XLIV: Part One

This is the only photo I have of any two helmets. I created this image for the start of the 2007 season. There was a 1-in-528 chance that I would be able to use this for a Super Bowl matchup. (Burnsy, check the math on that one)

- - -

Since Peyton joined the Colts, they are 2-2 against the Saints.

In '98, Peyton lost in overtime to Danny Wuerffel. But when the 1998 Saints had Wuerffel and Lamar Smith AND Cam Cleeland playing at the top of their game, who could stop them?

In 2001, the Saints beat the Colts by 14. Because you cannot stop Aaron Brooks, you can only hope to contain him. Joe Horn (remember him, he was the guy that pulled the cell phone out of the goalpost!) had 148 receiving yards. Fucking Joe Horn.

Aaron Brooks was still running the Saints in 2003 when they got blown out. The yardage was close but the Saints had 4 turnovers.

- - -

But the only game with any relevance was in 2007, opening night. The Colts were coming off their Super Bowl win and hosting the first game. Brees had two picks and zero scores and it wasn't close.

Most of the key players were already in place, even Colston, who still feels like he's just broken out. But the Saints hadn't clicked yet, especially this year is the first year they've had a defense that could carry them. And yet, they are still reliant on turnovers. They couldn't beat the Bucs in week 16 when Tampa held on to the ball. If that Colts can protect the football, they should win easily, right?

- - -

For what it's worth, I at least predicted that the Colts and Saints would both be playoff teams. Although my Super Bowl pick was Pats over Packers. At least they both made the playoffs as well.

My Super Bowl futures picks were better than my preseason picks. I put $38 on the Colts at 11/4 which would equal 104.50 and a whopping $4.50 profit. Or if the Saints win, my $36 bet at 3/1 would net me $108.

- - -

A month ago, some idiot wrote an article about how the Colts should have kept their starters in the game and not lost to the Jets in week 16. No not that one, this one. I stand by my decision to play to win the game. But after seeing the Colts roll to Super Bowl XLIV and seeing Wes Welker and the Pats' playoff hopes go down in week 17, it's really, really hard to be upset at the Colts for what they did.

They didn't have a perfect season. But they're healthy and in the Super Bowl, and that's what matters.

- - -

Addendum, one more note, again provoked by Easterbrook. According to this article, championships are won in the trenches. But haven't we heard in the last couple years how important elite wideouts are, citing how Brady improved once he got great receivers in 2007? And haven't we heard recently how the Pats loss this year could be blamed on the fact that their best back in Laurence Maroney? And what about all the fuss about how teams with a weak secondary get exploited, and how Revis is the key to the Jets fantastic defense? And of course how linebackers are the strength of a defense, especially that you need a great "front seven"?

And time and time again, not only is quarterback the most important position, but in today's pass-first game, you HAVE to have an elite QB?

So to sum up, to win championships...you have to have great players at every position.

And yet, sportswriters will continue to pump out columns about how this position is what really win rings. Please. What I'd love to read, is a column about what you DON'T NEED to win a Super Bowl. That's about the only helpful thing left to say.

Oh and I guess I didn't mention it, but I think this postseason proved that you need a clutch kicker as well.