The 'Pretty Big' One

---

---

Does it seem strange to be writing about the anniversary of perhaps the most notorious earthquake to strike the North American continent in the last 50 years — on a sports blog?

Well, I guess it is — but that is how I remember that event.

It was a Tuesday night, just after 7 p.m. in north Texas. I was enrolled in graduate school, and those classes almost always met at night, but I didn't have a class that night. My brother was at my apartment, and we were settling in to watch Game 3 of the World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's.

Because the teams were in twin cities — separated only by the bay and linked by the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge — it was dubbed a "subway series." To accommodate viewers in the large Eastern media markets, the World Series games were scheduled to start around 5:30 p.m. California time; apparently, in the Bay Area, many people either left work early (to attend the games or attend watch parties) or stayed late for office watch parties. Consequently, the result was that the typical rush hour was not nearly as heavy as it would have under typical circumstances.

That meant that fewer people were on the bridge when the earthquake struck at 5:04 local time. If it had been a normal day, we were told later, the casualties would have been virtually incomprehensible.

---

---

What could be seen on the TV screen was bad enough.

And I became very concerned about the safety of my friends, Mike and Jane, who had been living there for about a year or so. I tried to call them whenever I could, but I kept getting the same recorded message that my call could not be completed.

Finally, three days later, I got a call from Jane. It was the first opportunity she had had to contact friends and family to let them know she and Mike were all right.

She told me that she typically commuted across that bridge — and, on an ordinary day, she would have been right in the middle of the bridge when the earthquake struck. Because of the World Series, though, she told me she had already been off the bridge for five or 10 minutes when the earthquake happened.

I was really glad I didn't know her usual routine at the time of the earthquake. I would have been worried sick.

Mike, as it turned out, was home when the earthquake hit. They were living in a solid house — it survived the infamous 1906 earthquake with its 7.9 magnitude so the 7.1–magnitude "Lomo Prieta earthquake" (so named for the location of its epicenter) was no match for it. Mike said all that really happened was a few pictures were shaken from the wall.

Initially, there were reports that casualties numbered in the hundreds — but it turned out that only 63 people died. That is still 63 too many, but it was better than originally feared.

Action in the World Series was suspended for 10 days while the Bay Area cleaned up and started trying to return to normal. I was two time zones away, but I followed developments via TV. It was inspiring to see so many members of both baseball teams helping out in any way they could, shoulder to shoulder with many of their fans.

Of course, there are always those who look for ways to make money off other people's misfortune, and Mike and Jane told me that some enterprising folks printed up T–shirts that read, "I Survived the Pretty Big One."

I wouldn't have wanted to buy one of them and contribute to the guy who printed them — but I would have liked to have seen one. I've searched the internet, too, by the way, but I haven't found a photo of one yet.

Maybe it wasn't as much of a thriving cottage industry as Mike and Jane thought it was. Maybe their impression was fueled by seeing those shirts from time to time — and mistaking that for all the time. I don't know.

I just know I was glad to know my friends hadn't been hurt.

The Imperfectionists

---

---

Later today, the San Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens will meet in Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans.

As you have no doubt heard, there are many dramatic storylines in this year's Super Bowl — the first time brothers will be coaching against one another, the final NFL game for Baltimore's Ray Lewis, etc.

And CSNCalifornia.com's Lee Siegel writes that, if they win today, the 49ers will be 6–0 in the Super Bowl, matching Michael Jordan and the Bulls in the NBA.

As dynasties go, I guess Jordan's Bulls have become the gold standard.

But the comparison of the Bulls and the 49ers is a bit of a stretch. Jordan really did participate in six championship–winning efforts in Chicago. The 49ers won their first four Super Bowls in truly Jordanesque style — behind the leadership of Joe Montana. But the fifth was won behind Montana's successor, Steve Young, and today's squad will be led by a fellow who was in elementary school the last time San Francisco hoisted the Lombardi Trophy. He hadn't been born when Montana won his first two Super Bowls.

