbs phantom pass intereference and Reche Caldwell for that one. (By the way, if Reche Caldwell was a redcoat at Bunker Hill when the colonial commander instructed "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes," would he have been hit with like a hundred musket shots?) Ultimately, the Colts are a one-dimensional offensive team and an average defensive team and slight variations on that sentence can be said for both teams.

But okay, you made a good case. The country disagrees with me. I admit that I hold the minority opinion that this year's Superbowl is a joke. All I know is that I have a prop bet of my own. Over/under of when the television will be off and I'll be catching shut-eye for work: 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. This is the first Superbowl I have no intention of completing.


Incorrect on many accounts. How can you say the Colts are a one-dimensional offensive team when the success of their passing game is so intricately related to the success of their running game? Just wait, there's going to be 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter and the score will be 16-13 and you will be absolutely glued to your television eating your Baked Lays and drinking your Fresca. I'll take the over. Give me odds on your watching the entire game outright.


I will not be watching the entire game. The best chance for me to see the end is if I fall asleep some time during the game with the television on [Vegas doesn't even have odds on this it's such a sure bet] and then re-awaken after Jim Nantz yelps after Grossman's third interception.

Let's move on to the picks. There are three types of people taking Chicago: New Englanders, contrarians, and both. New Englanders are still wounded from the AFC Championship and can't stand the sight of Manning or Vinatieri in a Colts uniform. Talk radio up here is littered with people taking the Bears and I can't help but label it as pathetic.

As far as contrarians, their act is old hat. Given two weeks, people look for reasons to pick underdogs. Their Klingon passion for glory and desire overrides their Vulcan logic. Given enough time, contrarians could convince themselves that Ball State could beat the Kansas City Chiefs. They convince themselves to pick the team they want to win. They ignore the football sense and go with their gut. That's why, unlike the front page columnists, guys on ESPN Page 2 take the Bears. It's their job to look at things differently. Contrarians want to have a unique voice, but it just gets blended into an unintelligible cacophony that wreaks of unadulterated favoritism. For a game like this, commentators like Skip Bayless and Woody Paige take the Bears, while realistic, knowledgeable guys like Ron Jaworski, Mel Kiper, and Sal Paolantonio take the Colts. It just makes too much sense to take the Colts, and I'll get explain in three paragraphs.

I expect the Colts to win and win big, but I will offer this caveat: If you don't take the points, you're an idiot. Alow me to defend that apparently contradictory statement. It's the 2006-2007 NFL season, remember? On any given Sunday, a 2-14 team can beat a 14-2 team. Saj, it was probably the predominant running theme of our NFL blogs this year. Who knew what the hell was going on? We certainly didn't (though my record said otherwise). Therefore, when a team is favored by a touchdown, you just have to take the points. You just have to.

But if given the four choices of, "A) Bears in a blowout, B) Bears in a close game, C) Colts in a blowout, D) Colts in a close game," I'm taking the Colts in a blowout. I readily admit that, combined, any one of the other three are more likely to happen, but the most likely single outcome is Colts in a blowout. Thus, I expect the Colts to win big, but if you don't take the points, you're an idiot.

This Superbowl will be like the Superbowls of XIX - XXXI, discluding the Niners-Bengals and Giants-Bills matchups in Superbowls XXIII and XXV, respectively. What do I mean by this? I mean that the far superior conference produces the far superior team and that superior team wins big. Even in the two years I omitted, the stronger conference won. That was an NFC streak that lasted thirteen straight seasons. You learned not to take the AFC in that run. It was simply a bad move.

Now the strength of the conferences are reversed. While the AFC hasn't been undefeated since that time, they have undoubtedly been the better conference, and each year they've separated themselves a bit more. Beginning with Elway's Broncos defeating Favre's Packers, the AFC is 7-2 in Superbowls and have won the last three in a row. The AFC has continually produced teams that are the class of the league, specifically the New England Patriots, Tennessee Titans, Denver Broncos, Pittsburgh Steelers and, you guessed it, these Indianapolis Colts. Meanwhile, the NFC has had its own parity party of putridity since the 2003 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. There has been no great NFC team. They're all somewhere between above average (Eagles, Panthers, Seattle) and rotten (Cardinals, Redskins, NFC North).

So here we are again. The AFC representative goes through good teams while the NFC rep goes through average ones. Who do I expect to win? What does logic dictate?

And have you seen Rex Grossman this week? As if his season wasn't bad enough, the Bears have new reasons to be scared. He's got a perpetually nervous look on his face, like his brain is continually saying "I want to vomit." If he started off 1 for 9 in completions, would you be surprised? I know I wouldn't. How in the world could I justify picking a team where I wouldn't be surprised if the quarterback started 1 for 9? It'd be especially frightful against Indianapolis. Don't get down against the Colts. I may hate on them like Trump hates on Rosie, but I've always admitted that to be down two scores against Indy was a death sentence. They can rush the quarterback and on defense you can't stack the line on them. It's very tough to come back against a team like that. Very tough. To beat the Colts, you need to have a lead or stay close. I don't think the Bears will do either.

And if the Colts fell down, how could we possibly count them out? They just came back from a 21-3 deficit against Belechick, Brady, and the most experienced playoff team in the league. The Bears never came back to win this year. They're not built for it. The Colts just did it on the team least likely to allow that to happen. Frankly, in any game scenario, it'd be better for the Colts to be in that situation than the Bears. That included being down two scores, being in a close game early, and especially close game late. Don't forget who's kicking for Indianpolis and don't forget who's throwing passes for Chicago. Does Chicago want to be in a close game in the 4th quarter with Grossman throwing passes while Manning and Vinatieri have their helmets on? No way. Just ask the Patriots, who have a better coach, quarterback and more playoff experienced team than the Bears.

