Not Your Typical Super Bowl

It probably should have been obvious when the conference championship games were over, but the 44th Super Bowl — and that reminds me, don't you think it is about time to dispense with the Roman numerals? — isn't going to be your daddy's Super Bowl.

For one thing, the teams aren't your usual suspects, if such a thing exists in pro football. Certain teams — New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Francisco come to mind — have been there more often than most, but the Colts will be making only their second appearance in the last 40 years and the Saints will be playing in their very first Super Bowl.

For another, the two teams with the best records in their leagues will be facing each other. That doesn't happen very often. Since the NFL introduced playoff seedings in 1975, the top two seeds have met eight times. On six of those occasions, the NFC's representative was the winner — which may be good news for New Orleans.

Something else to keep in mind. There is usually little news of any real significance from either team in the traditional two–week period between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl.

But this year may be different. There is already talk that Indianapolis may have to play without defensive end Dwight Freeney, and most NFL fans would probably tell you that Freeney is the best defensive player in a game that seems top heavy with offensive stars. Peter King of Sports Illustrated says that, if Freeney can't play, it will make running the offense much easier for New Orleans. And he's right.

How much does Freeney mean to Indianapolis? Well, Scouts, Inc. came up with rankings for all the players who are expected to suit up for Sunday's game. Colts quarterback Peyton Manning was rated "best player on the planet." There are probably some dissenters scattered around the country, but I'm inclined to go along with that. The next six were judged the "elite players." Freeney was one of those six.

Most folks probably wouldn't argue that point, either. Freeney was responsible for 13½ sacks this season as well as 24 tackles, 19 of which were solo efforts. That's going to be tough to replace.

We'll see if that is a decision the Colts are forced to make.

Wild-Card Weekend Is Upon Us

As I have mentioned here before, I admire the writing of Sports Illustrated's Peter King. He writes very insightful articles about pro football, and he asked an intriguing question in his preview of this weekend's wild–card games:

"When's the last time you recall all four wild–card games being so competitive you wouldn't be surprised to see the road team win any one?" He then proceeds to pick the road teams in two of this weekend's games. I'm with King on that one. In fact, as you will soon see, I have picked three of the four road teams to win this weekend.

Personally, I have often felt that home field was overrated, and King kind of affirms that in his piece. "Two roadies won last year," he writes, "and three won in 2005. This year, I don't care what Vegas says. It's even–steven across the board entering the weekend."

The New York Giants won the Super Bowl two years ago after beating Tampa Bay, Dallas and Green Bay on the road in the NFC playoffs. In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers became the first team in two decades to win three road games en route to the Super Bowl (which they also won).

In fact, I have wondered if the practice of giving a first–round bye to the big winners during the regular season hasn't been a detriment, not a benefit. Consider the recent teams that have advanced to the Super Bowl (whether they won or lost) in spite of having to play in the first round: Arizona had to play on wild–card weekend last year. As mentioned previously, the Giants were a wild card two years ago and won it all. So did the Indianapolis Colts, who were not a wild card but had to play one in January 2007. I mentioned the 2005 Steelers. Carolina played in the wild–card weekend following the 2003 season. The 2001 Ravens had to play in the first round. So did the 1999 Tennessee Titans.

Seven of the last 10 Super Bowls have featured a team that did not get a first–round bye. Four of those seven were won by the team that didn't get the bye week. When you consider that four teams get a first–round bye every season, and they get that bye because they are one of the top two winningest teams in the conference, it logically follows that they probably went into the playoffs among the favorites to at least play in the Super Bowl, if not win it all.

That means that, in the last 10 years alone, at least 16 teams that probably were considered one of the favorites to win a Super Bowl did not, and at least 28 teams that were favored to at least play in a Super Bowl did not.

Why do I believe having to play in a wild–card game is not the kiss of death that many seem to think it is? Because I believe a bye week at this stage of the season is useful only if a team is banged up and needs a little extra time to get over its bumps and bruises.

If the team is in fairly good health, my thinking has been that a bye takes a team out of its rhythm. It retards a team's momentum. And I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis, who rested their starters when there was nothing left to play for, may pay a price for doing the smart thing and protecting their top producers.

But that's a subject to be addressed as we go deeper into the playoffs.