And Siegel acknowledges that fact — albeit somewhat grudgingly — when he writes that, even though it will have taken three quarterbacks to accomplish it, a victory today still will be "yet another feather in the cap of this area and this franchise."

The game's final outcome will determine which storyline is the most relevant and the most intriguing, I suppose.

But today's Super Bowl will have to go some to match the drama of the Super Bowl that was played five years ago today.

On that day, the New England Patriots were the first team in 35 years to enter the Super Bowl with a perfect record — and, if they won the game, they would be only the second team to win every regular season and every postseason game — the first since the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

That alone probably rendered that game more dramatic than the one that will be played today.

But then the Giants, who were 12–point underdogs, snatched history away from the shocked Patriots, who had become the Dolphins (well, perhaps, more like the Steelers — or even the 49ers) of their generation with three Super Bowl appearances in the previous six years.

The Patriots had won all three of those Super Bowls, including a last–second triumph over the St. Louis Rams, widely regarded at the time as the NFL's greatest franchise.

Considering how Tom Brady and the Patriots had ruled the NFL in the first decade of the 21st century (not to mention the AFC's Eastern Division), it was logical to assume that an unbeaten New England team, with all that postseason experience on its roster, would crush the Giants, a mere wild–card entry.

Wild cards, of course, weren't part of the NFL's postseason landscape in the 1960s, but ever since 1970, there has been at least one in every playoff picture. In those 37 seasons, only eight wild cards had ever made it as far as the Super Bowl — only four had won it all.

It's safe to say that nearly everyone (with the noteworthy exception of Giants fans) assumed New England would win — and most probably assumed Brady would win his third Super Bowl MVP as well.

---

---

Not only had wild cards rarely prevailed in the Super Bowl, but there had been relatively few Super Bowls that were truly competitive — at least in the first 30 or 35 years of its existence — regardless of whether a wild card played in them.

Football fans in the 21st century have grown accustomed to close scores in Super Bowls — thanks largely (but not exclusively) to the Patriots, who may have dominated their conference but won each of those three Super Bowls by three–point margins. Perhaps, in hindsight, that was something of a warning of what to expect.

For decades, the Super Bowl was frequently seen as a rather anticlimactic championship game in which one team dominated the other. There were some competitive games — but they were considered the exceptions to the rule.

The first decade of the 21st century produced more single–score margins than any decade since the Super Bowl era began yet, when the game began five years ago today, the two most recent Super Bowls had been won by more than a single score.

Those scores hadn't been nearly as lopsided as many Super Bowls that were played in the 20th century, but they were sufficient to make some people (especially football people, not just casual fans) wonder if the NFL was returning to a time when wide margins were the norm.

What happened on this day five years ago drove such thoughts far from observers' minds. What happened five years ago today was probably one of the most astonishing upsets in football history — more astonishing than when Broadway Joe led the Jets past the Colts in Super Bowl III.

I guess it took a team from Broadway to do it.

It was dramatic from the start. The Giants opened the game with the longest drive in Super Bowl history (including a record four third–down conversions). The drive consumed nearly 10 minutes, but the Giants ultimately had to settle for a field goal.

After taking a 3–0 lead in the first quarter, the Giants fell behind at halftime, 7–3. That was still the score when the fourth quarter began. It's safe to say that few who were watching that day, either at University of Phoenix Stadium or on TV, anticipated what happened in the fourth quarter.

There were three lead changes in that fourth quarter — first, Eli Manning led the Giants down the field for a touchdown, giving New York a 10–7 advantage. Then Brady retaliated with a touchdown pass to Randy Moss (who will participate in the Super Bowl later today), giving New England a 14–10 lead with less than three minutes to play.

But then came the kind of moment that can define a football player's professional career, for good or ill.

And, in the case of Eli Manning, it was for good. He drove the Giants more than 80 yards and threw the winning touchdown pass to Plaxico Burress with about 30 seconds to play.

