Football Friday: Week 10

Through nine weeks:

Standings.....GB....Last week's record
Ian 22-14.......... -- ..............4-0
Saj 19-17............ 3 ..............3-1

Same shit, different toilet. I'll catch you, you son of a bitch. Your games:

Dallas Cowboys at New York Giants (Sunday, 4:15pm)
Atlanta Falcons at Carolina Panthers (Sunday, 1:00pm)
Cleveland Browns at Pittsburgh Steelers (Sunday, 1:00pm)
Jacksonville Jaguars at Tennessee Titans (Sunday, 1:00pm)

Football Friday: Week 3

Standings after two weeks:

Standings.....GB
Ian 6-2.......... --
Saj 3-5.......... 3


I won't feel safe until Saj is at least 14.5 games back with three months to play. Because that kind of lead is insurmountable in sports.

Saj, good luck making up ground with these picks:

Miami Dolphins at New York Jets (Sunday, 1:00)
Minnesota Vikings at Kansas City Chiefs (Sunday, 1:00)
Cleveland Browns at Oakland Raiders (Sunday, 4:05)
New York Giants at Washington Redskins(Sunday, 4:15)

The "luck", friend, will need to be good for YOU. Yes. You.

St. Louis Rams at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Sunday, 1:00)
Cincinnati Bengals at Seattle Seahawks (Sunday, 4:05)
Jacksonville Jaguars at Denver Broncos (Sunday, 4:05)
Carolina Panthers at Atlanta Falcons (Sunday, 4:15)


Miami Dolphins at New York Jets

I know what you're thinking, Ian. But I've learned a thing or two over the offseason- namely that it's okay to pick the Jets every once in a while. Roommate, and Jets' apologist, Rob is going to the game this weekend and he was excited because "they actually might win this one." Oh, to be a Jets fan. A year ago I would have opted to pick against the Jets with blatant disregard for whomever they're playing, but Rob's defeatist attitude has turned me, slightly. Think of this more as a sympathy nod than anything. Sympathy sidenote: No sympathy for Mangini when he goes 4-12 and loses the "Man-genius" title. Wake up, New York, the Jets scored 23 more points than they allowed last year. They're no good. But Miami is worse.
Minnesota Vikings at Kansas City Chiefs

Really? Kansas City is terrible. And Minnesota has the second coming of Tony Dorsett in Adrian Peterson. By the way, how much must it suck to be a Chiefs fan? Your franchise running back holds out all of training camp, the feel good story of the last few months (Priest Holmes) fails to make his comeback, you're 0-2 in competent quarterbacks, and HBO chose to profile you in training camp just before a 1-15 season. It's like watching the two months of a junkie's life before he goes on the 17 week bender that will leave his broken, emaciated carcass propped up against a dumpster in an alley.

Cleveland Browns at Oakland Raiders

Cleveland. I have a story to tell everyone. Ever since Derek Anderson's 5 touchdown performance Ian has been consistently trying to pawn him off on my in our fantasy league. And that's just insulting. Yes, I know my quarterbacks are Brett Favre and Kyle Boller. But still, shame on you, Ian. Shame on you.

New York Giants at Washington Redskins

Why do you keep doing this to me? For some reason I think the Giants are good. Maybe it's the uniforms. They do have nice ones. It's high time I realize that they aren't good. And Washington, somehow in someway, is better. If Brett Favre and Tony Romo can pick apart the Giants defense like they did then Jason Campbell will throw for 600 yards and 12 touchdowns this week. All to Santana Moss. And I will win my fantasy game by just starting him and no one else. So it has been said, so it shall be done.


I'll jump right into the picks after I say this: I successfull traded Derek Anderson today.

St. Louis Rams @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Two lousy teams here. As I foreshadowed last week, the Rams are clearly on their way down. This is the first time they opened 0-2 since Kurt Warner's squad tried to rebound from the Superbowl loss against New England. Do you think the Rams are starting to regret giving an enormous contract to a system quarterback who has a 54% completion rate after two games in St. Louis' dome? Now they go on the road. Not that the Bucs are any good, but at least they beat a talented New Orleans team last week. Pick: Tampa Bay

Cincinatti Bengals @ Seattle Seahawks: Two talented offensive teams, and the Bengals probably have the better offense. However, the Seahawks have two things going for them. One, they're playing in one of the more advantageous home fields in football. Two, they didn't give up 51 points to the Cleveland Browns. This postgame is loaded with "The Bengals have given up 90 points in the last two weeks" potential. Pick: Seattle

Jacksonville Jaguars @ Denver Broncos: Denver is without a doubt the luckiest team in football over the first two weeks...except for the Chargers and Jets, who are lucky the Patriots didn't beat them by 35 points each. I fully expect this to be a close game. And I fully expect the Broncos to once again come out on top. Pick: Denver

Carolina Panthers @ Atlanta Falcons: I'm sick of people trying to be optimistic about the Falcons. They're simply not that good, especially their offense, defense, and special teams. Stop picking them, everyone; even if they're at home. Word to the wise: wait until they win a game before picking Atlanta. Pick: Carolina

Football: Week 1 Recap

Saj, I'd like some of your thoughts on the NFL's opening week. Do you agree that:

The class of the NFL are the Patriots, Chargers, and Colts, who are fungible as football's Big Three, and then a line is drawn. After that lie the Bengals (making four AFC teams in the top 4) and Seattle and then another line to complete a Top 5. Agree or disagree?

The New England Patriots have the best offense in the NFL. Agree or disagree?

The New York Jets aren't as bad as 38-14 would imply. Agree or disagree?

The New Orleans Saints will not have a down year, they just ran into a top AFC team in Week 1. Agree or disagree?

Finally, which team, previously thought of as a playoff contender if not a playoff lock, is most in danger of becoming 0-2?


On the class of the NFL: Yes the class of the NFL are the Patriots, Chargers, and Colts (in no particular order, but really, fuck the Colts). I disagree with the Bengals as number four only because it's possible that could be the third best team in their division (yes, I know they beat the Ravens last night but that game was a dented Todd Heap shoulder pad away from going into overtime). And the Seahawks will have to show me something special to earn a top five spot in my cold heart. Watch out for: THE STEELERS.

On Patriots offense being the best: Agree, tentatively. If the offensive line looks that good all season, then yes. On some of those passing plays Tom Brady had so much time in the pocket he could have met a supermodel, impregnated her, and witnessed the birth of his second child all before releasing the ball. Maroney still does like to dance a little more than he should, but Sammy Morris is a f-ing hammer and what else can I say about the revamped receiving corps that the Randy Moss and Wes Welker tattoos on my asscheeks haven't already said?

On Jets maybe sorta not completely sucking: No, they aren't that bad. But I will tell you who is. Thomas Jones. My G-d, I haven't seen someone do the old two yards and fall over move since Jamal Anderson. Jones was literally running straight into his offensive linemen and then ricocheting to the ground. That has to be more difficult than actually avoiding them, right?

On Saints: Yes they ran into a good team, at home, playing great football. BUT, the Saints don't have the easy schedule they had a year ago. And their defense is terrible. The ten wins they had last year could easily turn into eight.

Most in danger of going 0-2: The Baltimore Ravens

FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL: Week 1

Back when Ian and I decided to institute a moratorium on posting for our crappy blog, in my mind we secretly decided to resurrect Football Friday when the time came. And since the season got off to a vomit-inducing, let's-all-jerk-off-to-Peyton-Manning start last night, I'd say the time has come.

Football Friday works like this: we give each other four games and we have to pick the outright winners. Simple. Ian, as you were the victor last year give me your best four from this weekend.


