Barbaro: A Tribute In Rhyme

Barbaro, you brave young steed,
you'll never be replaced.
For no thoroughbred in history

hath made such gooey paste.

A Brief History of (Super Bowl) Lines

Imagine turning the business section of your newspaper and listed alongside the values of gold, pork bellies and other commodities were the going street rates for marijuana, crack and every other illegal drug on the market. It'd seem a bit weird, right? Why would a reputable outfit like a newspaper print information that could only be used for illicit purposes?
Yet open any sports page in the country (with the exception of the prententious, and worthless, New York Times sports section) and, there, listed in the agate type are lines for sporting events that are illegal to bet on in nearly every state in the country.
The Super Bowl is the second-biggest gambling event in the U.S. (behind the NCAA Tournament). This year, $100 million will be wagered legally, about 1/10th of the total of illegal bets that will be placed via the internet and office pools. And while exotic prop bets have become popular in recent years, the point spread is still the most popular way to bet on the Super Bowl.
Today, Chris' Sports Blog takes a look at Super Bowl point spreads throughout history, all while taking unnecessary cheap shots at the Patriots. Enjoy.

Best Lines
Super Bowl XXVIII: Oakland (+2.5) vs. Washington
The 1983 Washington Redskins were a juggernaut. They were defending Super Bowl champions, went 14-2 with the two losses coming by a combined two points on two Monday Nights two months apart (including the infamous 48-47 track meet with Green Bay that still holds the record for most points scored on MNF) and, most impressively, set the record for most points scored in an NFL season (a record that wouldn't be broken for 15 years). The 'Skins had All-Pros on both lines, a quarterback in the prime of his career and a Hall of Fame running back who had just set the NFL record for most touchdowns in a single season (a record which would stand for about a decade too). In short, before the Super Bowl, it would have been fair to assume the '83 Redskins were among the greatest teams of all-time.
Oakland, on the other hand, was a pretty good team. They finished 12-4 on the regular season and avenged two division losses to Seattle in the AFC Championship game (remember, Seattle was in the AFC back then). Oakland was good, but the Redskins were potentially great; which is why the fact that Washington was only favored by 2.5 is so damn fascinating.
Clearly, the low spread was caused by Oakland and Washington's regular season meeting, won by the Redskins 37-35 at RFK. Oakland came back from a 20-7 deficit in the 3rd quarter to score four quick touchdowns which put the Raiders up 35-20 with just 7:30 minutes remaining. A quick Thiesmann-to-Charlie Brown TD pass preceded a fumbled kickoff and a Mark Moseley field goal with 4:28 remaining to cut the lead to five. A failed Oakland drive followed, giving ther Redskins 110 seconds to get a touchdown starting from their own 31. Three straight passes to Brown got the 'Skins to the Raiders six with 43 left and, two plays later, Thiesmann hit Joe Washington streaking up the middle for the touchdown that sealed the win.
That close game was likely what dictated the 2.5 spread and it was a play in that game that led to the Raiders eventual blowout.
As NFL Films so expertly detailed on a Super Bowl Highlights VHS I watched over-and-over again in my earlier years, in the first Redskins/Raiders game Joe Gibbs called a play named "Rocket Screen" that went for 67 yards. The Raiders defensive coordinator had a hunch Gibbs might try to run it again, so he put Jack Squirek in certain packages to spy Joe Washington while other defenders dropped back into a sort of prevent.
Down 14-3 with the ball at his own 12 and only 12 seconds left in the half, the conservative Gibbs figured to down the ball and enter the locker room with an eleven-point deficit and the ball to start the second half. Instead, Gibbs called the rocket screen, Thiesmann never saw Squirek, who jumped the route, had the ball hit him in the numbers and walked, untouched, into the endzone for a 21-3 Raiders halftime lead.
In the case of Super Bowl XXVIII, the 2.5 spread wasn't a sign that the Redskins were superior, but that they were very vulnerable.

1995: San Francisco (-18.5) vs. San Diego
San Diego went 11-5 and had two wins in five weeks over the Pittsburgh Steelers, the team who earend homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. They played a brutal schedule and were not competitive in only one game, a 38-15 home rout by the team they would meet in Sure Bowl XXIX, the San Francisco 49ers.
It was likely for that game, and that game alone, that the oddsmakers bumped this spread up to 18.5, the highest in the history of the Super Bowl (yes, even higher than Super Bowl III, but thankfully we were spared the sight of Stan Humphries guaranteeing a victory whilst wearing a Speedo this time around). Based on records and stats, the Niners might have been two touchdown favorites.
As expected, the Niners jumped all over the Chargers early, so the only late-game drama was to see whether San Diego could get within 19 and come in under the spread, but a late on-sides kick failed and Bobby Ross was left to wonder what might have been if Stan Humphries was named Joe, from Broadway and wanted kisses from Suzy Kolber.

Worst Lines
1998: Green Bay (-11.5) vs. Denver
The defending Super Bowl champs had a fine follow-up season after Brett Favre's magical Super Bowl victory, a victory punctuated by that boyish celebration which showed how Favre is the game of football personified. Oh, how I love you Brett Favre. Me and The Wolfman.
Anyway, Green Bay ran through the NFC, finished 13-3 and had an easy time with the best teams they played, running a 7-1 record against teams over .500. But the Broncos were #1 in total points and total yards, and #7 in points allowed and #5 in yards allowed, the defensive stats beingvery similar to Green Bay's rankings.
It could be argued that the NFC contained the two best teams in football (GB and SF), but after those two, the talent dropoff was precipitous. The AFC, however, had few great teams but a lot of good ones, which helps explain Denver's unspectacular 12-4 record. A playoff rout of 11-5 Jacksonville set-up a game against the presumptive AFC favorites, Kansas City. The Chiefs won their last six games of the regular season, including a 44-9 drubbing of 11-1 San Francisco. Kansas City was the team to beat in the AFC and Denver did it, then desposed of Pittsburgh in the title game.
So why were Packers favored by so many points? Green Bay barely beats San Francisco and is instantly crowned king of the NFL, but Denver goes on the road to beat the team that blew out San Francisco and they're rewarded with an insulting line? What, was Rex Grossman their quarterback?
No, it was John Elway. And his reputation as a crybaby whiner who wouldn't go play for Baltimore was long forgotten, just as his three Super Bowl losses by a combined score of 118-40 were too. Elway finally had somebody to hand the ball to that wasn't named Sammy Winder and, with Terrell Davis, Denver posed a great challenge to the overhyped Packers. They did, thus giving us the worst line in modern Super Bowl history.

Super Bowl XXII: Denver (-3) vs. Washington
In retrospect, nobody knew what to expect from Super Bowl XXII. Both the Redskins and Broncos had escaped from their respective Championship games (a broken-up pass in the endzone by Darrell Green for the 'Skins and "the fumble" for Denver) and had numerous question marks at various positions. Coupled with the hype over Doug Williams becoming the first black man to start at quarterback in a Super Bowl (and with the fact that he and Jay Schroeder had been playing QB roulette all season) and anybody who claimed they knew what was going to happen was probably spending too much time hanging around Dexter Manley.
So this line isn't bad because it was poorly set, it's bad because it ended up being poorly set. After racing out to a 10-0 lead, Denver didn't score the rest of the game and watched Williams and the Redskins blow-up for 35 second quarter points, a Super Bowl record. Another garbage TD in the second half made the final 42-10, or 42-7 according to the spread. That 35 point margin is the most of any spread-score in Super Bowl history.

Lines That Were Too Good
2000: St. Louis (-7) vs. Tennessee
1997: Green Bay (-14) vs. New England
It's not too surprising that the only two "pushes" in Super Bowl history were in games where the spreads were multiple of seven - hell yes, using 3rd grade math for the first time since 1989! In 2000, of course, Kevin Dyson (left) was inches away from scoring a game-tying touchdown that would have sent the game into overtime (assuming Tony Romo wasn't holding for the Titans that day) and given bookies what they likely wanted; a result that paid, instead of returning bets for a push.
Three years earlier, the Packers were two-touchdown favorites against a New England team that was fortunate to play Jacksonville in the AFC Championship Game instead of the team everyone thought would be there, 13-3 Denver. (Terrell Davis had to wait to carry John Elway to his first ring in the next season.) They ended up winning 35-21.