But he might not have been in the position to throw that pass if he had not completed an improbable third down pass to David Tyree, who caught the first go–ahead TD pass earlier in the quarter.

In a catch that really defied description, Tyree outleaped the defender and made a one–handed grab in which the ball appeared to be stuck between his hand and his helmet.

The catch gained more than 30 yards for the Giants, who scored the go–ahead touchdown a few plays later. Manning, who completed 19 of 34 passes for 255 yards and two touchdowns, was named the game's MVP.

When Manning and the Giants beat the Patriots again four years later, he eclipsed his older brother Peyton, who, to date, has one Super Bowl title.

But even if Peyton matches his brother in Super Bowl victories, he will probably never match what his brother did five years ago today ... when Eli denied the Patriots their bid for perfection.

Eli's Coming

---

---

When I was a boy, Three Dog Night was one of the most popular bands around, and one of its earliest hits was a tune called "Eli's Coming."

That song wasn't related in any way to football, but, nevertheless, the title sprang to mind as I watched, for the second time in the last five years, Eli Manning lead his New York Giants to a come–from–behind victory over Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.

On Saturday, I observed that it was the fifth anniversary of Eli's brother's one and only Super Bowl triumph — and I also noted that, with another win over the Patriots, Eli would notch his second title "and, in the process, probably secur[e] his spot in the NFL's Hall of Fame."

That's how it tends to be with multiple Super Bowl–winning quarterbacks, I wrote, and, in the aftermath of Sunday's game, I see I'm not alone.

Don Banks of Sports Illustrated wrote of the "pretty select club" Eli joined with his victory.

"Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins have a cache all their own in NFL history," Banks wrote, "and we best start wrapping our minds around the reality that Peyton Manning's little brother is in the fraternity, and the Colts' long–time great isn't. That last shall be first stuff really does come to pass sometimes."

Banks reeled off the names of the multiple winners and observed that nearly all of them are enshrined in the Hall of Fame. That certainly improves the odds that Eli will wind up in Canton as well.

Lord knows he wouldn't get in on the strength of his regular–season numbers. For that matter, his numbers on Sunday were good but not great. He completed 30 of 40 passes for just under 300 yards and one touchdown.

Good enough to get the job done, but not eye popping.

Of course, unlike his older brother, Eli's life is hardly at a crossroads. He's a hot property, having won not only his second Super Bowl but his second Super Bowl MVP award as well. And that makes up for a lot of things.

Success is fleeting in the NFL — just ask the last three quarterbacks who won the Super Bowl — and someone else may well be on the mountaintop in the space of another year.

But today it is Eli who stands astride that mountaintop, surveying the NFL's terrain below and basking in the praise that comes his way for his achievements.

That praise is certainly deserved, but I can't help thinking of how slender the gap between winning and losing a Super Bowl can be. After Manning's Giants opened the game with an impressive and workmanlike — but ultimately futile — possession, they had to punt and succeeded in pinning the Patriots deep in their own territory.

On the first play from scrimmage, Brady threw a pass that went 45 or 50 yards in the air easily — but the officials ruled that no eligible receivers were in the vicinity of the pass, which is the definition of intentional grounding, and threw a flag.

Ordinarily, the penalty for intentional grounding is loss of both yardage and down. Since Brady was in the end zone when he threw the pass, it resulted in a safety and a 2–0 Giants lead.

It has been my experience that some people believe that, for intentional grounding to have occurred, a quarterback must be in the grasp of a defender — and clearly in danger of being tackled for a loss — and throws the ball away to avoid the lost yardage and/or to preserve time on the clock.

But it is not essential for the quarterback to be under duress. It is only necessary for no eligible receiver to be in the vicinity of the pass — whether that pass is short or long.

An old friend (a colleague from my sports desk days) observed on Facebook that it was "the longest intentional grounding play I've ever seen," and I had to agree.