Yes, Saj, I was the victor. Just out of curiosity, what does that make you? Maybe this will help: Let's take a look at the final standings last season before we goofed around for Week 17.

Standings.... GB
Ian 28-20...... -- (winner)
Saj 21-27...... 7 (?????)

I just can't think of what goes there. Any ideas? Anyway, time to defend the crown. Here are your four games this weekend:

Atlanta Falcons at Minnesota Vikings (Sunday, 1:00)
Detroit Lions at Oakland Raiders (Sunday, 4:15)
New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys (Sunday, 8:15)
Baltimore Ravens at Cincinatti Bengals (Monday. 7:00)



Whatever, man. Whatever. For you:

Denver Broncos at Buffalo Bills (Sunday, 1:00)
Miami Dolphins at Washington Redskins (Sunday, 1:00)
Kansas City Chiefs at Houston Texans (Sunday, 1:00)
Chicago Bears at San Diego Chargers (Sunday, 4:15)

TWO MEN ENTER. ONE MAN LEAVES!


I am walking out of this dome in 17 weeks. I just hope I'm still in one piece. Let's get this party started.

Denver @ Buffalo: Is anyone expecting Buffalo to be better this year? When was the last time they did something to improve their team? They drafted Losman when they had Bledsoe. They drafted McGahee when they had Travis Henry. They haven't been nearly as good since making those moves, and now Losman is a bottom tier starter and neither McGahee nor Henry are even on the roster. Tough year for the Bills coming up, especially playing in the Pats' and Jets' division. We're talking 4-5 wins. And this isn't one of them. Pick: Denver

Miami @ Washington: P.U. What's that smell? Oh, it's these two teams. I'm at a crossroads. This match up is a toss up, but it contradicts my two crossroads tendencies (1. When in doubt, go with the home team; 2. When in doubt, go with the AFC team). I gotta go Miami, if for no other reason than A) The weather is still warm, B) While these two teams break even as two poor defensive squads, the Dolphins are more talented on the offensive end, and C) Clinton Portis is on my fantasy team, and is therefore due to pull a hamstring early in the second quarter. Pick: Miami

Kansas City @ Houston: Man, that smell is REALLY getting strong now. Hey Saj, thanks for the worst game of the weekend. I say Matt Schaub and the steadily ascending Houston Texans are more excited to play football than the steadily declining Kansas City Chiefs. If the Texans win this game, it'll be the first time in franchise history that they'll be over .500. And I have no idea if that's true, as I did no research to back that up. Pick: Houston

Chicago @ San Diego: I've always counted you as a friend, Saj. You're a nice guy. This is how you prove it. An NFC team with a bad offense vs. a well rounded AFC team that has the best talent in the NFL. And oh yeah, the AFC team is hosting. Pick: San Diego

Go get 'em, pal. You're up.


Gonna be quick.

Atlanta Falcons at Minnesota Vikings
Tavaris Jackson vs. Joey Harrington. Not exactly Montana v. Elway. I'm going with the Falcons here for a number of reasons. 1) I flipped a coin. 2) Bobby Petrino sounds like the name of a race car driver. 3) Nothing heals the gaping wounds left open from the Vick saga like a W against a bunch of guys in purple who like taking cruises together.

Detroit Lions at Oakland Raiders (Sunday, 4:15)
Nope. Not falling for it. I'm not going to talk myself into Daunte Culpepper. No way. But Jon Kitna, sure. I know that's irrational, but whatever. GO LIONS!

New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys (Sunday, 8:15)
Have you seen the new iPods? They're pretty awesome.

Baltimore Ravens at Cincinatti Bengals (Monday. 7:00)
Should I take all road teams? Maybe. Okay, I'm doing it. Cincinnati isn't that good. They really aren't. As yes this marks the second consecutive season where I have Steve McNair on my fantasy team. Next year, I'm just going to burn the money. Save myself the time.

NFL: Inside Dillon's Head

Trying to read Corey Dillon is like trying to read the New York Post: Why bother? You have no idea if what you're reading is reliable.

First, word broke from the Boston Globe that New England Patriots running back Corey Dillon wanted out of his contract and was leaning towards retirement. Now, espn.com is reporting via John Clayton that his agent is looking forward to talking to other teams.

Dillon himself is quoted as saying he wanted to be able to play with his kids in ten years, instead of being a broken down, hobbled old man. Basically, he wanted to be Tiki Barber and Robert Smith and not, say, well I can't think of any running backs who can't play with their kids.

He is also quoted as saying he may one day feel the itch to play again, a la Michael Jordan in his second comeback, but states that currently football is "the furthest thing" from his mind. That's no surprise, I suppose, as like the rest of us, he's probably too wrapped up in the Anna Nicole Smith saga to think about anything else.

Saj, I want your read on the situation. Is he planning on staying retired? Is he positioning himself for a starting job on another team? Does he secretly hate his heir apparant: Laurence Maroney? Does he despise Coach Belichick's grueling practices, fearing he'll end up like Ted Johnson? Is he trying to retire while his agent wants one more payday? So many possibilities. What do you think?


Way to slip in the Anna Nicole Smith thing, we're gonna get tons of hits that last less than three seconds. I can't wait. Anyway, Corey Dillon: he definitely sees the writing on the wall. Maroney is the back of the future and Dillon won't get the carries he wants to get or thinks he deserves. So he's gonna try to leave. He doesn't want to retire but he also didn't want to look like the disgruntled older back that was complaining about playing time.

NFL: Tom Brady From a Jets' Fan's Perspective

With the news this past weekend of Tom Brady having impregnating his ex-girlfriend, Bridget Moynahan, whilst jaunting around the globe with his current girlfriend, über-model Gisele Bundchen, Ian and I decided to give my roommate Rob, an unapologetically biased Jets fan, a forum in which to discuss his feelings towards Tom Brady in a potentially reoccurring piece called: From a Jets' Fan's Perspective. The premise behind FJFP is that Rob will get to air his sour grapes on any subject without argument from us. In this edition of FJFP, Rob presents his skewed views on Brady while referring to Chad Pennington as a "potential Rhodes scholar" without even a hint of irony. Enjoy:

So, on the news that Tom Brady now shares a little something in common with Willis McGahee, Shawn Kemp, and Chance from "I love New York", I, the disgruntled Jets fan, thought it would be a good time to take a step back and perform an unbiased analysis of this era in Patriots history (I tried to find a clip of the Jets injuring Bledsoe... alas, youtube let me down).

First off, let's go back to the 2000 draft, in which Brady was the 199th pick, behind such quarterbacking luminaries as Spergeon Wynn, Tee Martin, and Giovanni Carmazzi. Of course, the Jets were too busy selecting a potential Rhodes scholar to be bothered with a part time collegiate starter. Anyway, as shown, Brady's credentials were worse than that of a Patriot league player. Not the best way to get a career started.

Fortunately for him, he landed on the soon-to-be juggernaut Patriots and lucked his way into becoming a starter. More importantly, he ended up with a smart coach and a stifling defense, leading me to my main conclusion: Tom Brady is a system quarterback. With such great coaching on both sides of the ball, all he has to do is not screw up. Frankly, Tee Martin could've continued to one-up Peyton Manning if he went to the Patriots instead of riding the pine on the Steelers. At least he has the public appearances to fall back on. More importantly, as a regular reader of this blog, I wouldn't have to read mock plays like this one (scroll down).

I guess my point is, Tom should be thanking his lucky stars that he landed into the perfect situation, as he was a few picks away from completely different fate.