Lines Indicating Oddsmakers Had No Clue What To Do
XL: Pittsburgh (-4) vs. Seattle
XXXVII: Oakland (-4) vs. Tampa Bay
XXXV: Baltimore (-3) vs. New York Giants
XIX: San Francisco (-3) vs. Miami
XVII: Washington (-3) vs. Miami
XVI: San Francisco (-1) vs. Cincinnati
XV: Oakland (-3) vs. Philadelphia
It's no surprise that, with the exception of Washington/Miami, all these Super Bowls were pretty unwatchable. It would seem to reason that low point spreads would equal a better game, but Super Bowl history says otherwise. Losing teams have never won against a spread less than six in the game's 41 year history. The closest one came to doing so was in Super Bowl XIII when the Cowboys were getting 3.5 and lost by 4.
Everyone looks back on that Baltimore/New York game and assumes that because Baltimore won so convincingly, they were the odds-on pregame favorite. The line, however, suggests otherwise. In retrospect it's easy to say Baltimore's offense could handle the Giants, but let's not forget that New York blew out Minnesota 41-0 in the NFC Championship, while the Ravens offense went five straight games without scoring an offensive touchdown during the regular season. Once Trent Dilfer was named quarterback they improved, but in those 2000 playoffs Baltimore hardly showed offensive firepower, scoring 21, 24 and 16 points in their three AFC victories.

Line Facts
* No AFL team was favored in the first four pre-merger Super Bowls that automatically pitted teams from the two leagues. Even after the Jets stunning win in Super Bowl III, the oddsmakers didn't learn their lesson, as they installed the NFL's Vikings as 13 point favorites over Hank Stram and the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl IV. They got the final margin close (it was 16), but for the wrong team. KC blew out Bud Grant and the Vikes.
After the merge there was realignment and no longer a guarantee that teams from each league would meet. Indeed, in the first post-merger Super Bowl two NFL teams matched-up, with Dallas playing Baltimore. (It was only then that a Super Bowl point spread would come to a respectable level (Baltimore - 2.5). Jim O'Brien's game-winning field goal didn't alter the betting, but had he missed and the game gone to overtime, those who wagered on Dallas still could have won. It was the first time in Super Bowl history that an end-of-game play would affect the betting.)
The first time an AFL team was favored over an NFL team was in Super Bowl VII when the Washington Redskins were underdogs against the undefeated Miami Dolphins. It might surprise you that the Dolphins, now known for their semi-annoying champagne-swilling every season when the last undefeated team loses, thus keeping their record in tact, were only slight favorites against a very pedestrian Redskins team. So slight, in fact, that to this day, this spread still holds the record for the lowest in Super Bowl history. (It's actually tied for the lowest, but adding that nugget into the previous sentence sort of compromises the inherent drama.)
Yes, folks, the amazing, historic, unbeatable, never-duplicated, mighty 1972 Dolphins were favored by a Garo Yepremian extra point. One point. Just one. This might have had something to do with the fact that the Dolphins' opponents winning percentage was .367 on the year and they didn't win a playoff game by more than a touchdown. But I'm just saying. One point?!! Didn't you assume those guys were thought to be so good that Vegas was going to start breaking out abacuses to figure out the spread?

* In the Patriots' first three Super Bowl appearances, they were a combined 35.5 point underdog. In their last two, they've been a combined 14 point favorite, but have failed to cover each time. Yet somehow ESPN still thinks the 2004 team was one of the ten best in history.

* The now-standard "prop" bets, which can include betting on the first player to score a TD, which running back will have more yards, who will win the coin toss, etc. was created by Caeser's Palace in 1985 when they put odds on whether Bears defensive tackle William Perry would score an offensive touchdown. He did, of course, while Walter Payton did not. This year, there are over 250 available prop bets to choose from.

* Favorites are 22-16-2 in Super Bowls.

Friday Links

* Gilbert Arenas says he could score "84 or 85" points against Duke, in retribution for Coach K leaving him off Team USA's roster for last year's World Basketball Championships. Clearly, Gilbert doesn't watch too many Duke games because, if he did, he'd know that once he got to 45 the refs would immediately foul him out. Or he'd hit the game-winning shot and then have the refs arbitrarily add two more seconds to the game, plenty of time for Duke to steal one. All last night's Duke/Clemson game needed was Cold War overtones, '70s hairstyles and an Olympic banner overhead.
Also, Ivan Carter reports Gilbert was watching Bambi II on DVD when he got the call telling him he was voted an All-Star starter.

* According to FoxSports.com's Jay Glazer, the Cowboys have received permission to discuss their head coaching vacancy with 49ers offensive coordinator Norv Turner, news that makes me want to say, "that would be a very sensible hire, Jerry Jones," before running behind a bush and giggling maniacally.

* In Esquire, Chuck Klosterman looks into whether sports analysts were better at their original careers (playing professional sports) or their second-acts (talking about professional sports). Read the whole thing.
It's one of those ideas that you wish you had thought of yourself, and yet another reason why I consider Klosterman one of the best writers out there doing his thing. George Clooney.
Klosterman thinks Troy Aikman is a better analyst than he was a quarterback (high praise for his TV work, since Aikman is a Hall of Famer), rips on Sean Salisbury's NFL career so much that he thinks he is actually a better analyst, despite calling his TV work "an atrocity" and dishes this great line about Phil Simms: "He seems like a fictional announcer from a football movie I wouldn't pay to see," which is pretty much the perfect summary of Simms' broadcasting abilities.
Klosterman is one of those guys that a lot of people hate because he's successful, so he gets unfairly knocked around by people who are jealous of his talent and book deals. Someone once left a comment on my site suggesting that my dislike of Bill Simmons was for the very same reason, to which I responded, "some people hate Bill Simmons because they're not Bill Simmons. I just hate him because he's a d-bag."

* ESPN.com printed an appalling tale of injustice today, detailing the travails of a former high school football star in Georgia serving 10 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl while he was 18. Everyone involved in the case agrees Genarlow Wilson shouldn't be in jail for a decade, but nobody who can do anything about it seems eager to do so. In other news, Mike Nifong probably would have tried to get Wilson sentenced to life.

* A New York Times "Escapes" feature on the Triangle's basketball teams should have been a lot better than it was. Don't read it. I don't even know why I'm linking to it.

* Michael Wilbon thinks we could be witnessing something special in Steve Nash and the Phoenix Suns. And he doesn't have to compare their amazing run to the first 12 episodes of The White Shadow either.

* A few weeks back I started interrupting people's sentences with "George Clooney" and kept trying to get everyone over there and try to solve that thing and it made me hanker for a repeat viewing of Rick Sutcliffe's hilarious drunken appearance on a Padres telecast last May. After looking for it on the Internet for a few minutes, I determined that said video had been fully eradicated from the information superhighway and that this was, perhaps, the most amazing thing I had ever seen. How could a video just disappear? Does Rick Sutcliffe have connections?
Luckily, I'm always wrong and tonight I managed to find video documentation of this historic moment in baseball history. History, you fickle mistress whore, you've been defeated again in your attempts to hold down the brilliance of The Red Baron and for years onward schoolchildren will study Rick Sutcliffe's plan for thing-solving on foreign soil. Me? I'll be dropping off the clip tomorrow at the Smithsonian.

* And since we're on awesome guest appearances in baseball booths, here's the classic Dennis Leary/Lenny Clarke clip from NESN when Leary and Clarke found out about the heritage of Kevin Youkilis and turned it into a Mel Gibson roast. The best part about this clip (besides Jerry Remy practically keeling over from laughing so hard) is that Youkilis makes three huge plays in the half-inning, which gives Leary and Clarke even more fodder for their hysterical antics. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get outta here and call Jeffrey Katzenberg and ask him for a job.