It also seemed to me that, given the fact that Brady's pass covered about half the length of the football field, it was unreasonable for anyone to expect him to be precise about his target — or whether the receiver would stay in the vicinity of the pass in the time it took for the ball to reach its destination.

But that is how the rule is written — currently. I think it would be wise to revisit that rule during the offseason.

Anyway, the game proceeded with the usual scoring — touchdowns and field goals — until late in the game, when the Patriots led, 17–15, and the Giants scored what proved to be the winning touchdown. They went for two on the conversion and came up short, making the final score 21–17.

Now, imagine if the Patriots had not been penalized for intentional grounding but failed to put together a scoring drive on their first possession and wound up punting.

And everything else unfolded as it did (which you really can't assume because everything that happened after the penalty was predicated, to some degree, on the fact that it did, in fact, happen).

That would have made the score 17–13 when the Giants began their game–winning drive.

As it was, the Giants were under no pressure to score a touchdown. All that was needed to take the lead was a field goal, and perhaps that made a difference in the way they played in those final minutes.

But, in the alternate scenario, a touchdown would have been necessary. Under the additional pressure, would the Giants have crumbled? Would they have called different plays? Would the Patriots have followed a different strategy on defense? We'll never know.

If we assume, however, that the Giants would have scored the touchdown, as, of course, they did, it would have made the score 19–17, and my guess is the Giants would have settled for one point on the conversion instead of going for two.

Extra–point kicks are almost always successful, and this one would have given the Giants a 20–17 lead — nearly the actual final score but with a crucial difference. That one–point variation could have made all the difference for New England.

The Patriots' strategy would have been to get within field goal range and try to force the game into overtime, not to get into the end zone, and their play calling would have reflected that.

But the game turned out the way it did — and that first–quarter safety made it possible for the Giants to gamble on a two–point conversion. Whether it was successful or not, they knew the Patriots would have to score a touchdown, they didn't have much time and they were almost out of timeouts.

Eli Manning certainly contributed to the victory, but so did everyone on the team — and, indirectly, Brady did, too. I'm not sure if he deserved to be named MVP.

But he got his second title, and that may be what matters most. Eli is in his prime and could still win another title or two before time catches up to him as it has his brother. He might not, though. You never know.

Eli's coming? He's here. But he might not be back.

Time will tell.

A Tale of Two Halves

---

---

Until this day 25 years ago, Bill Parcells had never coached a team to a Super Bowl — let alone a Super Bowl victory.

He had been in the playoffs a few times, but he had never made it to the Super Bowl — thus, he was one of several NFL coaches who were considered good but not great.

That perception changed in 1986, when he guided the New York Giants to the NFC championship and their first Super Bowl berth. The Giants went on to win their first Super Bowl, too.

But, whereas many of the previous Super Bowls were effectively over by halftime, the score at the intermission of Super Bowl XXI offered no clue as to which team would eventually win.

The Denver Broncos won the first half, 10–9. It was the narrowest halftime lead any team had ever enjoyed in a Super Bowl. The Giants scored 23 unanswered points in the second half, building a 32–10 lead before the Broncos added a 28–yard field goal by Rich Karlis.

The Giants added another TD, and the Broncos answered with another touchdown, producing the final score (39–20) that falsely implied the game had been well in hand all along.

It wasn't as lopsided as it appeared, although New York quarterback Phil Simms completed 88% of his passes (22 of 25) and won the MVP award.

---

---

When the outcome was no longer in doubt, head coach Bill Parcells experienced the first Gatorade shower in Super Bowl history.

Over the years, the scene has become football's equivalent of "the fat lady singing" in opera. Until you see it happen, the outcome is still uncertain.

And, in the last quarter of a century, it hasn't been limited to championship games, either. I've seen coaches get Gatorade showers when their teams ended losing streaks or set new records of just about any kind.