TODAY

• New York Jets (9–7) at Cincinnati (10–6) — Of the three playoff games that are rematches of games played last week, this one seems to be the most likely to produce a duplicate result. By the time last Sunday's game between the Jets and the Bengals began, the results of all the other games were known, and the Bengals had nothing to play for. The Jets did, and it showed in the final score — a 37–0 triumph. The game provides an intriguing contrast. When the season began, the Bengals had the hot hand, winning seven of their first 10 games. But, at season's end, the Jets were the hot team, winning five of their last six. Since Thanksgiving, Cincinnati lost to three playoff teams and only managed wins over Detroit and Kansas City. The last time the teams played in Cincinnati was on Oct. 21, 2007. The Bengals prevailed, 38–31, but the Jets have won two in a row at home against the Bengals since then. Can they win at Cincinnati for the first time since September 1997? I think they will.


• Philadelphia (11–5) at Dallas (11–5) — As members of the same division, these two teams are familiar foes. They play each other twice a year, and they just played at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday. In that game, Dallas won, 24–0, giving the Cowboys two victories over the Eagles during the regular season. Now they must try to make it three victories, which is a difficult task. And the Cowboys need look no further than their own postseason experience for examples of just how hard it can be. Two years ago — the last time Dallas was in the playoffs — the Cowboys faced the New York Giants in the playoffs after beating them twice during the regular season. The Giants won, 21–17, and went on to the Super Bowl, where they upset the previously unbeaten New England Patriots. And, in 1998, the Cowboys beat the Arizona Cardinals (who were in their division at the time) twice during the regular season, then lost to the Cardinals in the playoffs, 20–7. Until this season, there was considerable talk about the Cowboys' "December jinx," although that talk seems to have been dispelled by Dallas' 3–2 record last month (including a victory over previously unbeaten New Orleans). Nevertheless, some folks in Dallas will remind you that the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in more than 10 years. I predict the Eagles, who had won six in a row before tumbling against Dallas last Sunday, will bounce back and win the game.

SUNDAY

• Baltimore (9–7) at New England (10–6) — The way I see it, there are three things to keep in mind in this game. First: Location, location, location. The Patriots have been absolutely awful on the road, which is where they will have to play next week if they beat Baltimore. But, against the Ravens, New England is playing at home, where the Pats are 8–0. Baltimore, meanwhile, is 3–5 on the road, and the Ravens lost at New England earlier in the season, 27–21. So, on the basis of location, the Pats should be favored. Second: Statistics. The Patriots are third in the NFL in total offense (the Ravens are 13th) and pass offense (the Ravens are 18th). Baltimore does have the advantage in rushing offense, ranking fifth in the NFL while the Patriots are 12th. Baltimore has the edge in team defense (third in the NFL, compared to 11th for New England), passing defense (eighth in the NFL while New England is 12th) and rushing defense (fifth in the NFL; Patriots are 13th). New England's margin on offense is more pronounced than Baltimore's is on defense — although, if Baltimore has the lead late in the game and needs to run the ball to control the clock, the Ravens seem to be in a better position to do so than the Patriots. That doesn't seem likely to me, though, so I'll give the edge to New England. Third: Postseason experience. It can be argued that today's Ravens have more recent postseason experience than the Patriots. New England, after all, did not qualify for the playoffs last year while Baltimore, in spite of being the sixth seed, defeated Miami and Tennessee on the road and stayed within striking distance of Pittsburgh in the first half of the AFC title game. Will the weather be a factor? Well, it's expected to be cold (predicted high of 24°) and windy (the wind chill could be as low as -1°) but sunny. That's a little colder than it is expected to be in Baltimore tomorrow (28°, sunny, not as windy). The Ravens may notice the weather, but I doubt they will be affected by it. I think they are more likely to be affected by the atmosphere. History has shown that it is very tough for the visiting team to win at New England, especially in the playoffs, and I'll give the home team the edge in this one.


• Green Bay (11–5) at Arizona (10–6) — Pat Kirwan of NFL.com says the key to this game is the ability to get to the quarterback, and he may have a point. Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers did get sacked 50 times this season, and he was sacked more than twice as often in games the Packers lost. But bear in mind that Green Bay's defense appears to be better than Arizona's. The Packers have the best team defense in the NFC and the best run defense in the NFL. And, while the Green Bay pass defense is ranked second in the NFC, Arizona's is ranked 11th. Add to that the fact that Green Bay has beaten Arizona severely twice this year — once was in the third week of the preseason, so it didn't count in the standings, and the other was last weekend. This is the playoffs, and the Cardinals may have Anquan Boldin back from injury — although NFL.com suggests that it is unlikely he will play. Apparently, he's still hobbling around, but he's a factor whenever he is in the lineup. I think the game will be closer this time, but I'll stick with the Packers, who are probably the hottest team on the NFC side of the playoffs.