Odds, Ends and Maria Sharapova

* Normally, I'd be shocked to see a list of Super Bowl teams that has the 2004 Patriots listed ahead of the 1991 Redskins, but with the media's love affair with Brady and Belichick still burning bright after they let the worst Colts team in four years handle them in the AFC Championship, nothing surprises me anymore.
Those '91 Skins would have throttled any of the Pats teams and a number of the teams ranked ahead of them on ESPN's inane list. The '86 Giants? They lost two games to non-playoff teams and had the 12th ranked defense in the NFL! But I guess we have to rank a New York team highly, because, after all, New York is the end-all, be-all of the entire sporting world. The '86 Giants. What a freakin' joke. Their inclusion at #8, along with the Pats at #9, make a mockery of these idiotic rankings, not that anything on Page 2 even has a chance of being remotely accurate. Dr. Z ranked the best teams of all-time a few years back and the '86 Giants didn't catch a whiff. (The '91 Skins were #5. I can't seem to find the link, mainly because the top hit on Google for "dr. z best teams all-time 1991 redskins" is some moron's site called "Chris's Sports Blog." Idiot doesn't even know how to use an apostrophe.
Maybe I'll rank the Super Bowl teams tomorrow, but I'll probably just complain more about the 2004 Patriots. They lost to a 4-12 Dolphins team in week 15 while fighting it out for homefield advantage, by the way. Oh, and they also won the Super Bowl because Donovan McNabb chokes like Mama Cass and vomits like Tara Reid after a regular ol' Tuesday. Sounds like one of the all-time best teams to me!
I just got finished talking about the rankings with CSB's resident UVA expert Spiro and now I'm even more furious than I was before. The '91 Redskins lost two games by five points, one in a meaningless week 16 game started by Jeff Rutledge after homefield was wrapped up (and they had a chance to win had lineman Mark Adickes not dropped a wide-open touchdown in the fourth quarter) and to Dallas in week 13 on the strength of a Cowboys end-of-half Hail Mary. They outscored opponents by 261 points, the second-best margin since the merger. Their opponents' winning percentage was .504, higher than every team above them except for the inexplicably-ranked '96 Packers. (Number six? Really?) Those 'Skins rolled through the playoffs and led the Bills 37-10 in the fourth quarter before Buffalo scored two meaningless touchdowns, one after an onside-kick. I won't bother ripping into the teams listed ahead of the Redskins (any moreso, that is), but it's a very fair statement to say that the 1991 Washington Redskins are much closer to being the best team of the Super Bowl era then they are to being the tenth best.

* Last night's State of the Union was one of the most thrilling television moments in history and it had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi's blinking. For the first time ever, it was possible to accurately compare the HD quality of all four major networks. Since ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC all used the same pool camera for their network feed, viewers could flip between the channels to see which high-def looked the best.
It was, of course, a two-horse race between NBC and CBS, the only two of the "Big Four" to broadcast in 1080i. With my fellow HD-dork Falkow on the phone, we gave NBC the nod, with their crisp colors and rich blacks. The sound also seemed a bit better. CBS looked great as well, but the coloring and audio seemed a bit off, particularly on during the ovations.
Compared to NBC and CBS, ABC was a step down with their 720p broadcast. FOX, by far the worst of the four major networks in terms of HD quality - and all other quality for that matter - didn't even figure in the competition because they used an enhanced widescreen feed, instead of showing in true hi-def. It's miserable that FOX has the rights to most major sporting events because, of all the networks (cable included) they have the worst HD quality by far.

* Staying on the HD trek (which I try not to bring up often because you'll get meaningless posts like the few paragaraphs above), I'm disappointed ESPN isn't showing the Australian Open in high-def, because Maria Sharapova is so captivating in SD that I shudder to think about how little I'd get done during her matches if she was in HD.

* The ACC released its football schedule today, and Wake Forest has a fairly favorable slate. Considering this is the first time anybody has ever been excited about an upcoming football season in Winston-Salem, this doubtlessly means the team will struggle to a 3-9 record.
The Deacs get a break by not playing the presumptive ACC favorite Virginia Tech (who will, no doubt, begin 9-0 and then lose back-to-back games in November), Miami and Georgia Tech. Three home games follow the season-opener at Boston College, a stand which includes a visit by Nebraska.
The highlight of the schedule is a Thursday-night tilt with Florida State, during which the Seminoles will no doubt be trying to earn retribution for the pasting Wake handed them this season in Tallahassee. Oddly, the Deacs close their year at Vanderbilt on Thanksgiving weekend.
Wake also plays Army at home and then travels late in the season to Navy, a game at which I will hopefully be in attendance.

* Scott thinks we'll all be sick of the Super Bowl Shuffle by next Sunday, so he sends in this YouTube gem of the 1988 Florida State football team rapping. Keep a special eye out for Deion Sanders and the white guy with the bandana.

Chris Answers PTI's Questions

Is Bill Parcells done for good?
Parcells leaving the Cowboys has caused some analysts to say they were "shocked" by the news. And I agree. Just like I was shocked when Basic Instinct 2 was shut out of the Oscar nominations this morning. I'm guessing the same people who expressed their extreme surprise were the same who thought the Bears had no shot against the Saints because can any career move made by Bill Parcells really be considered shocking?
The Cowboys were his fourth team, which he went to after proclaiming in 1996 that he was done with football. Nobody believed this, of course, especially the writers who select members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Parcells was an easy choice for induction in the late '90s, but because everyone expected him to return, the committee planned on waiting until they figured Parcells was done for good. As for whether Parcells is coming back, let's just say I don't expect him to be making any speeches in Canton soon.
My guess is the beginning of the end of Parcells' tenure in Big D came when Jerry Jones foisted Terrell Owens upon him. Expect him to take the year off and then be associated with every big-name coaching job that comes up in the next two seasons. (Hello, New York?) Parcells becoming a GM has been suggested, but can you really see him shopping for the groceries without preparing the food? Pat Riley tried that and we all know what happened there.

How did the Colts win?
The Colts finished off the Pats on Sunday because Bill Belichick's heralded defense couldn't have stopped 11 grandmas during the second half. Peyton Manning played nicely, but it was hardly a sublime, Peyton-esque effort. It's not like we're all sitting back today reminscing about how Manning marched down the field a la Elway. The Colts just sort of gained momentum with their late field goal in the first half and continued it by scoring immediately in the second.
Reche Caldwell didn't help matters for New England, but neither did anyone else. During the fourth quarter me, Horo, Jaffe and Russ (but not Antzo, because he was sleeping. Through the whole game. On the floor.) were suggesting various scenarios for how the game would end. Vinatieri would make or miss a game-winning kick, Gostkowski would do the same, Peyton would throw a pick, Brady would lead a comeback, Robert Kraft's two-toned shirts would blind Tom Moore and lead to absurd playcalls, etc. And each of those seemed feasible as the fourth quarter unfolded, but when it came time for Brady to lead a game-winning drive with under two minutes, did anybody else feel, at the time, that Brady didn't have a chance in hell at doing so?
This isn't a knock on Brady, a quarterback who could retire today and be a Hall of Famer, but unless you're a Pats fan, it wasn't too surprising to see Brady throw that pick. I can't really figure out why that was, I just know that Brady didn't look all that calm on the sidelines near the end of the game and, for a guy who has won so much, he doesn't feel clutch like MJ or Bird or Montana or Elway. Let's just say I was about ten times more surprised 24 hours before when Gilbert Arenas missed a potentially game-winning three. And Gil's only been doing that sort of stuff for the past 12 weeks.

Is Peyton Manning's reputation secured?
What's the first thing anybody mentions when they bring up Dan Marino? That he doesn't have a ring. So, no. The only thing Peyton secured Sunday was that he isn't Bill Belichick's bitch. He still needs to win the Super Bowl before he retires, or his entire career will be marred by the gaping hole on his resume. Fair or not, this is the way it is.