But, on this day in 1987, it was brand new. It was the birth of a new ritual.

I saw it happen, but I've got to admit I didn't realize the significance of what I saw. We were only a year removed from the Chicago Bears' "Super Bowl Shuffle," and I guess I figured I was witnessing the latest fad — sure to be replaced a year later by whatever the next Super Bowl champion would do.

But the Gatorade shower has had staying power. Who knew?

The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of

I didn't grow up in a major–league town — or anywhere close to one, so I rarely saw major–league baseball in person.

But a couple of times, when I was about 11 or 12, my family took summer trips to St. Louis, where we went to see the Cardinals play in the old Busch Memorial Stadium.

To a young boy from Conway, Ark., it was like a trip to Mecca — even though I have been a Dodger fan most of my life.

On one of those occasions, we were privileged to see two of the best pitchers of my childhood, Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson, pitch against each other.

That game lived up to expectations. It was a low–scoring pitchers' duel, and it went into extra innings (both Seaver and Gibson had been relieved at that point). Unfortunately, we missed the ending. It was unseasonably cool in St. Louis that evening, and my parents decided to take my brother and me to the motel's courtesy van to listen to the finish and wait for the others to join us.

Consequently, we heard the dramatic finish on the radio — St. Louis' Ted Sizemore hit an inside–the–park home run.

Many years later, when I was working for a newspaper in north Texas, a co–worker of mine and I did a little projecting based on pitching rotations and determined that Nolan Ryan (who had just joined the Rangers) would be facing Boston's Roger Clemens in Arlington. We bought tickets ahead of time — and prayed that nothing (like rain or injury) would interfere.

Ryan and Clemens did face each other that day, as we expected, and that game also lived up to expectations. It was another low–scoring duel, and I later learned that Ryan, who was in his 40s by that time, had been throwing with back spasms since the second inning. He hung in there, though, until the Rangers took the lead with a two–run homer in the bottom of the eighth.

The Rangers went on to win the game.

Those are, without a doubt, the four best pitchers I have ever seen in person (although there was one time when I was visiting some friends in St. Louis and we went to see a Cardinal–Dodger game and we almost collided with Orel Hershiser as he was leaving the stadium and going across the street to his hotel and we were making our way back our car — but Hershiser didn't pitch that day and, besides, that's a story for another time), and those two pitchers' duels were extraordinarily entertaining.

But I will concede that Jim Kaplan just might be right when he writes about a game that was played 48 years ago today and calls it "the greatest game ever pitched."

Now, there have been many games that have been mentioned as the greatest game ever pitched, and Kaplan admits that in an article he wrote for Sports Illustrated.

"Opponents trot out the usual suspects," he writes, "like the 1–0 perfect game Cleveland's Addie Joss threw against the White Sox' Ed Walsh on October 2, 1908; the 26–inning, 1–1 tie pitched in 1920 by Joe Oeschger of the Boston Braves and Leon Cadore of the Brooklyn Dodgers; Harvey Haddix's unprecedented 12–inning, 1959 perfect game that he lost in the 13th; and Sandy Koufax's 1965 perfecto in which losing pitcher Bob Hendley of the Cubs allowed one hit and two base runners."

To use Kaplan's own word, those games — and others — were each "remarkable."

But the game played between the Milwaukee Braves and the San Francisco Giants on this day in 1963 was unique. "There was nothing to compare it to," Kaplan writes.

That's tough to dispute.

"On that day, a pair of future Hall of Famers, one with his best days behind him, the other with his career blossoming before him, engaged in a battle never seen before or since," Kaplan writes. "Spahn, already an icon, had debuted during World War II and was in the midst of his 13th and final 20–win season. Marichal, among the game's new breed of Latin stars who were changing the face of baseball, was en route to his first of six 20–win seasons."

That was similar, I guess, to the game I saw between Texas and Boston. Ryan was nearing the end of his career, Clemens was in the early stages of his.