NFL: Manning's Place in History and Top Ten Quarterbacks

The title of this post is self explanitory. Before we delve into some back and forth on the subject, I should offer this caveat: We know his career isn't over yet. We will proceed as if the rest of his career will continue as normal, with him peaking during these prime years, and then a gradual decline into retirement.

Now, once that is all said and done, where do we expect him to rank amongst the all time great quarterbacks in history. The names most discussed for this mantle are: Unitas, Starr, Bradshaw, Montana, Marino, Favre, Elway, Brady, and now Manning.

What's interesting to note is that it seemed like overnight, Manning joined this list. Saj, I'd like your thoughts on not only where he ranks (And these thoughts can develop over several posts) but what you think about his career becoming "validated" with a Superbowl ring. In essence: Did he go from being a great QB to being an all time QB in the two weeks from from January 21st to February 5th? Did a two-week stretch allow him to be discussed with the alltimers?


No. What allows Peyton Manning to be discussed with the alltimers is his statistical dominance and the great potential for that dominance to continue. Everybody knows my feelings on Peyton Manning. But he has exceptional physical gifts, an almost unrivaled work ethic, and a Brady-esque awareness of the rush in the pocket (except with a better offensive line) that ensures he will almost never take a big hit. And because he's a big, pocket guy with a quick release and a great play action fake who plays in a dome, he could play until he's 45 years old.

The reason people perceive Peyton differently, and say that he needed to win "the big one" to be considered truly great, is that Peyton's Colts have been so very good over the last six years or so. He's been consistently left at the doorstep to the Superbowl like Ian on a second date. So he was unfairly labeled a choke artist because he always led his team to dominance only in the regular season. And yes his commercials are terrible, he pouts on the sideline, he's not charismatic, and he looks like he gets his hair cut by a blind, autistic toddler. I wil make fun of those things until the day I die (or the day he gets a new haircut). But you can't deny that he is the best quarterback in the game and probably the best ever. So he's had some pedestrian games against good defenses and good coaches in the playoffs. It happens.

As for the whole idea of validation through championship for guys like Manning, Marino, Barkley, I think its a little over-dramatized. Is Marino a worse quarterback for having never won a Superbowl or Barkley a worse forward for never having won an NBA Championship? I say no. A lot of things affect the outcome of a football or basketball game and many of those things are out of an individual player's control. Except for Alex Rodriguez. He's a choker.

Ian, give me your top ten quarterbacks on our viewing lifetime (let's say late 1980's to present day). This will probably be unprofessional and unreliable but we never made claims to professionalism or reliability.


Done. In reverse order for dramatic effect:
10. Vinny Testeverde - Sixth all time in passing yards and completions, and ninth all time in touchdown passes. Also holds the record for consecutive seasons with a touchdown pass. Bonus points for being the only quarterback to play this year that was playing before the late 80's. The problem was that he never played any big games.

9. Drew Bledsoe - Considered putting him in the Top 1. Record for most passes completed in one game (45), fourth all time in 400 yard games (6), sixth all time in consecutive 300 yard games (4), record for most passes in a game without an interception (70!), third most completions in one season, fifth all time in completions, seventh all time in passing yards. Only 33 years of age so he'll move up those all time charts if he gets a starting job. Won two AFC Championships and was a backup on a Superbowl winning team.

8. Troy Aikman - Makes the list mostly on the merits of three Superbowl championships. Not the strongest arm, not the most talent, but he quarterbacked a dynasty and won Superbowls with two different coaches.

7. Steve Young - Highest passer rating for a career (96.8). Aikman might have two more rings, but he had more time to do it in, and if I had to start a team with the early 90's quarterbacks, I'd take Young before Aikman.

6. Peyton Manning - Stats will be top 3 across the board and he has a Superbowl ring.

5. Tom Brady - But most of the country would still take this guy in a big spot. Three rings in his first four seasons. His numbers aren't like Mannings, but he's never had offensive lines, receivers, or running backs as good as Peyton Manning. Brady has a better chance than anyone since Bradshaw and Montana to win four Superbowls from the quarterback position. If he can get a fifth, it might be the most desireable record in the sport. And he's only played six seasons.

4. John Elway - Appeared in four Superbowls and won two of them. Fourth all time touchdown passes, third all time passing completions, third all time passing yards, second all time in total yards, NFL record 40 4th quarter comebacks.

3. Dan Marino - He has all the records...until Manning breaks them. The glaring deficiency in the case for Dan Marino is his lack of a championship. Marino has career records in Passing TD's and yards, and is second in completions. All told, he has 20 NFL records.

2. Brett Favre - Remember how Marino is second all time in completions? Well, this guy is first. And he has a Superbowl ring and won a second NFC championship. Based on pure talent and competetiveness alone, you could stack Favre up against any quarterback to ever play the game. I really hope his last couple of years doesn't sully his legendary status.

1. Joe Montana - 11 playoff appearances, nine divisional championships, four Super Bowls (XVI, XIX, XXIII, and XXIV), three Superbowl MVP's, three time all pro, eight time pro-bowler, and the best clutch quarterback of our lifetime.

Disagreements?


Yes. How could you pass up Jim Kelly and Warren Moon for Vinny Testaverde and Drew Bledsoe? I understand how much you love Drew, but come on. That makes as much sense as castrating yourself with rusty, dirty gardening shears. Everyone knows you should sterilize the shears before cutting. Bledsoe and Testaverde are 58 and 67 respectively in all time passer rating. Kelly and Moon: 14 and 31. I'm not saying that passer rating is a perfect stat, in fact I believe it's value has declined over the last ten or fifteen years, but its a good indicator or just how Kelly and Moon were consistently better than Bledsoe and Testaverde. My ten:

10. Troy Aikman - benefitted from a great coach (Jimmy Johnson), and spendthrift owner (Jerry Jones), the all-time leading rusher (Emmitt Smith), and super-talented cokehead receiver (Michael Irvin). But, as you said, he did win three Superbowls. If these rankings were based on concussions, well- okay, I won't say it. But I'll think it. (hint: I'm thinking Aikman-Young as 1A and 1B).

9. Jim Kelly - It's tough to drop Jim Kelly this far down the list, but it's much easier when you see who I placed above him. Kelly was another benefactor of a talented team and a talented coach. Plus I saw him on the Tim McCarver show once and he seems like a really nice guy. Kelly, not McCarver. McCarver is very dumb.

8. Warren Moon - A LOOOONNNGG NFL career allowed Warren to reach 4th and 5th all time in passing yards and touchdowns respectively. And that followed a stint in the CFL where he won five consecutive Grey Cups (like the Superbowl but for Canadians. So it ranks in importance somewhere between the Bud Bowl and that stupid college bowl game they play in Boise.) While I'm making this decision solely based on the little I know about football, you can't ignore the trouble Warren Moon had as a black quarterback in the late 70's to early 80's. Most colleges that recruited him requested that he switch positions and there's speculation that he went undrafted for the same reason.

7. Tom Brady - You said it correctly: three Superbowls in six years. Tom's eleventh all time in QB rating and first all time in my heart. Sigh.

6. Peyton Manning - By the end of his career, he will probably be at the top of this list. And I'll be an old man who is pathetically still making this stupid list for this blog that no one reads. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Peyton Manning is like Alex Rodriguez. Preternaturally talented, works his arse off, but nobody likes him because of those exact reasons.

5. Steve Young - Who knew a short Mormon who ran the West Coast offense would become the Greatest Rushing Quarterback in History B.V. (Before Vick)? Actually, I did. Best all time quarterback rating (ignoring Kurt Warner), gunslinging lefty motion (southpaw here), and the fact that he was traded to San Francisco by Tampa Bay to make way for a young Vinny Testaverde in 1987 made Steve Young my favorite player growing up. When I found out he was born in Connecticut I flipped out.