Dominant performance by the Bears?
Wait, the Bears and Saints actually played? I just thought Chicago was going to roll over and play dead for New Orleans, since that what every football "expert" seemed to think was going to happen in the NFC Championship. I'm still flabbergasted that all eight analysts on ESPN predicted New Orleans to win a road game. I ranted about this all weekend and was vehemently rooting against the Saints for that reason, and that reason alone.
The Bears performance was deceivingly dominating, as the game was in doubt early in the fourth quarter, but Rex Grossman turned it on when he needed to and Chicago coasted to the NFC Title. Bears-haters like Gene Wojciechowski still insist Chicago could have lost the game in a number of ways, which is an interesting point because I don't seem to remember Grossman getting nailed on a corner blitz, fumbling, losing possession and then having the ball given arbitrarily given back to his team beacuse of some moronic, arcane and incorrect rule. Because if that had happened, you know everybody would be killing Chicago this week and calling them undeserving champions, but when it happens to a butthole-chinned pretty boy who throws last-minute interceptions, he's heralded as the second coming of Joe Montana.

How significant is the Dungy/Lovie matchup?
As I said Sunday, this is not a Jackie Robinson moment, or even a Doug Williams one. Instead, it is two good coaches, who happen to be black, coaching against one another in the Super Bowl. I think it's cool that they're good friends more than anything else, although we'll all surely be sick of that angle in 12 days too. The matchup is significant, but will do nothing to alter the perception of black coaches in league circles, because in 2007, nobody with a brain actually thinks black men can't adequately coach a football team.

Should the Colts be seven point favorites in the Super Bowl?
I spoke about the absurdity of this line on Sunday, but here's some more: In week 15, Indianapolis was favored by 3.5 points at home against Cincinnati, a team that finished .500. In week 8, the Colts were 2.5 road underdogs against Denver, another team that watched the playoffs from home. In week 16, Peyton and the boys were giving 9.5 to a Texans team that was 4-10. (Houston won that game, by the way.) So how can the Bears, a 13-3 team that crushed a Saints team that was thought by NFL experts to be the best in the NFC.

Is Mike Tomlin a good hire for the Steelers?
The Rooney's have a pretty damn good track record of selecting coaches, so I'm going to say yes, even though I had never heard of Mike Tomlin and accidentally Googled "Mike Timlin" when I was looking for background on him.

Charges will not be filed for Michael Vick?
Good for Michael Vick. Now the family attorney can focus all his attention on Marcus. But let's not be stupid about this. First of all, Vick had the bottle with the secret compartment, and that thing isn't meant for Chapstick. Second of all, since when do they have to take stuff to a lab to find out if its weed or not? Couldn't they just have flown Snoop in and saved themselves the trouble?
And I don't, for a second, believe that "nothing" happened here. Vick refused to give up the bottle (because he's an idiot) and they thought something was in there in the first place. Michael Vick is stupid. Michael Vick smokes weed. Michael Vick is also not a good NFL quarterback. Just because this incident doesn't prove the former two facts, doesn't mean they are any less true.

Mailtime
Reggie Bush's taunt and dance against the Bears was behavior we expect from T.O.. I thought this guy was supposed to be all class and a "student" of LaDainian Tomlinson.
Reggie screwed up, but he manned up afterwards and apologized. This seems to be out of line for him, since he had never done anything like that before. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he doesn't do it again.

Did you see Bill Belichick give Peyton Manning the brush-off after their game on Sunday? Kinda supports L.T.'s remarks about Belichick having no class, don't you think?
I can't stand Bill Belichick and think he's a classless schmuck. However, Peyton doesn't need Belichick's congratulations and I'm not going to blame Belichick for not wanting to speak a few perfunctory, meaningless words to the opponent who just ended the thing he has been working for over the past 12 months. What did you want Belichick to do, give Peyton a hug and say "you did it, friend!" That would have been fake, so why is it considered necessary. It's not like Belichick shoved him out of the way or anything.

What a joke! A hand touches a helmet at the most critical moment in the game – not a slap or punch, but a graze – and it goes for a personal foul. The game is changing before our eyes and NOT for the better.
That was a terrible call, as was a non-call on some Colts pass interference in the endzone on the drive before. However, those 15 yards probably didn't mean much to Indy, since they were having their way with the Patriots defense and would have scored eventually and, more importantly, New England got away with a real roughing the passer penalty earlier on the same drive. Plus, for a team that won three Super Bowls solely because of a fumble in the snow was somehow ruled to be a forward pass, Pats fans have a lot of nerve for bitching about the refs. Shut up.
That being said, the roughing the passer calls this year have been insane. They need to stop babying the quarterbacks, and I think this includes bringing back the old intentional grounding rules that dictate a quarterback can't throw the ball away no matter where he is on the field.

Would Deion Branch have dropped those big passes Reche Caldwell dropped? Cheap shot question, but, you know?
Caldwell's drops were terrible, but I'm sorry that I missed Deion Branch's All-Pro season in Seattle, because, last I checked, Reche Caldwell had more receptions and yards this season than Deion Freakin' Branch.

The midwest is on a serious roll – first the White Sox and Astros, then the Cards and Tigers, and now the Bears and Colts. What's your take on the midwest owning the sports world of late?
That's all well and good, but who won the Stanley Cup this season??? Seriously, who, because I have no idea.

Chris Answers PTI's Questions is an occasional feature on this site

Rex Grossman Gets It Done, Thus Raising The Question, Can Rex Grossman Get It Done?

I thought after a convincing 39-14 win over a good Saints team in the NFC Championship, the Bears would finally get the respect they deserve from the press and oddsmakers. Looks like that might have to wait two weeks, as Vegas has installed the Bears as seven point underdogs in the Super Bowl.
While playing the "predict the line game" after the Colts thrilling victory tonight, everyone I watched the game with figured the Colts would be, at most, four point favorites. Three points was our guess though. I haven't been more than a half-point off for any of these playoff games and nailed the Championship game lines exactly last week, so being off by four means a number of things.
First, the oddsmakers intentionally put Super Bowl lines high to encourage betting. If the Colts played Chicago in the regular season on a neutral field, there's no way they'd be favored by a touchdown. Hell, even if the game was in Indy they'd probably only be favored by five or six.
Second, the Bears still get no respect. As a 13-3 team playing at home against a 10-6 squad, they only were getting 2.5 points, which is less than the standard three point bump home teams get.
The Wolfman, who sounded practically giddy when I made my congratulatory call earlier, says he heard last week that the AFC was getting an automatic seven regardless of who won the Championship games. I have no clue what to make of that. A quick Google search did me no good either. Either way, the line is too high and I'd be putting money on the Bears if I did that sort of thing.
Check back tomorrow for some thoughts on today's games. How great was the Indy/New England contest, by the way? When's the last time an NFL game lived up to the hype? As sporting events go, only the two Red Sox/Yankees ALCSs and the Texas/USC Rose Bowl were as good as advertised. The game was so great Antzo slept through the entire thing. On the floor. With his feet propped up on a cushionless chair.
This is the first Super Bowl in a while where I like both teams playing and genuinely wouldn't mind if either team won. I'll be pulling for the Bears, and will likely pick them, but I wouldn't mind seeing Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning win, as they seem like good guys. I'm going to get bored to death with the "black coaches" angle the media will endlessly hype this week, mainly because, while certainly an NFL first, this is not a seminal league event since no NFL franchise is going to look at Dungy and Lovie's success and say, "ahh, these black coaches are doing well, let's hire one too!" This isn't Doug Williams winning Super Bowl XXII, an event which helped get rid of the stigma that a black quarterback couldn't succeed in the NFL. There currently is no such stigma with black coaches. Nobody in league circles is saying "nope, can't hire Mike Tomlin or Ron Rivera because they're black." The recent hiring of Tomlin in Pittsburgh proves this. Everybody assumed Ken Whisenhunt or Russ Grimm was a shoo-in for that gig. Instead, the Rooneys went out of the family and hired a previously unknown, at least to me, coach from Minnesota. And it had nothing to do with his race.
For years people cited Art Shell's situation as proof that black coaches still weren't being treated right. Other coaches got second jobs, but Shell did not. This year's performance in Oakland should prove that the reason Art Shell was unemployed for over a decade is because he's an idiot, an affliction which has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Dungy and Smith's achievement of becoming the first black head coaches in the Super Bowl should be noted, but should not be the focus of Super Bowl week. They are good head coaches of good football teams. And this is what matters.
And in case I forget about it, the Saints playcalling today was miserable. Throwing twice from their own endzone, leading to an eventual safety, was the beginning of the end for their season.