But they didn't pitch against each other for 15 scoreless innings, as Marichal and Spahn did. A home run did decide the outcome of the Marichal–Spahn battle — but it came from the bat of one of the most prolific home run hitters in history, Willie Mays, who hit the 15th of what would be 38 home runs that season.

(Hank Aaron could have been the hero instead. He was in Milwaukee's lineup that day, but he went 0 for 6.)

I mean, what could possibly top that? Maybe Mickey Mantle bailing out Whitey Ford in a duel with Bob Lemon or something like that.

No such story exists in the annals of baseball, though, so I must conclude that Kaplan is right.

The Marichal–Spahn battle that was waged at Candlestick Park 48 years ago today is the greatest game ever pitched.

Elway's Redemption

---

---

Since the Packers are going to play in this weekend's Super Bowl, it seems only fitting to reflect a little on the career of the only quarterback to defeat Green Bay in one — John Elway.

I was never really sure how I felt about Elway the football player, but I know I didn't care much for him as a person through most of his playing career.

In a way, I guess, I felt that he was an elitist, a pretty boy, that he had always had things handed to him — and, when it wasn't handed to him, he pitched a fit until he got his way.

Put it all together, I suppose my conclusion was that he was overrated.

That wasn't fair, but consider my reasoning:

• He played his college ball for Stanford, one of the most prestigious private research universities in the nation.


• He was the #1 draft pick in 1983, but he didn't want to play for the team that picked him — the Baltimore Colts — so he was traded to Denver.
  
  He had lobbied for that trade, and the Colts capitulated.


• Many players have to toil for years in the NFL before they make it to a Super Bowl. Some never make it at all.
  
  Others are far more fortunate. They get that far early and often in their careers, and Elway was one of them. He played in three Super Bowls before he was 30.

But he lost all three, and each loss was more spectacular than the one before.

---

---

Elway's first Super Bowl was against the New York Giants after he had led the Broncos in "The Drive," an epic 98–yard, game–tying drive in the fourth quarter of the AFC Championship game.

The margin of that Super Bowl was crushing (19 points), but the truth was that, of the two starting quarterbacks who played in that game, Phil Simms of New York was much better than Elway. How could anyone conclude otherwise? Simms completed nearly 90% of his passes.

You could debate which one had the better career — but, on that day, it was no contest.

But that was nothing compared to what awaited Elway and the Broncos the following year.

---

---

Denver actually jumped to a 10–0 lead in the first quarter, but the wheels came off in the second quarter as the Washington Redskins scored five unanswered touchdowns and went on to win the game by 32 points.

Once again, it was another quarterback who had the better day by far — Doug Williams of the Redskins.

Denver didn't return to the Super Bowl the next year, but the Broncos were back the year after that. I remember thinking during those playoffs that, if Elway did return to the Super Bowl, it couldn't possibly be any worse for him on that day than it had been against the Giants and the Redskins.

But I was wrong — because waiting for Elway and the Broncos was none other than the juggernaut of the 1980s, the San Francisco 49ers and their all–everything quarterback, Joe Montana.

---

---

Montana surgically took apart the Broncos and handed them the worst Super Bowl setback ever.

I remember watching that game and actually admiring Elway's gumption.

Have you ever noticed how some players cease to become factors in the game when something goes wrong? On that day, I saw several Broncos who seemed to check out mentally as the avalanche began.

Many of them had been through those losses to the Giants and Redskins, and they were conditioned for defeat on the big stage. When signs of it seemed to be popping up, they accepted their fate.

That isn't how Elway was wired.

Long after it was clear to just about anyone who had eyes to see that the game was done, he was giving everything he had — as if the Broncos still had a chance to win.

---

---

By that time, I had mostly given up on the game and I remember watching the commercials with a lot more interest. An ongoing commercial theme that day centered on a small town in Alaska. The residents of the town, as I recall, had been divided into 49ers supporters and Broncos supporters by McDonald's, which had promised special prices on its hamburgers to the winners.