So, if my predictions are correct, next week's playoffs will be:

• In the NFC, Green Bay will play Minnesota for the third time this season, and Philadelphia will travel to New Orleans in a rematch of their Week 2 meeting.


• In the AFC, the top–seeded Indianapolis Colts will play host to the New York Jets, who handed them their first loss of the season a couple of weeks ago, and San Diego will play host to New England in what would be the first postseason game that is not a rematch of a regular–season contest.

Last week: 9–7.

Season: 180–78.

Sure Enough ...

No sooner had I written about the possibility of Brett Favre signing with Minnesota ...

Well, he did it. Today. I'm sure the TV crews will be on hand for his return to Green Bay with the Vikings.

Of course, this is nothing new. He's done this before.

Judd Zulgad reports, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, that it was "now or never." I'm not sure "never" is in Favre's vocabulary.

But it might be after he faces some of the defensive players in the NFC North this fall. Especially the ones in Green Bay.

Well, I don't wish anything bad for Favre. I've been a Packer fan most of my life, and I will always appreciate what Favre did for my team. When the Packers play the Vikings, I will pull for the Packers, as always. But I will enjoy watching Favre do what he does on a football field. I can't deny that. I have enjoyed watching him play football for a long time now.

It's hard not to enjoy watching him play. And it's hard not to be thankful that he will be playing for one more season.

But I agree with one of my favorite sportswriters, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who says it is a mistake.

And even if you are a diehard Brett Favre fan who only cares about seeing him play and doesn't particularly care which team he plays for, you have to agree that there is some sense behind King's words: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"

I'm with him on that one. I think Childress has sown the seeds of dissension — and, at the age of 40, it is far from certain that Favre can hold up for the entire season. That "could come back to haunt him if Favre's body breaks down," King writes.

I'm with King all the way. As I say, I don't wish for anything bad to happen to Favre, but I was 40 once and I know my body couldn't do the things it could do when I was 25. And I am certainly not an athlete. It's bound to be more pronounced with them.

And we all saw Favre's December collapse last year. If that happens again, how much confidence will the other QBs on the Minnesota roster have when they're called upon to take over for the team's alleged savior?

I think Minnesota sold its soul for a chance to win a Super Bowl with a 40–year–old quarterback calling the signals. Maybe it will work out. But my hunch is that it won't.

I agree with Peter King. I think it is a mistake.

The Brett Favre Saga

In my last post, I tended to be somewhat dismissive of Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports for his attitude toward Brett Favre.

I admit that I haven't followed Doyel closely, but my sense, from reading his article, is that he doesn't like Favre, has never liked him and feels the NFL will be better off when he is gone. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before.

Today, someone who does have my respect, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, weighs in on the matter.

King acknowledges that he was wrong last year when he wrote that Favre had hung it up for good "and I could well be wrong again."

There is plenty of speculation these days about how Favre feels about the Green Bay organization. If there is lingering bitterness, perhaps it will subside when Favre thinks about what the Packers did for him.

Think back. Favre only had one scholarship offer — from Southern Mississippi — which he took. He was taken in the second round of the 1991 draft by the Atlanta Falcons. But Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville wasn't sold on him and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into a game. It didn't take anything quite that dramatic, but Favre's single year in Atlanta was hardly distinguished. His first pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. He only made four pass attempts with the Falcons and none were completed to a teammate.

The Packers picked up Favre in an offseason trade, and he went on to play 16 seasons with the Packers. Initially, he didn't impress the Packer faithful, but he came in for the injured Don Majkowski in 1992, and, like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp, proceeded to shatter the existing record for consecutive starts.

King says he has had three conversations with Favre since he announced he was retiring from the Jets, "and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either."

My sense, from what King writes about Favre, is that the man is uncertain about what the future holds. Well, a lot of people feel that way. King writes that he believes Favre "will always feel that for all the years he spent in Green Bay, he deserved to go where he wanted, instead of where the Packers wanted to send him." Perhaps that is true. But I don't think the Packers can be blamed for feeling that, without their intervention in 1992, Favre may never have had the kind of career that he had.