NFL Picks: Championship Game Edition

New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears
Quick; without looking, what was the Saints record this season? They had to have at least 12 wins, right, or else why would nearly every NFL analyst be picking them to beat the Bears on the road this weekend. Why would the Saints offense be considered "nearly unstoppable" as Don Banks said on SI.com. Why would their defense be a "menace" as referred to by Len Pasquarelli.
The Saints are a fine team, and one very capable of winning the Super Bowl this year. But let's not forget that they were a very-pedestrian 10-6 team this season. I had no clue.
Among the teams that handled New Orleans; Carolina, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Washington. The team's only "good" wins came again Dallas, New York and Philadelphia, but each came at a time when those respective teams were reeling; Philly in the middle of the season and Dallas and New York near the end. The Dallas win, a 42-17 pasting, is, by far, the most impressive on the Saints' resume. But, like Twin Peaks, it hasn't aged well.
This isn't to say I'm picking the Bears to win, I'm just trying to point out that the Saints going on the road to play a bizarrely underappreciated Chicago team is hardly going to be the cakewalk some expect for New Orleans.
While Rex Grossman draws all the negative attention from the national media, I'd probably be more worried about the fact that the Bears once-stout run defense made a gimpy, half-hearted Shaun Alexander look like Jim Brown last week. The scary part, though, was that the Bears seemed a step slow and were missing tackles. It wasn't like Alexander was running through huge holes; he was making six yard gains out of nothing because the Bears couldn't close or wrap-up fast enough. If Shaun Alexander can do that, imagine what a healthy Deuce McCallister and the lightning-quick Reggie Bush will do? (There's a great picture in Sports Illustrated this week of Bush cutting, mid-run against the Eagles. Everyone on the field is running north-to-south, except Bush who has turned around and cut up towards the sidelines. It's one of those pictures that makes you appreciate still-photography.)
Grossman should be fine against the Saints secondary unless, as The Sports Pickle predicts, he regained enough confidence last week to start throwing into triple-coverage again.
The coaching match-ups seem to be a wash; I'm not all that impressed with Lovie Smith (and was even less so when he inexplicably called timeout with two seconds left in regulation last week, thus possibly giving Seattle a chance at a game-winning Hail Mary) and Sean Payton, for all the hype, made some fairly poor decisions of his own against Philly (namely, pitching the ball four yards back on a possession when they should have been running straight ahead, attempting to kill the clock).
Field goal kicking will be important but Robbie Gould and John Carney have similar stats, so its tough to give one an edge. Devin Hester might be an x-factor, which could excite or terrify Bears fans, as Hester either returns kicks for touchdowns or does something insanely stupid, and there rarely is middle ground.
They're calling for snow and 29 degree temps tomorrow in Chicago, which gives a decided advantage to the Bears. (I don't buy the talk that because Hester went to Miami and Cedric Benson went to Texas, etc. the Bears are at no more of an advantage than New Orleans. The Bears live in Chicago during the first part of the winter and are used to the cold. They practice outdoors in Lake Forest, while the Saints work out in a climate-controlled bubbled. So, just because some Bears don't have ice in their veins, doesn't mean they won't be acclimated to the cold better than the Saints. Anybody who says otherwise is just being contrary. Add in possible precipitation, and the Bears get a double-bonus from the weather. Anything that can make the field slick will help neutralize Reggie Bush.
It will be a close game, but maybe not as low-scoring as some expect. The Bears win it on the heels of a defensive touchdown and 2 TD day from Rex Grossman.
Pick: Chicago 27 - New Orleans 23

New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts
Remember when Mike Vrabel mocked Terrell Owens in the endzone during Super Bowl XXXIX? Remember when Vrabel also scored a touchdown in Carolina and held the ball out to a child in the stands, then snatched it back at the last second? Or when the Pats made "choke" signs in the direction of the Chargers bench last Sunday? Of course you don't, because nobody in the media talks about these things and I'm not quite sure why.
The dancing at midfield was classless, no matter what you think of Shawne Merriman's original dance (I, for one, hate the dance and its creator). For starters, taunting after the game is over is a little like punching a boxer after he's been knocked out. Real classy, morons. More importantly, though, is that the Patriots should expect to win games like that. They have in the past, so why act like they're an upstart team who just earned their biggest win in years? When UNC beat Clemson last week, did they jump around on the Tigers logo? No, because they expected to win. Do the Yankees take victory laps around the Metrodome when they beat the Twins? No, because they've been there before. Marty Schottenheimer losing in the playoffs is one of life's inexorable fates. The Pats were merely playing the Globetrotters to Marty's Generals. So act like it, putzes. Man, do I hope they get pasted tomorrow.
And I think they will. If Philip Rivers and Marty Schottenheimer were merely competent, San Diego would be hosting tomorrow's game. Peyton Manning is a Hall of Famer and Tony Dungy is about a 5% upgrade from Marty. Plus, the game is in Indy, where the Colts are 9-0 this season. The mere thought of putting up with Bill Belichick, Tedy Bruschi and Robert Kraft's two-toned shirts for the next 14 days is enough to make me sick, so let's hope I'm right on this one.
Pick: Indianapolis 35 - New England 20

Oh, Dear Lord

My disdain for Bill Simmons is well-documented, but I still read his columns because he sometimes makes good observations, can be entertaining at times and provides easy fodder for ridicule and mockery.
Occasionally I chuckle at his stuff, but more often than not I'm left with the desire to wipe that self-satisfied smirk off his face with a 2x4 like I'm Jim Hacksaw Dugan. Today, though, I didn't even have to read Simmons' column to get that hankering, as the preview on ESPN.com's front page was enough to make me nauseous and angry in one fell swoop:

Why is the Sports Guy wearing the Manning Face? Because he had a sobering realization between San Diego and Indianapolis: His beloved Pats have become the NFL's version of the Yankees.

There's no way to follow that up, so I'm not going to even try.

Like Elton John, I'm Still Standing... Only Less Flamboyantly

I spilled beer all over my Macbook's keyboard earlier this week, hence the lack of posts. I've shipped it back to Apple and will hopefully have it back in a few days. (Although if Steve Jobs should ask you about it, the official story is that my shift key suddenly stopped working without provocation. Apple, you see, doesn't look too kindly upon spills of any nature. Hopefully they don't have one of those water sensors that cell phones have. In a not-at-all surprising coincidence, I'm currently using a non-functional Razr that I got wet last April. It replaces my other phone that I broke on New Year's while attempting to demonstrate how unbreakable it was. Man, I'm an idiot.)
Anyway, I'll be posting periodically this weekend with some thoughts on the idiocy of Michael Vick, my encounter with Gary Williams and picks for Sunday's games. Now, though, it's time to get my eat on.