It was all a gimmick, of course, intended to promote temporary hamburger prices. But there was nothing temporary about the wandering in the wilderness that Elway and the Broncos did for the next eight years.

I am not a Broncos fan, and, I must admit, I seldom gave Elway much thought in those years. But, when I did, I tended to wonder if he would ever return to a Super Bowl.

He came close a few times. But he didn't return until Jan. 25, 1998, when he was 37 years old and everyone watching the game knew he was nearing the end of his career.

---

---

Elway had quite a challenge facing him that day — the defending Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers, who were led by one of the younger breed of quarterbacks in the NFL.

Elway was part of the old guard, and this, many people felt, might be his last chance. He was determined not to waste it, and he showed his desire on a scamper near the end zone late in the game. He didn't score on the play, but he got the first down, and the Broncos went on to score shortly thereafter — and won the game.

(Ain't it funny how things turn out? That wasn't Elway's last Super Bowl after all. But it did turn out to be the last one for that young gunslinger for the Packers, Brett Favre.)

Elway returned to the Super Bowl the following year, leading Denver to another triumph, securing his only Super Bowl MVP Award and capping a memorable career. He retired a few months later, leaving behind a considerable legacy.

In addition to his many single–season and career achievements:

• He is the only quarterback to start in five Super Bowls.


• He is one of only two men to score rushing touchdowns in four different Super Bowls.


• And Elway, who was 38 years old when he played in the 1999 Super Bowl, holds the record for being the oldest quarterback to win one.

I probably wouldn't have said this when he was still playing, but he showed me a lot during his career.

He showed me that he was more than a pretty boy. He was a talented quarterback who wanted to win but didn't always have all the weapons he needed.

I don't think Elway was the greatest quarterback ever to play the game. There are a few others I would pick before I would pick him.

But he deserves to be mentioned in the conversation.

Wide Right

---

---

In terms of food consumption in America, only Thanksgiving tops Super Bowl Sunday.

And that makes sense, when you consider how many Super Bowl parties are held every year all across the country. People get together and eat chips, dip, wings, burgers, pizza, brats, nachos, you name it. One year, I went to a co–worker's house to watch the game, and he served brisket to his guests. Man, was it good!

For some people, Super Bowl Sunday really is about crowning a pro football champion. But for many, I fear, it has become a de facto holiday for gluttony.

Only two cities are directly involved in a Super Bowl, of course, but the game has transcended the boundary of sports championship and become an event.

I know some people who don't care for football, but they watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. I even have one friend who records the game every year. He and his wife go out for dinner, maybe see a movie, while the game is being played. Then, after they return home and the game is over, he fast–forwards through the game and watches the commercials.

How many other things can you think of — for that matter, is there anything else — that some people watch strictly for the commercials?

I'll have more to say about the Super Bowl, I'm sure, when this year's edition, in the still–so–new–you–can–probably–still–smell–the–paint Cowboys Stadium in nearby Arlington, is about to kick off.

But today I just want to reflect on one — the Super Bowl that was played 20 years ago today in Tampa Stadium, known as "The Big Sombrero" for its shape, which was demolished more than a decade ago.

(I say that, incidentally, just to give you an idea of where the game was being played. The location doesn't really play any other kind of role in this story.)

I don't know when the Super Bowl became the occasion for massive social get–togethers that it has become. Until I was in high school, I watched most Super Bowls at home with my family, sometimes with a few neighborhood friends. Since my college years, I have been to a few Super Bowl parties.

There have been several reasons why I haven't been to very many Super Bowl parties in my life.

In some years, I didn't go to Super Bowl parties because I was working on the sports staff of a metropolitan newspaper, and most of us had to work on Super Sunday.

Ordinarily, there isn't much else going on on Super Bowl Sunday, and we usually tried to transform the office into a modified football party. Folks brought in dip and chips, other snack foods, soft drinks, and we would watch the game. No cold beer, of course, which might have made the experience more memorable — or perhaps not.

