Super Bowl Posting 2007 (vol 2)

Having just watched the Super Bowl, I can say a couple of things:

1. Payton Manning had Chicago's number all through the game. Had Indianapolis been able to replace a couple of their field goals with touchdowns, the game would have been over long before it actually way (well into the fourth quarter, with the second interception).
2. "Bad Rex" only came out during the fourth quarter. While it is true that Rex had to step up and didn't, you can't blame him for losing the game (as he did drive the team for its second (and last) touchdown).
3. If not for Devin Hester's touchdown return of the kickoff, the game would have been over long before it actually was.

To be honest, Chicago didn't play much of a game. The offense did too many "three-and-outs," the defense did nothing to stop Payton over much of the field, and every takeaway was quickly matched by a turnover.

And while I say that "Bad Rex" (the one throwing interceptions and trying to do too much) only showed up during the fourth quarter, there were problems over much of the game. Two messed-up snaps is not a sign of a quality quarterback, even with it raining during the whole game.

Overall, Indianapolis was the superior team in every aspect and this game showed it. Right down to the mood shot of Rex Grossman with a couple minutes left in the fourth quarter. The ONE thing I didn't want (the mood shot, that it was of a Bear was an extra pain).

---

Billy Joel did a good Star Spangled Banner. Much better than the "can't mail it in if he tried/trying to show off and failing badly" Star Spangled Banner that happened last year.

Prince did good, though I kept hoping he was acting to a background track simply because of the rain.

As for the commercials, they were commercials. The days when people were truely surprised by the commercials has come and gone, killed off by expectations and constant attempts to better last year. I do think things have leveled off, although there's always some good and bad.

---

And in the end, congratulations Indianapolis Colts. You dominated the whole game and countered everything Chicago did.

Super Bowl Posting 2007 (vol. 1)

First, here's the official NFL Super Bowl Standings. It's skewered by its being ranked by winning percentage, which places such flashes in the pan as the Jets and the Ravens above the storied and once-storied Steelers, Raiders and Cowboys. I'd prefer a ranking system based on appearances. That way you'd see a clearer picture, even with its distortions (Denver has a 2-4 record in Super Bowls, even with the Broncos having won their last two).

This year, both teams have shown up to a grand total of three Super Bowls. The Colts actually showed up twice, in 1969 and 1971 (equaling Green Bay in appearances, if not wins, at that time). The Bears have only been to the 1986 Super Bowl before this one. This makes a return for a couple of teams after some extended absences.

While a large number of fans will be watching the game as spectators (or just as Fans of the Commercials), the people in Northern Indiana will have a special interest. This is probably the closest two teams in the Super Bowl have been to each other, at least up there with XXV (Giants hold on against the Bills) and XXIX (San Francisco vs San Diego).

And while it is a bit sad that New Orleans didn't break away from the class of teams that have yet to make it to the Super Bowl, it's nice to see that franchise finally get good. I still believe that in a few years we'll see them either in Los Angeles or San Antonio (or Sacramento; and don't discount Oklahoma City).

I know I'll find it interesting. Hopefully it will be a close game with good plays throughout and the game decided near the end, but if both teams have to play sixty minutes I'll be happy. The last thing I want to see is mood shots of the losing team members moping with most of the 4th quarter yet to be played.