Rex Grossman: Worthless... The Four QBs Who Lost This Weekend? Not So Much

Most football people expected two things to happen this weekend: Rex Grossman and Marty Schottenheimer would blow it for their teams. They were half-right. Schottenheimer continued his practice of gagging in big games, but Grossman, on the other hand, performed admirably in Chicago's 27-24 overtime win against Seattle.
So why is everyone ripping Grossman today while Marty is getting a relative pass? I apologize for the redundancy, but it's worth mentioning again: Grossman's team won and Marty's lost. What am I missing here?
Let's start with Marty. During an easily winnable game against an overrated Patriots team, the Chargers list of offenses included:
- Challenging a play that was so clear-cut that even people listening on the radio knew it was a mistake
- Two personal fouls which led to New England first downs
- Trying to pick up, and run with, a ball that was bouncing after a punt, leading to a fumble
- Fielding a kickoff about six inches from the sideline when the ball was clearly heading out of bounds
- Trying to return a 4th down interception instead of falling down and perserving possession which, again, led to a fumble
- And, perhaps most egregious, throwing the ball with a rookie QB nine more times than running it with an MVP back
Some might say that personal fouls and stupid plays aren't the fault of a coach. But those people are wrong. Make no mistake, Marty and the Chargers lost this game, not the other way around. (Look, we all know Tom Brady is a Hall of Fame quarterback. But let's stop with all the "Brady led his team back" nonsense. Remember, Brady threw three terrible interceptions, including one on fourth down that should have led to a Pats loss, had Troy Brown not stripped the ball afterwards. Brady was allowed to stage a comeback in spite of his poor play. Just because he's a fantastic quarterback doesn't mean we have to praise him when he doesn't deserve it. Imagine if Rex Grossman had made some of the throws Brady made yesterday. You think Phil Simms would have been making excuses for him? Maybe Brady's past record makes him immune from criticism, but it certainly doesn't mean his poor play should be lauded.)
It's hard to imagine Marty surviving the next few days in SD. With a transcendent running back and evolving QB, the Chargers shouldn't be losing to the worst Patriots team of the decade at home on a day where Tom Brady throws three picks.
On the bright side, it was nice to see the Patriots' true colors come out after the game. LDT was 100% right in ripping the team and attributing their classless post-game behavior to Bill Belichick. Do you think a Joe Gibbs or Bill Parcells-coached team would have acted that way? Belichick might be a great coach, but that doesn't mean he's not a scumbag. Shawn Merriman's dance is pretty much the dumbest thing this side of Michael Strahan's jumpshot, but act like you've been there before, New England. Alright, I'm done sounding like Peter King.
Here's an email sent by The Wolfman late last night:

I'm just pissed that all the articles are saying how many more interceptions Grossman could have had. The Chargers dropped one in the Pats first possession and the Ravens could have had a few more as well. Peyton has 5 already, Brady 4. Can you imagine if Rex threw 3 ints and the Bears won? He would be the worst (and luckiest) QB ever. Listen, if he has a shitty game next week (please for the love of God, don't), I'll be the first to admit it. So why is it so hard for the media to admit when he plays pretty well? Am I missing something here because if I am, please let me know. Oh, it just makes me so FURIOUS.

I'll be honest; I have no clue why the media picks on Grossman so much. The AP story that Deadspin featured today was hilarious. For those that didn't read it, the game recap began:

Two swings of the foot by Robbie Gould were all the Chicago Bears needed to offset any shortcomings in Rex Grossman's arm.

What the hell does that mean? Let's compare numbers, shall we? Looking at the following and answer, who had the better game:

A 27-51, 280 yards, 2 TD, 3 INT
B 21-38, 282 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT
C 15-30, 170 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT

A is Brady, B is Grossman, C is Manning. And it's not even close; Grossman had better numbers than the two QBs who will one day have their busts in Canton. The whole "yeah, but Seattle started a guy in the secondary who was working as a loan officer last week" bit has been played to death too, so don't use that as an excuse. San Diego allowed 200 passing yards per game during the regular season, just three less than Seattle. So let's also not say Grossman was throwing against an inferior defense. I mean, did you see Quentin Jammer play? He probably wouldn't even start for the Redskins.
If you want to say, as mentioned before, that Brady and Manning's past gives them a pass, that's fine. (Even though Manning's playoff past should really cause his play to be put under more scrutiny.) But that still doesn't explain why everyone is dumping on Grossman. He played adequately, he made a great pass on 3rd and 10 that ended up going for 30 yards in overtime and, most importantly, his team won. I'm not sure what it will take for everyone to get off his case, but I imagine two more wins should do the trick.
Gene Wojciechowski seems to disagree, as evidenced by his baffling column on ESPN.com today. He begins with this bizarre riff on Ricky Manning:

So Bears cornerback Ricky Manning Jr. was standing in front of his locker after Chicago's 27-24 overtime win in the NFC Divisional playoff, and he was talking about how difficult the past 12 months have been for him. I'm a sucker for a heartwarming overcoming-adversity story, so I clicked on the digital recorder.

"I would say the last year has been a drastic change for me as far as signing with the Bears, then with the off-the-field issues [he pleaded no contest to a felony assault charge], getting married, having a kid, moving to Chicago, buying a Bentley ... it's crazy," he said.

It is, isn't it? I was just telling the ball and chain that very thing a few days ago when we were at the Ferrari dealership picking out ostrich leather seats for our new 599 GTB Fiorano.

Oh my gawd. You see, this is the problem with a lot of the Bears. Manning signs a five-year, $21 million free-agent deal and buys one of the most expensive cars on the planet -- and thinks he's had it rough.

Now, Ricky Manning is most definitely a jackass and has done some indefensible stuff in his life. But I'm not seeing in that quote where Manning said he's had it rough. He simply said "[it] has been a drastic change for me." Notice, no mention of "I've had it rough."
Wojciechowski writes dumb columns all the time, so I'm not going to waste my time on him. But read the story if you want a laugh.

At Least She Wasn't Flashing Janet Jackon's Nipple

Continuing in the grand tradition of FOX standards and decency, last night's Eagles/Saints game featured a fairly lengthy camera shot of a comely blonde with a very specific idea about what the Eagles should have done to them.

Amazingly, the decision to feature this woman on screen (not once, but twice) wasn't the worst decision of the day. Andy Reid made sure of that when he punted away his team's season on 4th and 15 late in the game, right after his team had easily converted a 4th and 10 that was negated by a false start penalty. The Eagles never touched the ball again. It could have been worse for Reid, I suppose... He could have thrown up all over the playbook.

Divisional Playoff Picks: Guest Edition

Since the Super Bowl and Championship games are usually yawners, Divisional Playoff Weekend has become the premiere two days on the NFL calendar. At this time last year, I was suffering from the shakes and had to drink myself to sleep in order to prepare for the Redskins first Divisional Playoff game in six years. Not surprisingly, this year seems a bit anticlimatic. (Although I'm still drinking myself to sleep, albeit for totally different reasons. Oh relax, Mom... It was a joke.)
Anyway, due to my semi-apathy about the games and my reluctance to write about anything not related to how the 'Skins need to take David Frost out for a drive to a nice farm where he can live out his days shanking bales of hay to fair-catching cows, I've enlisted some help from some family and friends, each of whom have a close tie to teams playing in each contest.
Some are fans - ranging from die-hard optimists to just-die pessimists - others have an intimate knowledge of the team because they happen to live in that city. Either way, their opinions are strong and their hatred of Eli Manning is stronger, so much so that I've put the kibosh on Eli-bashing. Why? Because I'm a damn gentle soul.
Onto the analysis!