4. John Elway - My top four are pretty much the same as your top four so I'll spare most of the details. John Elway endorsed the vortex football.

3. Dan Marino - 420 touchdown passes. Not counting Favre (who is six away) the next closest is Fran Tarkenton at 342. Peyton Manning is the next closest active player with 275. Peyton will probably catch him (20 or so touchdowns a year for seven more seasons) but taking a look at Marino's contemporaries and the closest (Elway) he outdistanced by 120 touchdowns. Ninth all time in passer rating over the most attempts in NFL history.

2. Brett Favre - Favre gets the edge over Marino because 1) he will break Marino's yards, TDs, and possibly attempts records before he retires, 2) 7th all time in QB rating, and 3) he either pronounces or spells his name incorrectly. Quite possibly the most fun quarterback to watch play what with the shovel passes and all that stuff.

1. Joe Montana - Undeniably the best. It's hard to say if Marino would own all those records if he had the four Superbowls that Montana had. He might have retired a few years earlier. And it's hard to say that Montana wouldn't have the records Marino had if he didn't win all those Superbowls. Bottom line: second all time in QB rating, The Catch to Dwight Clark, the Superbowls, the Pro Bowls, the stint in Kansas City that never really happened. Even a great quarterback name. Joe Montana.

Honorable Mention: Phil Simms, Drew Bledsoe, Shaun King, and Joe Girardi.


You're right, you're right. Sweet sassy molassey, you're right. I can't make the argument for Bledsoe over Moon because Moon has comparable stats and I can't make the argument for Bledsoe over Kelly because Kelly is the only quarterback to go to four straight Superbowls. I'll say Bledsoe is at #11, and I think Testeverde definitely deserves honorable mention. Other than that, you're right. Unlike you, I can seem to admit when I'm wrong (see Superbowl). BOOYAH.

NFL: Superbowl Recap

Last night, our blog redeemed itself, if that was even still possible. After Saj and I got swept during the Championship round, we’ve come back with a vengeance. Before I get into the gloating portion of my post, let me just applaud Saj for pulling off a great joke when we made our picks last Friday. His out-of-left-field, convoluted supporting arguments (Brady dates Giselle…ha!) were perfect examples of the contrived reasons Colts haters and casual fans came up with in order to pick the team they wanted to win instead of the team that was going to win.

What I’m most proud of is not my pick, because that was the easy part. It’s the fact that I was so sure this would happen in the face of the out-of-control Bears bandwagon that had gained steam. For two weeks, it was en vogue to pick the Bears, while picking Manning and the Colts was decidedly uncool. As usual, I embrace uncool as if it were my brother.

Before I get into a lengthy list about my accurate predictions, I should address the few things I was wrong about. The most glaring example is that the Colts backfield was quite impressive. I maintain that this was not possible without their stalwart air attack, but I privately (and now publically) acknowledged to Saj that I ‘misnomer’ed the Colts as a “one-dimensional offense.”

Another example of an erred prediction was the one that said I would not stay up for the entire games. This, of course, turned out to be false once I realized I might miss history. I was worried that I'd be turning off the Superbowl that could set the record for fumbles and turnovers.

Okay, now on to the gloating. Here’s the Top 10 things I was right about in Superbowl XLI.

1. First, the AFC Champ outclassed the NFC Champ in every conceivable stat. This was as predictable as anything. Just like that NFC run of the 80’s and 90’s, the superior conference produced the team that was battle tested and simply better. You could count on them winning the Superbowl regardless of the record of the team from the inferior conference.

2. The Bears defense is not that good for the three reasons I outlined, none more significant than their less than stellar play since the loss of Tommie Harris, and less notably, Mike Brown.

3. Rex Grossman deserved every joke we made about him. How that last drive didn’t result in a 4th interception, I don’t know.

3a. My quote from Friday “…Jim Nantz yelps after Grossman's third interception.”

4. Accurate ways of determining a winner were foolishly thrown out the window by Bears apologists. Contrarians and New Englanders insisted on letting bias get in the way of objectivity, especially with two weeks to build up said bias. Picking Indianapolis made all the sense in the world. What’s wrong with saying, “While I’m pulling for underdog Chicago, I just gotta take that jerk Peyton Manning because the Colts are just better.”?

5. ESPN Page 2 columnists like Bill Simmons, Scoop Jackson, and Jamele Hill all took the Bears. Ron Jawarski, Mel Kiper, and Sal Paolantonio too the Colts by 10, 13, and 11, respectively. The Colts won by 12.

6. I’m not exactly sure what constitutes “big” when I said the Colts are going to win big. Twelve points might not be enough for a scoreboard blow out. That being said, the Colts dominated on both sides of the ball and were driving within 2 minutes and allowed themselves to turn the ball over on downs.

7. Don’t get down against the Colts. The only way the Bears could have won was in a blowout, and that was a long shot at best. All other scenarios were too much to overcome for them. They were in a close game and then they were down two scores. In both scenarios, the Bears, and especially their joke of a quarterback, stunk, as predicted.

8. The Colts fell down very early and could not possibly be counted out.

9. I acknowledged that the game could very well be close midway through the 3rd quarter, but I foresaw that the Colts would end up pulling away convincingly. (Note: Saj said the game could be 16-13 with 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. The score was 16-14. The guy is good.)

10. It was not a good Superbowl.

Saj, I have more to say, and I'm not nearly done ripping the Bears and all who took them to win. I'll allow this time now to let you get some words in on the Superbowl that was.


At the very beginning of the game last night, after Devin Hester's kick-off return for the touchdown, I asked Ian to apologize in this space when the Bears win. And he requested the same of me in the seemingly unlikely event of a Bears loss. Well, the unlikely came to pass. Hell froze over, it was a sloppy rain-filled game, and Prince's performance caused old people across the nation to wonder 1) who the nice young lady performing at halftime was and 2) why she didn't get that moustache of hers taken care of.

Since Ian, after the game, advised me not to engineer the back-handed faux-apology which I was, in fact, engineering at the time, here is as sincere an apology as I am capable:

I am sorry that Lovie Smith played his safeties so far back in the Cover 2 that he left Peyton Manning with perfect little dink and dunk passes under the zone instead of forcing him to throw the ball down the field through a driving rain. I am also sorry that somehow Chicago safety Chris Harris botched the coverage so badly that Reggie Wayne was left wide open and streaking down the field for the Colts first touchdown. On that play, Wayne was more open than a Chinese restaurant on Christmas.

I am sorry that Rex Grossman did not win the MVP award. He contributed more to the Colts win than any other single player. How does he fumble the snap? TWICE?? Say all you want about nerves, but Rex Grossman has been taking snaps as a quarterback for at least fifteen years of his life. And between the University of Florida and starting games in the NFL, he's played his fair share of crowds. I don't believe in nerves, I believe in poor preparation and poor execution. And he executed just as poorly as he did during the season. After that second interception I was praying for a Griese sighting. Hell, even give me Kyle Orton and his fabulous neck beard. SIDENOTE: I've had a beard for going on eight months now and only two things have lead me to consider shaving it. The first: eating an ice cream cone. It's very messy and your face smells like ice cream for the rest of the day. The second: Kyle Orton's neckbeard. Homeless, terrorist, ugly, I can take all those. But the day someone compares my beard to Kyle Orton's is the day I nair the motherf***** right off.