They had a mutually beneficial relationship, the Packers and Favre. But, like all such relationships in professional sports, it had to end.

I do find myself sympathizing more and more with those who feel we've passed the time when Favre should gracefully accept the fact that every professional athlete must eventually accept — that even someone who plays the game with the boyish enthusiasm that Favre has reaches the point where the years have taken their toll. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he can walk away from the game without having had any major injuries. There is no guarantee that he could still do that, at the age of 40, after playing one more season.

I admit, I feel the same sense of loss I have felt when other players I admired ended their careers. It is inevitable. And when Favre is no longer playing, when his retirement is finally official, I will be sorry to see him go.

I will always be grateful for the memories he gave me, as I'm sure other Packer fans will. But I don't blame the Packers for believing last year that their future lay elsewhere, and I feel that Aaron Rodgers showed potential last year as Favre's successor.

As for whether Favre has hung it up for good, that's something only he can answer. Is he going to come back and play for Minnesota? I don't know. I hope not.

But if last year taught us anything, it is that Brett Favre will do things his way.

Who Will Be the No. 1 Pick?

---

---

The NFL holds its annual draft this weekend, and observers have been speculating for weeks about who will be the No. 1 pick by the Detroit Lions.

The Lions, as you may recall, failed to win a single game last season. In fact, since the Lions lost their last regular–season game in 2007, they have now lost 17 consecutive games.

And it's even worse than that. The Lions' 7–9 record in 2007 was Detroit's best season since 2000 — when the Lions finished with a 9–7 record. They haven't been in the playoffs since 1999, and they haven't won a playoff game since 1991 (and that, incidentally, was Detroit's only playoff victory since winning the 1957 NFL championship).

Since 2000, Detroit has compiled a record of 40–104–0.

The consensus appears to be that Detroit has been negotiating with University of Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford. He's got a good arm, but Detroit has no line to speak of, which means Stafford (or whoever is calling the signals for the Lions next season) will have to throw on the run ... A LOT.

Stafford should be used to that, though. Georgia had little on the offensive line during Stafford's tenure there.

The best available offensive lineman appears to be Baylor's Jason Smith, and Sports Illustrated's Peter King thinks he will go second, when the St. Louis Rams make their pick. Smith seems like a good fit for the Rams, who cut the aging Orlando Pace last month.

But the team that could really use Smith is Detroit. Until the Lions get some big, strong linemen to provide protection for both the running and passing games, it won't matter how many marquee names the Lions put on their roster. The quarterback won't have time to look for the open receivers, and in the 10 years since Barry Sanders retired, Detroit hasn't found any running backs who can make things happen in spite of any weaknesses on the line the way he could.

Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free–Press says Stafford is going to be a Lion, like it or not — even though, I believe, Detroit already has four quarterbacks signed to contracts.

"The Lions apparently believe Stafford will be a franchise quarterback," Rosenberg writes, "and when you are that deeply in love, you don't worry about the price of roses."

Still, a lot of unforeseen things can happen in the NFL draft. Mike Florio of The Sporting News provides a rundown on the top storylines heading into the draft, and he points out that trades, drama and risk are key factors.

But that's true every year.

Peter King's Random Thoughts About the Super Bowl

Peter King is an excellent, entertaining writer.

And, for years now, I have enjoyed reading his "random thoughts" and his "10 things I think I think" columns that he's written for Sports Illustrated.

This week, as he prepares for this Sunday's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals, he has posted a "Ten Things I Think I Think during Super Bowl Week in Tampa" that should be read by every football fan — and, if you aren't a football fan but you're planning to watch the game, anyway, you probably should read it, too.

His first item probably makes the most sense to me. "I think I wish the NFL would stop using the Roman numerals," he writes. This year's game is the 43rd Super Bowl — and, instead of calling it Super Bowl XLIII, King says it should simply be called Super Bowl 43.

I agree. Using Roman numerals made sense when the game was young — and I'm old enough to remember those days. I was in first grade when the first Super Bowl was played. But now that we've nearly had as many Super Bowls as we've had presidents, it's time to modernize it.

King's other observations are probably more suited for the hard-core football fans. And, while I consider myself a hard-core football fan, I understand that millions of non-football fans will tune in to the game — because it's the "in" thing to do or because they want to see the ads that are being shown this year or because they want to watch the halftime show with Bruce Springsteen.

Whatever motivates you to watch the game, make sure you have something to nibble on. And enjoy yourself!