Ultimately, the only way the Bears can win this game is in a blowout. Is that someone anyone is betting on? A Bears blowout over the Colts?

Saj, you said 16-13 in the 3rd quarter? Maybe. Really, maybe. But 16-13 third quarter games have a tendency to become a shoot out. Unfortunately for the Bears, they don't have too many bullets. Peyton Manning's Colt revolver is too much to overcome. Pick: 38-20 Indianapolis


"Peyton Manning's Colts revolver"? You just won the award for 2007's worst extended gun-metaphor. And it's only February.

I'm taking the Bears and here's why:

1) Consistency. I've picked against the Colts pretty much all season and I can't abandon that position because of silly things like logic and run of the mill football analysis. Just call me a faux-Klingon.

2) Peyton Manning. Really I have no way of knowing what sort of person Peyton Manning is and it's unfair to judge him based on his doofy haircut or his Arod-like obsessive work ethic or even his not dating Gisele Bundchen. All I really have to judge him on is his laser-rocket arm, his happy feet routine in the pocket, the incessant audible-ing at the line which I am sure half his team isn't listening to, the way he pouts on the sideline when he's losing, him throwing his offensive line under the bus after last year's playoff loss to the Steelers, and the way the media licks his penis like a push-pop. My heart can't take him winning a Superbowl. My heart just can't take it.

3) Of all the NFL uniforms, I think I respect the Bears' uniforms the most. They're classically beautiful. The colors, the logo, I love it.

4) I'm a big fan of irony and I appreciate the irony of Rex Grossman winning a Superbowl before Peyton Manning. If the Bears won there would more proof that nothing in this world makes any sense and very few things have reasons for happening. And that's the fundamental philosophy of my life.

5) Tom Brady is dating Gisele Bundchen.

6) I'm afraid for Tank Johnson. The authorities found a veritable arsenal of assault weapons in his house and his bodyguard was murdered. If that doesn't smell like gambling debt to the Russian mafia (which smells oddly like stale bread and red cabbage) then nothing does (except for, you know, stale bread and red cabbage). Inside my head the Russians are putting tons of money on the Bears to win outright and will absolve Johnson's debt if they win. Tony Dungy: if you win this game you will have Tank Johnson's blood on your hands.

Bears: 38 - 30.


Ladies and Gentlemen, Skip Bayless! Those six reasons all made me more confident in my pick. Anyone picking the Bears are coming up with similarly inane arguments, only they aren't joking like Saj is.


I AM TOTALLY NOT JOKING.


Are too.

Why Do Animals Explode in Microwaves? What about Dallas Cowboys!

Reader Darren (I've always wanted to call someone "Reader _____") from Buloxi, Idaho, sent the following query via email:

"Completely unrelated to sports: Why do animals explode in microwaves yet paper towels can survive with any harm (i.e. bursting into flames)? I am sure your readers would appreciate such a topic being addressed since it is one of the fundamental questions mankind has had since the invention of the microwave oven. "

First of all, I'm glad you asked such an important question, Darren. Second of all, who's to say this is completely unrelated to sports? Not me!

To begin, let's analyze the conventional wisdom regarding placing non-conventional items in a microwave. A microwave works by introducing microwave radiation to a food product, pet, or G.I. Joe, and exciting its molecules in a process called dielectric heating. Since water is easily excitable in that manner, and paper towels are not, cute and furry animals which are made largely of water tend to explode as the molecules within them start bouncing around like Mexican jumping beans in a bowl of gazpacho. And paper towels do not burn, I imagine, for the opposite reason (and also a lack of sufficient heat/oxygen).

The implications for sports are many and varied. For example, let's see what would happen if we put different members of the 2006 Dallas Cowboys inside our very hypothetical person-sized microwave:

1. Terrell Owens. Ah yes, fulfilling the fantasy of Eagles' fans everywhere. Taking what we learned above about microwaves, I scientifically believe that Terrell Owens would create for us quite a spectacular explosion if he were to ever be microwaved. "Of course," you say, "he is a human being who is some arbitrarily high percentage water." Not so. He is no ordinary human being. Terrell Owens is actually full of s***. Literally. His insides consist entirely of human fecal matter. And although the water content of human fecal matter varies, I can say with some confidence that what is inside Terrell Owens is on par with, say, a runny diarrhea. Ergo: high water content, vis-a-vis: grand explosion. Concordantly.

2. Bill Parcells. Admittedly tougher to determine that Terrell Owens, Bill Parcells would heat slowly in the microwave and come out no worse for wear (although it is recommended you leave him to cool down for one or two minutes before removing). You see, Bill Parcells suffers from Gynecomastia, street name: bitch tits. Roughly half his body is composed of very large man breasts. The prevalent tissue in man breasts is either fatty tissue or connective tissue, both of which are much less reactive to the dielectric heating of the microwave oven than water.

3. Jerry Jones. It has not been conclusively proven that putting Jerry Jones in the microwave will release harmful dioxins into your food or drink, at least according to the FDA. To make the leap for this joke you have to click the link, but if you're sharp you'll see that it's a dig at Jones' elective surgeries.

4. Drew Bledsoe. Sorry to disappoint, but this would be like slapping a football helmet and some eye black on a park bench, and nuking that. The eye black might run a little but otherwise it's good to go.

5. Tony Romo. Not gonna happen. If Romo could have killed himself in a microwave after the Seattle game he would have already done it.