I'm sorry that CBS followed up the ratings bonanza Superbowl telecast with "Criminal Minds"; a generically terrible, mindless crime drama that only 75 year olds watch from it's full stable of generically terrible, mindless crime dramas that only 75 year olds watch. If anything, choose that timeslot to launch one of your generically terrible, mindless reality shows that could hit across demographics. In the end the blame is shared between Nielsen Media Research and the Midwest.

And lastly I am sorry for America. And no I'm not talking about how much the commercials sucked or how we had to hear Shannon Sharpe flubber on at halftime about all the fumbles. I'm talking about the fact that Peyton Manning won a Superbowl. As a rule, it's never good for this country when the best player in the league wins the Lombardi trophy while we're at war. Think back to the great wars that America has won. The Revolutionary War. The War of 1812. The Civil War. World Wars I and II. During exactly none of those wars did the best football player in the NFL win the Superbowl. I am certain of this. With the way things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan this does not bode well for the country.

Bottom Line: Peyton Manning does not support our troops.


I appreciate your humor, your hatred of Peyton Manning, like the Dark Side, clouds everything, even what's right in front of you. What would Tom Brady's solution to the Deep Cover 2 have been? The exact same as Peyton Mannings. Why can't you just appreciate what Peyton Manning just did? He just Bradied the Pats and the Bears. He took everything the defense gave him. What do you think would have happened if Lovie Smith tightened up the Cover 2? The Bears would have been beaten deep. I think it was the Deep Cover 2 that kept the Bears in the game for that long, anyway. The Colts were the far superior team last night.

And you know what? They'd be the far superior team every night. For those who picked the Bears, I'd be curious as to how they would have answered this question before the game: If these two teams played 100 times, would the Bears win more than half? Would anyone outside of Illinois said yes? So why would someone pick the Bears to win the game. Saj, if these two teams played 100 times, the Colts would win more than 80. They dominated this game and you know it.

I mean, look at what went wrong for the Colts and right for the Bears early last night. The Bears knew they couldn't get down early. Grossman and the running game needed a lead and they got it. Hester returned the opening kickoff for a TD. Manning threw a pick in his first drive and looks shaky early. The Colts botch an extra point. Vinatieri misses a field goal. It's the first Superbowl with rain, surely helping the team that relies on running and defense! Everything the Bears needed to happen did happen. And they still got smoked.

What else could Bears fans have hoped for? Grossman not to suck? How could anyone count on that? The first joke cracked by my ninth grader this morning was that he should have won the MVP. I seriously don't know how anyone could have picked the Bears in this one. The quarterback disparity was just too large. The only times quarterbacks nearly as bad as Grossman won Superbowls in the last ten years was Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson, and they had two all time defenses on their team, not to mention they were facing Kerry Collins and Rich Gannon. Other than those two situations, which quarterbacks have won the last 20 Superbowls? Look at these names: Brady, Warner (MVP season), Elway, Favre, Young, Aikman, Simms, Montana, and two time pro-bowler Mark Rypien.

My point? Taking Grossman over Manning is a joke, especially when Manning's team is more talented.


You know what? YOU'RE A JOKE. You ever think of that? Huh?

And tell your son of a bitch ninth grader that the Grossman for MVP joke was my joke first (unless he's reading this). I'll get you for this, Peyton Manning!


Game, Set, Match: Ian. I look forward to our baseball predictions next month...

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.

NFL: Now that the season's over...

Just kidding. Last night my roommate Rob, a Jets' fan, told me that we better not ignore the Superbowl now that the Patriots' season has ended. I mulled over the existential implications of existing as a spectator outside of the Patriots-verse and decided that all will be well as long as Ian and I jump right into a Red Sox season preview and continue to anger readers with our fan-boy nonsense. Alas, the realization then hit that if we ignore the Superbowl we can't take arbitrary and baseless jabs at Peyton Manning until the first days of NFL training camp this summer. Oh Peyton, you professional commercial actor and fake-moustache model!


First, I'll ask before our readers do: Was that really Brian Scalabrine? And if so, how did he grow less cool as he got older?

Second, I agree with your justification of continuing to talk NFL, but let me suggest that we hold off until next week. We'd hate to oversaturate the topic by the middle of next week, when the game is right around the corner. Plus media day is next Tuesday and I haven't received my press pass in the mail yet.

To kill time this week, I'd like to turn our attention to another local team (surprise) and examine our Boston Celtics. However, while this particular example might be local, the philosophical dilemma that they face has been shared by numerous franchises over the years. The dilemma is this: When a team is clearly not a contender, should they quietly maneuver to lose games and strengthen their draft position?


Ian, I'm sure you recall all the frantic calculations we did during last year's "Race to Reggie Bush" at the end of the season. Even with a week left there was a cluster of teams within one or two wins of each other at the very bottom of the standings. It was like a bizarro playoff scenario where the worst record and the weakest schedule took the prize, with the three-win 49ers vs. the two-win Texans acting as the marquee matchup that Sunday. In the end, the 49ers won a game (in overtime!) they probably should have lost for the good of the franchise and the Texans secured the top pick which they inexplicably flubbed six months later. If Joe Nedney, the 49ers kicker who hit a field goal with 3:52 left in overtime, shanked that kick and the Texans went on to score a few points before the game ended, Reggie Bush ends up in San Francisco and the 49ers probably win the division in 2006. Everything but the winning the division thing I can say with at least some certainty.

Ergo, sometimes it actually works in your favor to tank a game. Then again there are those pesky "integrity" and "pride" things some people have which prevents them from doing something so disingenuous (SEE ALSO: Ricky Davis' triple double, Michael Strahan's single season sack record, and/or Nykesha Sales' UCONN scoring record. Loose examples; don't crucify me for the comparison.) So teams often put themselves in a position where even while trying to win they are in great shape to lose (begging the deontological debate regarding actions versus intentions) which is what the Philadelphia 76ers have successfully done so far this season and what I think the Celtics are hoping to accomplish considering the probable top two picks in the 2007 NBA Draft, Durant and Oden, are being hailed as "can't miss" guys.

But there's one problem here: the Celtics (12 wins at the writing of this post) will probably not end the season with the leagues' worst record. What with the lottery they would still have a chance at Durant and/or Oden but by no means the best. As of now Memphis (10) and Philly (11) stand in their way (and with the pending departure of Gasol, Memphis will only strengthen their futility) with Atlanta (13), Charlotte (14), Seattle (16), Sacramento (16), and New Orleans (16) hanging around.

So what can/should the Celtics do? Play the young guys and hope for the worst(best).

NFL: Championship Games Review

Saj, that one hurt. That loss hurt me more than any loss of any of my sports teams since Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.

Seconds after Tom Brady reached back into his uncharacteristically empty quiver, I shut off my television. We ended our marathon online conversation with 'Go Sox' and I shut off my computer. I laid down in bed to listen to the WEEI postgame show, only to listen to two morons make up excuses, so I shut off my radio. Cutting the power to these technologies didn't help. The Patriots season had been shut off, and unlike said devices, it couldn't be turned back on.

The next hour was dedicated to replaying the game in my mind, like a perpetual booth review. At 7-3, I was relieved that we did to the Colts on the second drive what the Chiefs couldn't do for three quarters and the Ravens couldn't do in an entire game. At 14-3, I was relieved that all the trash talking I did throughout the week was accurately foreshadowing what the Patriots offense could do to the overrated Colts defense. At 21-3, I called my buddy Greg to tell him how good the Patriots were and how I was furious at the country for once again picking against the Patriots in a Colts playoff showdown. "How stupid can people get?" I asked him.

I was about to find out.