Indianapolis Colts at Baltimore Ravens
By Phil
Phil grew up in Baltimore, roots for the Ravens and hates Cal Ripken Jr. And that is all you ever need know. He breaks down the Ravens/Colts match-up in four parts:
1) The Ogden-Freeney match-up.
I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention, because not only did Freeney destroy him last time they played, but it was a national TV game (Monday Night last season).
Ogden has slipped a little since his prime, but he still remains a competent blocker and good force on the O-line. But his two biggest problems are: speed rushers who are much smaller than he, and D-lineman with good spin moves.
Well? No one sees a problem with this? The last time they played, Ogden looked like a sleepy grizzly bear trying to swat at a pissed-off hornet. He doesn't get his body weight very low, he relies too much upon his hand-checking, he's dealing with a toe injury, and he generally just struggles against faster guys with speed moves. Looks like a bad match-up for the Ravens.
I was hoping that Billick might have used the week to practice with Ogden at LG (where he played his rookie year, and did well) and insert Tony Pashos (a smaller guy with good, quick feet) at OT. But I haven't seen any indication that he will. So, this goes in the book as a big plus for the Colts and a question mark for Ray-Ray's boys.
2) Samari Rolle
See, this is the kind of thing that you only get when you watch a team every week. The Ravens are said to have a great Defense (which they do) and a great secondary (which they pretty much do), so individual players are sort of glossed over. But Rolle has been pretty weak all year, and terrible in a few games. They've disguised it well with Ed Reed and the rookie safety Dawan Landry (a true revalation) playing well, but it's tough against a team with 2 good WRs. Look at the last game Baltimore lost - week 13 vs. Cincinnati, with both TJ and Chad Johnson having good games. Frankly, the Ravens are lucky they didn't lose that game by more (although I guess it doesn't matter).
If the Colts can get a little time to throw, they send Wayne and Harrison to opposite sides, McAllister stays with Harrison, and Samari Rolle is responsible for Wayne. They'll try to give him help from the Safety or even LB spot, but Peyton is mixing run and pass and using Play-action effectively, and more blitzing would mean more 1-on-1 coverage. So I chalk this up as another plus for the Colts.
3) Jamal Lewis
The smoking gun on Jamal is not that he's averaging about 3.5 yards a carry (or the fact that he recently upped his Verizon-to-Verizon minutes - Chris) or that he has only 2 100 yard games (and none of 110), but that he's doing that and I actually think he's IMPROVED since last year.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think I could coach a football team - not because the guy hasn't been playing well, but specifically because his problems seem so emminently correctable. It just seems like he needs someone to grab him by the facemask and yell at him until he starts doing it right. When he was running for 2,000 yards, he would take, at most, one sideways step as he took the hand-off, then turn his legs forward and just start running into the hole with hard, strong steps. If anyone got in the way and went high, he'd run right through them. If they went low, they might have a chance, but even then they'd need 3 guys to corral him. And once he got past the line, he was fast enough to outrun even safeties, as long as he's going on a straight line.
Starting last year, he does this weird thing where he takes these short, sideways steps, WAITS for the defense to close in, and the plunges forward for one yard. It's gotten a little better in the 2nd half of this year, but I'd still trade him for any other starting RB left in the playoffs. Even before they shut down LJ last week, I thought the Colts D would look like they'd made a big improvement if they played against J-mal.
And no, I don't think it has to do with his being in prison. I think it's just a combination of injuries that he "recovered" from but never 100% fully, and getting a little older, and losing the starting LG, Edwin Mulitalo, and basically just having a great season that you can't really expect him to duplicate every year. (But, admit it, it has a little to do with being in prison - Chris.)
4) The Idiot Ravens Fans
This is the gravamen of my prediction against the Ravens, and the reason I wrote you the e-mail in the first place. Before last week's game, my girlfriend and I were driving on 295 and listening to some Ravens talk on WBAL. The question the host had presented (I paraphrase, but I think mostly accurately):
"Should Ravens fans root for the Colts today? Even though it would be tough to root for the Colts, would it be worth it to see them win so that the Ravens could destroy them next week?"
And then listeners would call in and say "no, never root for the Colts, even for 1 game" or "yes, it would be worth it to root for them this week for the pleasure of watching the Ravens knock them out of the playoffs."
Not one mention of the fact that the Ravens could possibly lose the game. No one even CONSIDERED the fact that we might want to play the weakest possible team, rather than strongest.
Even if the hosts had said "Who would win, Ravens or Colts?" and every listerner had said "Ravens by 30" that would have been OK. But to just assume that your team has already won, to not even bring up the question, and then ask related questions involving how wonderful that win would/will be, is just stupid. Leaving aside the questions of match-ups, playing against a great QB, and the fact that the Colts killed us last time we played, it's just disrespectful to the game. I can think of too many times when a team or its fans have thought "I want to play against team X because of how sweet it would be to beat them" and then lost.
[I assume your readers know why the Ravens fans would hate the Colts, if not, I don't have time for an explanation]
So, if you add these factors up, plus the fact that I think this is the year Peyton finally gets it together (don't ask me why, just a hunch), I have to go with the Colts in this. And this is even-money - if you can get points, I'd say the Colts are about as safe a bet as you'd find this week.
My prediction: Colts 28, Ravens 13.
Chris' Pick: Colts 19 - Ravens 12

Philadelphia Eagles at New Orleans Saints
By Falkow and Obaza
Falkow and Obaza are the hottest songwriting team since Rodgers and Hammerstein. Their new musical "Chunky Soup Blues" debuts on Broadway next month. After a lengthy e-mail conversation, they narrowed down their thoughts about their beloved Eagles into ten easy snippets.
TOP TEN QUOTES FROM E-MAILS GOING INTO THE EAGLES/SAINTS GAME
10) Andy Reid has won this type of game before. He’ll have the guys ready to go. He’s one of those guys that gets so excited that he wishes he could be out there with the guys on the field. Heck, if fullback Thomas Tapeh can’t play we might finally get to see Andy wear some tights after all.
9) ”In order to win on Saturday the Eagles need to continue to run the ball effectively and put Jeff Garcia in positions where he can make safe throws against one on one coverage. Shawn Andrews and Jon Runyan are run blocking very well and Andy and Marty need to continue to exploit that. New Orleans allowed 4.9 yards per carry this year; Brian Westbrook and Corell Buckhalter need to run effectively to keep Drew Brees and the whiz kids off the field.”
8) “Defensively the Eagles are going to have to play perfectly. They have not been able to pressure any quarterback consistently since Kearse got hurt and Sheldon Brown's case of whiplash which prevents him from turning his head around has hurt them multiple times this year. Rod Hood is a solid replacement for Lito Sheppard, but is not as good in man to man coverage. Jim Johnson will have to limit his blitzes and hope the front four can get some pressure on Brees. Don't even get me started on stopping the run.”
7) “A quick pick or fumble recovery could hopefully take the life out of the crowd down there. They also have to play well defending the return game, the longer the field is the more chance the defense has to capitalize on a mistake.
6) “If they can go +2 in the turnover battle, I believe they will win the game.”
5) “This is the best thing I’ve ever seen and I don’t know why. If the Eagles pull it off, this should be the front page.” (right)
4) “When you’ve won 5 of the last 6 division titles and every other team in your division is such a failure that they’ve all had to switch coaches (some multiple times), the only thing you have left to root for is that your team actually wins a super bowl so you finally have something to come back with when your bastard divisional friends start ending arguments with ‘how many rings do you have?’ (Man, the guy who says that must be a huge dick. Oh... Wait. - Chris)
3) “Wah Wah . I’m sick of all these whiny Cajuns. They should have spent their FEMA checks on a defensive line instead of all those throwback jersies. Go loot some stores like Heineken man.”
2) Donovan McNabb CANNOT throw a season killing interception in this game!
1) Any team that can lose to the Redskins isn't unbeatable. (Except the Texans. - Chris)
OVERALL CONCLUSION: Even though they are underdogs in this game the Eagles cannot let themselves be intimidated by New Orleans. You only get so many shots in the postseason and you need to take advantage of each one. Since the Eagles have never been able to do that when they were supposed to win in the playoffs, maybe they can do it when they aren’t supposed to win. Jeff Garcia can already have any man he wants in Philadelphia, if he wins this game he might be able to choose from the entire tri-state area. Don’t think this team is lacking in motivation!
Chris' Pick: New Orleans 31 - Philadelphia 23 (This game reminds me of the Redskins/Seahawks game from last year. Philly can easily win, but I think the fact that tehy're banged up after winning six straight to make the playoffs will be the deciding factor.)