The Colts scored 32 second half points, in a confluence of plays that we can discuss throughout the day if you'd like. That's 32 points in 30 minutes. Did anyone see this coming? I mean anyone? In our conversation last night, Saj, I said the last scenario I would have expected is a huge Pats lead followed by a Colts comeback. Ranked possibilites ahead of a Pats collapse were a blowout in either direction, a close game in either direction, or a Colts collapse. A Pats collapse just seemed unfathomable to me. Why? Because it's never happened before. Tom Brady was 62-2 with a halftime lead, and usually those are within one possession. But a 21-6 lead for the Pats? That's like Mariano Rivera with a three run lead.

And maybe that's just it. The Patriots are never up by 18 points so early in a game. They always stay close and win it in the end. Without experience leading by that amount, they weren't sure how to protect it. That's not an excuse. It's a hypothesis and not a very good one. Just an idea. The Indianapolis Colts deserved to win and I tip my hat to them. They came back from 18 points down and road momentum right into their final possession. And with less than one minute left and the Pats needing to into the endzone, the first Patriot deficit of the game was just too much to overcome.

Thoughts, Saj? How are you doing on the Morning After?


I'm a little tired, otherwise I feel okay. After the Brady interception that ended the game, I turned the television off and sulked angrily for a little while until I looked around my living room. Sitting there watching the game with me (and dealing with my frequent and sudden outbursts) were a Jets fan and two Giants fans. And I realized that life could be worse. I could be any one of those guys. My quarterback could be either Eli Manning or Chad Pennington, who between them have two more shoulder surgeries, one more AWESOME karaoke performance, one less Gisele Bundchen, and three less Superbowl rings than Tom Brady. My team could be coached by this guy or I could share my fandom with people from New Jersey and Long Island (say what you will about townie Patriot fans but I'll take them over troglodyte Jerseyians every day of the week.)

What made me upset was not losing (actually, that's a lie but let's pretend it's true). The Colts are a very good team with a very talented (albeit ugly, uncharismatic, irritating, did I mention Tom Brady is dating Gisele Bundchen?) quarterback and a pretty sharp coach. Finally they caught the Patriots in the RCA Dome during the playoffs, and they were who we thought they were. What made me upset was how the Patriots lost the game, which you detailed thoroughly above. It's a way I haven't seen the Patriots lose a game since a guy whom I will call Brew Dledsoe was standing immobilely under center.

All in all, how upset can I really get? The Patriots went 12-4 this year and made it to the AFC Championship. I would have loved a 40-3 Patriots blowout just so ESPN would stop with all the Brady-Manning rivalry bullcrap, but anything else perpetuates this media jerkfest. Well something else happened and when the Patriots head to Indianapolis in Week 9 of next season I'll be burying my head in a sand bucket for the entire week prior to the game. Congratulations, Peyton. I hope Rex Grossman wins a Superbowl before you do.

Football Friday: NFL Championship Games

Playoff Standings (last week in parenthesis)
Ian 5-3 (2-2)
Saj 5-3 (3-1)

Big games coming up this weekend, Ian. Big games. And with spreads of 2 and 3 points, people are predicting close games too. This is what it's all about, Ian. This is where we prove our mettle as idiots who pick football games. This is where I insert another cliché to give what we do a sense of gravitas sort of like when Fox plays one of those fast-paced halftime highlights montages to a piece of weighty, dramatic, classical music. WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE!

Aye. The last great weekend of football.

NFC Championship: New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears (Sunday, 3:00pm)

Speaking of arbitrary scheduling, the games this week start at 3:00pm and 6:30pm respectively. I don't get it. Not only are these odd times but there is great potential for the NFC game to run long and overlap the beginning of the AFC game. All this just so ESPN can cram an extra two hours of Sunday NFL Countdown down our throats? I think they're trying to hypnotize me with Michael Irvin's suits. And speaking of how terrible Sunday NFL Countdown is, NEVER watch it in HD. Chris Berman's face looks like it's made of playdough.

On to the game, or as I like to call it: SBGOTW. SBGOTW should be an interesting matchup between a team that is actually fun to watch and the Chicago Bears. Honestly, so boring. Don't get me wrong I wish them well and all that other polite stuff I don't mean, but aside from Devin Hester and Brian Urlacher they are so incredibly boring to watch. Something about the backfield tandem of Cedric Benson and Thomas Jones just doesn't get my heart racing and Rex Grossman would only get my heart racing were I a Bears fan (but not in a good way.) So f****** boring.

On the flip side you have America's team of the year, the New Orleans Saints. Honestly, it feels a little like the movie Major League, with the dastardly owner looking to move the team to greener pastures while the wily group of outcasts and veterans and the old timer coach miraculously finagle their way to the pennant. Except the Saints have a Pro-Bowl quarterback (Brees), the most electric player on the field (Bush), a hammer up the middle (McAllister), a trio of sure-handed receivers (Colston, Horn, Henderson), and a 43 year old first time head coach who won Coach of the Year. And they don't call it "winning the pennant" in football. But the dastardly owner part is true (Tom Benson).

So what's going to happen? I think too much is being made of New Orleans' susceptibility to the deep ball. If you know it's coming, and I think Payton has some idea, you can stop it. It's ludicrous to assume the Saints don't have a plan for Bernard Berrian's streak patterns. Score points early, make Grossman read the zone coverage and deliver the ball accurately, and pay a Bears clubhouse attendant to spike Brian Urlacher's Gatorade with horse, elephant, and killer whale tranquilizers. I'm taking the Saints, despite my belief that Tom Benson is the Jeffrey Loria of the NFL.


The 2006-2007 New Orleans Saints are the best American sports story since McGwire-Sosa in '98. However, since hindsight reveals that the homerun race of '98 is more tainted than a Jason Giambi urine sample, the Saints' success is the best American sports story since probably the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. Was there ever a point in the last 25 years where this entire country was cheering harder for one team throughout the entire season? The 2001 Yankees caught steam after September 11. The 2001-2002 Patriots caught steam after the Snowbowl. Lance Armstrong's sport isn't popular enough. Tiger Woods is sheer greatness but not that special of a story. Kirk Gibson was one game. Rocky IV was a movie. And if you talk to any neoconservative, anything successful since 1981 was a product of Reaganomics. Therefore, Lake Placid was the last great American sports story until these New Orleans Saints.

So now the Saints go marching into Chicago. We were robbed (looted?) out of another game in the Superdome. Seattle should have defeated Chicago last week and most people know that. I even knew it before the game. I've also known since Week 14 that New Orleans was going to the Superbowl this year.

It's not just the karma, though I'd be lying if I don't think that gives them extra juice every time they step onto a football field, not to mention it puts something in the back of their opponents' minds - something that says "Sure, I want to win, but if I lose, I want it to be to them." That can't help anyone...except the Saints.

Yes, it's more than karma. It's the fact that, head to head, I'd take them against any team in their conference. The Saints offense is just too diverse, their coaching is just too good, and their defense is just good enough.

But just for s's and g's, let's take a look at their matchup this week. The Bears are showing a steadily declination in prowess. Their defense is not in midseason form. The loss of Tommie Harris is huge. Take any team's best defensive lineman out of the game and it'd be a huge hit for the team. Do you know how many points the Bears have given up in the 5 games since he's been out? 27, 31, 21, 26, and 24. That is not a good defense and that's their strength! Moreover, the middle three of those five games were against Tampa, Detroit, and Green Bay - not exactly the class of talent in the NFL. So how will the Bears defense do against the Saints? They're going to give up close to 30 points, if not more.

Therefore, I think the Saints can score early. And you made a great point, Saj. If Rex Grossman has to bring them back, that's a problem for the Bears. Oh we gotta big problem, Jerry.

So, the Saints should and will win. If they don't, well, I should have known better than to make a pick that makes sense. After all, it's the 2006-2007 NFL season. Pick: New Orleans

AFC Championship: New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts (Sunday, 6:30pm)

Any guesses as to which way I'm leaning?

I feel bad calling the earlier game a Junior Varsity game. It's a good game. The Saints obviously have the overachievement story in the year following the city's disaster. They were statistically the top offensive team in football. The Bears contribute to a good game because they're from Chicago and have a storied history in the league. They had the top ranked defense in the conference (despite the stumble down the stretch). Finally, they were the top two teams from the NFC and they made it to the conference's title matchup. It's not a bad game at all.

But it's definitely the JV game.

At 6:45, the Varsity game will kick off. Colts-Pats has a number of terrific storylines, some of which are: Vinatieri could beat his former team or choke in a new uniform; Gostkowski could replace Vinatieri with a big kick or he could choke while Vinatieri looks on; Brady and Belechick improving on a 12-1 playoff record, cementing their legendary status (Lombardi and Montana are really around the corner if they win it all this year); Patriots looking to be only the second team to ever win 4 out of 6 Superbowls; and of course extending the rivalry between these two teams, which is arguably the greatest non-division rivalry in the NFL.

The paramount storyline, however, is Peyton Manning. Indianapolis does not win this game unless he plays well. If he plays well and wins the game and goes on to win the Superbowl, he can then be safe as an all-time Top 5 quarterback. He'll be in the pantheon (Unitas, Montana, Elway, eventually Brady). If he doesn't play well and they lose, it will be his worst loss yet. If he doesn't win this time, at home, in a dome, as the favorite, against his top rival, then he'll probably never get another chance like this. If he doesn't beat the Patriots in the playoffs now, he never will. This is his "silver bullet" game. Everything has aligned perfectly for him. He must win this game, or his career will never be the same. Thus, this is without a doubt the top storyline. A career will be defined. He's a Hall of Famer no matter what - but will he be Montana or Tarkenton?

I don't think he'll be good enough to win. These last two victories by the Colts were mirages. Both Kansas City and Baltimore had a fatal flaw. The Colts stacked the line against Larry Johnson and average-at-best quarterback Trent Green didn't have the skills or weaponry necessary to take advantage. The Ravens had an anemic offensive game, as two over the hill players were the engine of their offense. The Patriots, meanwhile, are the second most complete team of these playoffs, and they just beat the most complete team. Can the Colts stack the line on the Patriots to stop the three running backs? Not with Brady back there. So do they rush three and drop 8 back? No, then they'll get run on or picked apart by Brady because the Offensive Line could give him three days in the pocket.

And factor in what we know about the Patriots. There's the playoff record of their coach and quarterback (12-1). There's Brady's record in a dome (10-0). There's their uncanny ability to win all close games (6 of their 12 playoff wins this century were by 3 points). The crux of the argument is not that they just do whatever it takes to win games, but that they can do whatever it takes to win games.

See, people outside of New England can't figure out the Pats. Everyone tries to pidgeonhole the great teams and explain what they do so well. The Steelers and Bears of the 70's and 80's had great defenses. The Niners and Cowboys of the 80's and 90's had great offenses. Even the Rams and Ravens Superbowl teams at the turn of the century were teams that played spectacularly well on one side of the ball in order to earn their rings.

Since 2002, however, the dominant team in the NFL, the New England Patriots, have been essentially chameleonic. They morph into whatever it takes to win. Their head coach and front office has set up a brilliantly balanced team. They can win a shoot out with Brady, they can control the clock with their backs, their defense can rush the quarterback or drop back in zone with equal effectiveness. And it drives the rest of the country nuts that they can't figure out how the Pats keep winning. But that's just it. That's what they do so well. They win football games.

The problem, of course, is that people are scared of this enigmaticism, almost as scared as they are of me making up words in the middle of a blog. Since New England's consistent winning doesn't make sense, they just keep picking against them.

And that, friend, is the epitome of a big mistake. I plead with you to not play a contrarian. Scrap whatever argument you've concocted to support a Colts victory and let's head into the Superbowl with an even record. We'll find some interesting way to break a tie. You must pick the Pats. You did last week against the Chargers and the Colts are a worse team. I'll end with a quote from you: "Saj is a homer. I'm taking the Patriots here principally because I can't allow myself to pick against them." Follow through. Pick: PATRIOTS


Quite a post. What else can I say? I can't pick against the Patriots in this game regardless of any football analysis, so there's that. I am left only to provide you with this short one act play loosely based on both Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman and George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion:

My Fair Peyton
(enter stage left, a teenage Peyton Manning, a prepubescent Eli Manning, and father Archie, all in overalls)

PEYTON: Hey Pop! Go long.
ARCHIE: Ha, ha. Okay, son, okay. (runs across the stage as Peyton throws it to him)
ELI: Wow, Pey! What a spiral! You're going to be a great quarterback someday.
PEYTON: Ah, shucks. Thanks, Eli. You're the best little brother anybody could ever hope for in the whole wide world (rubs his head affectionately). If you work real hard like me you could be a great quarterback someday too.
ELI: Nah, I'll never be good enough (looks at his feet) on account of my learning disability and all.
ARCHIE: Hey, Eli! Out pattern, go. (Archie cocks his arm, and throws a pass. Eli confuses an out pattern for a post route and the ball goes sailing off stage) I said OUT PATTERN! Are you stupid? I swear you got creamed corn between your ears. (Eli heads off stage to retrieve the ball.)
PEYTON: Now, Poppa. You know he don't know any better. He's trying, poppa. He's trying.
ARCHIE: Well he should, dangnabbit. He should. You and Cooper, you were running out patterns at age five.
PEYTON: He's just different. That's all. (Eli returns with the ball)
ELI: Sorry, Pop. I'll get it next time, I swear. (Archie goes in to hug his son, but strikes his face with the back of his hand and takes the football from him)
ARCHIE: You're damn right you will. (He pulls a flask from his front overall pocket and takes a long swig) We're gonna do it again and again until you learn.
ELI: But Pop, I don't want to be a football player.
PEYTON: Now, Eli, cool it. You know how Poppa gets.
ARCHIE: No, Peyton. Let the boy finish (turning to Eli). So all of a sudden you're too good for football?
ELI: I didn't say that, Pop. I just said-
ARCHIE: Oh, I heard what you said. Come with me, Ima take my belt to you boy. (Archie grabs Eli by the arm and starts to lead him offstage)
PEYTON: Pop, wait- (Archie glares at him and tosses him the football)
ARCHIE: Mind your tongue, Peyton. Practice with the tire swing while I tend to your brother. If you tell your mother about this I'll come back at you twice as hard. And that's a promise. (exit Archie dragging a silent Eli)
PEYTON: (poised to throw the ball, speaking to himself) I'm gonna be the greatest quarterback ever.
(enter a young Tom Brady, wearing a leather jacket, the two prettiest girls in high school on his arms)
TOM: Yo, Manning! What's shaking kid?
PEYTON: Oh, hey Tom.
TOM: What are you up to man? It's Saturday night I know you got some ridiculous shit planned.
PEYTON: I'm just gonna throw for an hour or so, then head in to wash up for dinner. Gotta get up early for church tomorrow and maybe throw some more. (chuckles nervously) Gotta work hard if I want to be the starting quarterback next year.
TOM: Gunning for my job, are you Manning? (slaps him on the back) Just kidding, bro. Say, I just found three hundred dollars on the ground, is it yours?
PEYTON: Nah, Poppa doesn't like us carrying our own money.
TOM: Ah, cool. Okay, I'm gonna head out of here. Drew Brees is having a party at his place and Candice here (squeezing the ass of one of the girls) is inviting her bisexual twin sister. Come on through if you want.
PEYTON: Thanks for the invitation, Tom. I'll probably stay in tonight with my brothers and play Boggle.
TOM: Whatevers clever. Peace out, Manning. (exit Tom Brady, and the women)
PEYTON: I'm gonna be the greatest quarterback ever! (throws a perfect spiral through a tire swing. Fade out.)