Seattle Seahawks at Chicago Bears
By Steph and The Wolfman
My sister, Steph, begins our look into Sunday's first game:
Before I start, I have to inform everyone that I am a civil engineering major (translation: I did horribly in any class that involved writing). Since I joined the Army, I have lived in four different areas. While at West Point, we really didn’t interact with people outside of West Point, so I never had to deal with New York fans. Plus, we didn’t have TV, so I didn’t have to listen to New York reporters. Then, I moved to Germany, where they just cared about soccer, and Jim and I were forced to watch 1:00 games at 7:00 on a TV where the reception was so bad you couldn’t really see the ball. Then, we moved to Missouri where we were subjected to Rams and Chiefs games every weekend, but lived in the middle of nowhere, so didn’t really have to deal with any fans. Plus, everyone in the Army is from different places and ultimately root for different teams. Also, I find that a lot of soldiers could care less about sports.
So, when we moved to Washington, two years ago, I wasn’t really expecting anything different. Fortunately and unfortunately, we live in a neighborhood that is full of non-Army people who grew up in Washington. Their kids run around with Hasselbeck and Alexander jerseys. The next-door neighbors have a big Seahawks flag hanging outside. The cashiers at all the stores have Seahawks sweatshirts on. It is my first time being around other fans besides Redskins fans. People ask if I root for Seattle now that I live here. Why would I? I’m a Redskins fan. Plus, Alexander will always bother me for his whining about being taken out of the game a few years back and he was unable to get the rushing title. I think he said that Holmgren stabbed him in the back. Are these the words of someone who cares about his team?
But really, the thing that bothers me about Seahawks fans is they think they are better than other fans. Remember the whole 12th man thing last year? (You mean the thing that they stole from Texas A&M? - Chris) And they are always talking about how much louder their stadium is than other stadiums. Having been there during the Redskins-Seahawks playoff game last year, I can confirm that it is very loud. But, Qwest Field was designed to make it the loudest stadium. The roof is angled to direct as much crowd noise to the field as possible and the metal bleachers in the end zones were designed to reflect sound. How does this make you the loudest fans? It just means you have a smart owner. They never mention this fact in their local news reports. So, I’m really glad they don’t have a home game this weekend and hope they lose to the Bears so I don’t have to see everyone in their sweatshirts for another week.

Our preview continues with The Wolfman's take. And if you don't know The Wolfman then get the hell outta my car, old man.
Obviously you can cut and paste and do whatever is necessary to fit it in. This is 3rd draft of this and I was going to keep it to the last paragraph I had, but since I figured the column was originally supposed to be questions for me to answer, I could drone on endlessly. Also, since everyone just reads and hears the same story about Rex Grossman over and over I figured I'd give some people some other points about the Bears.
Since all they talk about on ESPN is about how Grossman needs to play well, I thought I'd give some tidbits from a person who watches the Bears:
1. Both starting corners will be back on the field for the 1st time in over a month. That let's Ricky Manning Jr. move back into his nickel duties and takes Devin Hester off the field. Hester is terrible on defense and this will make the team much better. With all the talk about Tommie Harris and Mike Brown being out for the year, few mentioned that either Charles Tillman or Nathan Vasher has not been on the field in the last 4 games. It was easy to see the difference on the field when Ricky Manning Jr. was beaten twice by Joey Galloway for long touchdowns. Though neither Vasher or Tillman are stars, they are both solid players (though Tillman is pretty stiff, anything that keeps Devin Hester out of the secondary is an improvement.
2. The Bears generate little pass rush. Though some of this can be contributed to the absence of Tommie Harris, the problems started long before the injury to Harris. Anyone who saw the Bears play the Patriots could see it. Their best pass rusher is a rookie, Mark Anderson. The Bears need to generate some pressure on Hasselbeck because if he gets hot and has all day to throw, it doesn't matter if the Bears have 4 all-pros in the secondary.
3. The O-line has been up-and-down protecting Grossman. They have struggled to pick up blitzes all year. Most of Grossman's bad games, not suprisingly, have come when the o-line hasn't been able to protect him, except the Packers game which was just awful. Grossman has very little pocket presence and it will be a long day if he doesn't get protection and is forced into making throws. It seems that the injuries to Grossman has effected his willingness to get out of the pocket, as he showed the ability to find space to make throws in the few games he had played in his career before this season and both injuries occurred when he was out of the pocket.
4. For the first time in his career, Cedric Benson is running hard. The Bears now have a legitimate 1-2 punch at running back, which was not really the case midway through the year when Benson was running tentatively and with his head down. If the Bears can get their running game going, it could be a long day for the Seahawks.
5. The Bears special teams is very good. The coverage teams as well as Maynard and Gould are both solid. Devin Hester is explosive, but is terrible at catching punts and overall being careful with the football. Every time he goes back there it's an adventure. If you've never seen Hester field punts in a game, watch on Sunday and see what I mean. Not only is the catch an adventure but he seems to have no feel when to fair catch or not. He needs to hold onto the ball first and then worry about breaking the big one, which he can do everytime he fields a punt or kickoff.
6. I would love to see the Bears come out in a 4-5 wide receiver set and throw on the depleted Seahawks secondary. Obviously the chances of this is almost zero and it's probably not the best idea, but I would like to see a little killer instinct in the team, even if "Bad Rex" shows up. I honestly don't think they have a set with 4 wide receivers. Any time they go to 4 wideouts, Desmond Clark is usually in the slot instead of a receiver. After last year's debacle, where the Bears were down 7-0 before I had even settled into watching the game, I would just like to see a little fire from the Bears and have them take it to Seattle.
Now that I've gotten a little analysis (and delusions of grandeur with 5 wide receiver sets) out of the way....
My stomach has been churning since Monday and I think I'm getting an ulcer thinking about this one. The Bears are the better team and should win. Of course, that doesn't mean they will. I've stayed away from a lot of coverage this week. Honestly, how many articles can a person read that says that Grossman has to play smart football. They might as well write 'Play Time is Fun' and have Rod and Todd 'go with it' because each offers the same value and insight. We've all heard it already, there's nothing else to say about it. Grossman does have to play well but sometimes letting your defense and special teams win a game, like everyone says they need to do, is not possible. It wasn't possible last year when Steve Smith ran all over Soldier Field. Grossman was what kept the Bears in the game even though he did not have a very good 1st half. If the Bears have to score 30 points to win this year, Brian Griese is not the one that's going to put those points up. Granted, the Seahawks don't have anyone as explosive as Steve Smith, but if Hasselbeck gets hot and the Bears can't generate any sort of pass rush the Seahawks can put a lot of points on the board. I suppose you have to pull Grossman if he throws 2 picks in the 1st half and I just pray to God it doesn't come to that. All the 'experts' think the Seahawks have a chance and they do, but they won't win this week, because if they do, I don't think I'll be able to pick up the pieces since I've been gearing up for the playoffs since Week 5. I could break the game down all day (and for some it probably seemed like I did above) and say what will happen, but the fact remains, nobody knows. So here's the prediction: Grossman has a good day, the secondary plays better with both starting corners back in the lineup and Hester doesn't fumble a punt or kickoff.....Bears 27 Seahawks 17. And the Bears better win, because if they don't, I don't think I ever fully recover.
Chris' Pick: Chicago 41 - Seattle 10 (Grossman shuts the critics up, until he throws 5 picks in the NFC Championship.)

New England Patriots at San Diego Chargers
By Jim and Sarah
My brother-in-law, Jim, is a Patriots fan. In spite of this, my sister married him anyway. His thoughts:
Pats-Chargers is going be a great game this weekend; possibly the best of the four match-ups. It will be fun to see Merriman stare down Brady, and how Brady reacts to the Charger rush. While Merriman may get one or two sacks, I believe the best of this match-up will go to the Pats. Brady will catch the Chargers blitz with quick release passes to his receivers, springing them for big yardage over the middle. By the way, this Pats receiving Corps has peaked at just the right time, and while they aren’t the most talented or imposing in the league, they are playing their best football of the year when it counts. Brady is now comfortable and confident in his receivers, and the way he’s using them is similar to their Super Bowl years past. As for the defensive side of the ball, with so much focus on “how the Chargers pass rush is gonna eat Brady’s lunch,” there’s a few guys on the Patriots defense that are pretty good themselves. The Pats trio of down linemen to include Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, and Vince Wilfork have all had fantastic years and will be keyed on stopping LT in his tracks. And the Pats have possibly the most underrated player in football, not to mention their key defensive cog, holding down the middle of the field in Teddy Brus