PATRIOTS.

NFL: Ramp up to the next GOTY

It didn't take long, but the NFL, fresh off a classic New England-San Diego matchup, has another Game of the Year. This matchup pits arguably the greatest playoff rivalry in the sport, with the New England Patriots heading to Indianpolis to play the Colts. Saj, there's much to talk about, but I'll start with this:

How are the Colts three point favorites? Is it as simple as them having the better record and homefield advantage? Or do most people actually expect the Colts to win? Give me your thoughts.


Sorry, I can't provide you with any sound football analysis just yet, my mind is still reeling from learning that Tom Brady is now seeing Gisele Bundchen. Unbelievable. As my friend Dan said, "what did he do in some prior life to be rewarded with this one?" Winning three Superbowls is one thing. Dating a woman the caliber of Bridget Moynahan is another thing. Either of those would definitely take something on par with developing a polio vaccine or saving a group of school children from a five alarm fire. But Gisele Bundchen is the last straw. I have no doubt in my mind that Tom Brady was Mahatma Gandhi in a past life. That's the only way to explain how charmed his life has been; he was a transcendently pure individual that brought justice to millions and died unfairly and abruptly. This is God saying "my bad" for allowing him to be assassinated in 1948. In all seriousness, Tom Brady just vaulted Jeter in a pasttime Jeter invented (namely, sports stars bagging impossibly famous and beautiful women). Somewhere Peyton Manning is crying into his Ovaltine.


Seriously. It just doesn't get any better for a man. You win an enormous playoff game in which you were an underdog. An entire region loves you. You go the lockerroom and wash up and Giselle Bundchen, solidly in my Worlds Top 3, is waiting for you outside the lockerroom. It's like being the star athlete in high school with the hottest girl at school waiting for you after you win the conference. Times a gajillion.

Is this why the spread favors the Colts? Might they esimate Tom Terrific's intentions as losing as soon as possible in order to begin the offseason early? He doesn't even have to go the Pro-Bowl. If he loses, he's on the next jet to Rio.

I mean, the odds makers certainly aren't relying just on football. If they were, the Colts would not be favored, agreed?


I think it's exactly the opposite. Relying solely on football is why the Colts are favored. They're 9-0 at home and they've produced impressive defensive showing in back to back games in the playoffs. And let's not forget that they beat the Patriots in Gillette Stadium earlier this year. The Colts are a talented team. Of course there are things going against them, namely history. And the fact that Peyton Manning threw his offensive line under the bus after last year's divisional playoff loss to the Steelers:




Saj, what most angers me is that national experts like Clayton and Pasquerelli are saying the Colts are going to win because Peyton Manning is "due." It's absurd. If I were to beat you in a game nine straight times, even if we seemed evenly matched, would people bet on you to win the tenth one because you were due? No, people would bet on me because I've proven that I can consistently beat you.

The Patriots, when it counts, consistently raise their game, and this twice included convincing victories over the Colts. The Colts, when it counts, consistently lower their game, including the aforementioned results in Patriot games. Two Indianapolis playoff wins this year does not make them a better team than New England, especially considering in both those weeks the Pats beat two superior teams.

I'm not saying New England is a lock win this Sunday. I'm saying it's absurd they're three point underdogs. What am I missing?


Why are you complaining about the point spread? The Pats are getting three points; put some bills on them this weekend and supplement your salary. I think the spread is justified- the Colts have been almost unbeatable at home in the past two calendar years. Their defense, however aided by playing against two terrible quarterbacks and one game against Herman Edwards, has looked impressive. Maybe they just needed a confidence boost, and holding Larry Johnson to less than thirty rushing yards qualifies as one.

That being said I do see your point. Like when I kept beating you at NBA Jam with Glenn Rice and the Miami Heat. Sure you were due for a victory but you didn't get it until you turned the hot spots back on and I couldn't capitalize on them because any video game in more than two dimensions is suprising mentally taxing for me. Perhaps this is the year the Indianapolis Colts find the hot spots that New England can't capitalize on?


It's Glen Rice with one 'n'. Asshole.

I think what you meant to close with, as our second commenter astutely alluded to, is that Roger Goodell and the referrees will turn the hot spots on for the Colts. I think we'll see at least one Patriot D-Linemen (Warren?) "rough" the passer on Sunday.

The spread is not justified.

The Patriots allowed the second fewest points in the NFL this year. The Patriots just went on the road and beat the #1 seed who was undefeated at home. Two years ago, the Patriots defeated a team much more complete than this Colts team, when they dismantled Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship when the Steelers were 16-1 and hot as a firecracker. The Patriots have never lost an AFC championship in their history, and that includes three of the last five years, two of them coming on the road. The Patriots have handily won the last two post season matchups between these two teams. The Patriots, as you and I have vehemently agreed on, could have beat the Colts in the regular season if they didn't abandon the run.

Peyton Manning's Colts have never won a championship game. The Colts were pitiful against the run in the regular season, letting terrible running backs set PR's. The Colts have faced a one dimensional and no dimensional offense in this year's playoffs, with the one dimensional offense having a horrendous defense. Peyton Manning's Colts have never beat a team seeded higher than them in the playoffs until last Sunday against said no dimensional offense.

These are two completely different histories. I just don't get it.

So I'll just ask you this. Who will most of the country pick in the ESPN Sports Nation poll?


Don't be overconfident. Tread softly. BEWARE OF THE MANNING.

Re: ESPN Sports Nation, the country picks the Colts. America wants the 6'5" quarterback with the laser, rocket arm to win his damn Superbowl. Ignore the point spread, people think he's the underdog here in his umpteenth attempt to vanquish the evil Belichick and his minions, that ne'er-do-well womanizer Tom Brady included. Peyton Manning is the A-rod of football only the public doesn't hate him because he's white, he's doofy-looking, and he plays in a shitbox of a city like Indianapolis and not in a liberal cesspool on one of the coasts. It's like the team merely being from Indianapolis inspires sympathy. God I hate Peyton Manning.


I couldn't help but notice you referred to him as an underdog... No, Saj. He's the favorite by 3 points. You just subconciously surrendered the argument. I accept.

One final thing before we shut this thread down in preparation for tomorrow's Football Friday. As a Patriots fan, do you feel more, less, or about as confident as you did heading into the San Diego game?


Less, believe it or not. My mentality comes for the skewed risk-reward dynamic. The Patriots CANNOT lose to Peyton Manning. The pain of losing is far greater than the pleasure of winning. I can't believe I'm saying this, but this must be how it feels to be a Yankee fan.


You're crazy. There is nothing the Colts do better than the Chargers with one exception: throw the ball. And throwing the ball is exactly what Bill Belechick is best at stopping, and has done it to Peyton Manning in their last two playoff meetings.

The Chargers were unstoppable at home, had the best player in the league, had a much better defense than Indianapolis, and a coach that is no worse than Tony Dungy.

I'll close the thread with this: The Patriots can definitely lose. They can definitely lose. I mean, it's the NFL we're talking about here. But to be more confident against them than the Chargers makes no sense, nor does the point spread. See you tomorrow for picks.