But I remember attending a Super Bowl party on this day 20 years ago — and what was noteworthy about that occasion, what makes it stand out in my memory, is not the fact that I went to a party but the fact that it was one of the most exciting Super Bowls I've ever seen.

Of course, the company with whom I shared that experience was special, too. But what happened on the field is what everyone remembers today.

I've seen most of the Super Bowls, even going back to the time when they didn't call it the Super Bowl. Much of the time, unfortunately, the Super Bowl hasn't lived up to its hype. Most of the time, it's been over by halftime. There was just that formality of playing the final 30 minutes.

But a few Super Bowls have been exciting, and the one that was played on Jan. 27, 1991, certainly was.

I was in graduate school, and Kyle, my classmate, friend and co–worker at the local newspaper, invited me to a Super Bowl party at his house. He, his wife and a friend of theirs had invited me to join them in their annual ritual of predicting weekly NFL games that season, and Kyle's wife and I were tied for the lead going into Super Bowl Sunday.

(By the way, I don't think Kyle and I have ever watched another Super Bowl together, either before or since. But even though we're separated by nearly 1,000 miles now, we'll share a bond or two in this year's Super Bowl. We lived, worked and went to school a short distance from where this year's Super Bowl will be played — and our favorite teams are facing each other. Kyle, you see, is a Steeler fan, and I have always been a Packer fan.)

That party was a fairly intimate gathering, as I recall. Only a handful of us, really. Lynn served a multi–layer Tex–Mex kind of dip — one of those dishes with lots of beans and olives and onions and peppers and cheese and sour cream and salsa and all that tasty stuff — and we all nibbled on it while we watched the game.

Anyway, since we were tied for the lead, Lynn and I decided to use the Super Bowl as our tiebreaker. One of us would take one team, the other would take the other team.

Lynn asked me which team I wanted.

I decided to be chivalrous, and I told her to choose.

She took the Buffalo Bills, who were the seven–point favorites. That left me with the New York Giants.

I figured she would be on the winning side. A lot of people did. I don't think anyone — maybe not even the Giants themselves — believed they could stop the Bills' no–huddle offense.

And the Giants' offense, with backup quarterback Jeff Hostetler filling in for the injured Phil Simms, was suspect as well. They were often criticized for failing to score a touchdown in the NFC Championship game — but it was seldom mentioned that the Giants had to beat the two–time defending Super Bowl champions on the road in that game.

Five field goals had been enough to win on that occasion, and that was what it was all about. Winning.

It was ironic, really, that field goals figured so prominently in the Giants' victory in the NFC championship game — because a field goal attempt is what people always remember about Super Bowl XXV.

Buffalo's Scott Norwood came on to attempt a 47–yard field goal in the final seconds that would have won the game for the Bills. But he famously missed the kick and the Giants prevailed.

Last year, just before the Super Bowl, I wrote about an article that I had been reading in TIME about the top 10 Super Bowl moments of all time.

It mentioned Norwood's kick — and I agreed then (and I still agree today) that it belongs on such a list. But the author called it "a kick to forget."

I took issue with that.

"Unless you were a fan of the Buffalo Bills," I wrote, "I don't think I would say that Norwood's kick was one to forget. It was a dramatic moment. The snap was good. It didn't sail over the kicker's head or anything like that. The kicker made a clean kick. No one blocked it. It was long enough. It just didn't go through the uprights."

I can still remember ABC broadcaster Al Michaels exclaiming, "Wide right!" as Norwood's kick sailed a few inches outside the goal post.

That's about the size of it. I've watched replays of that kick many times in the last 20 years. I have yet to see anything that was amiss on that play.

The snap still looks good to me. The kick still looks normal. I haven't even seen anyone on the defense commit a penalty that could have allowed the Bills to try it again.

He just missed it. S**t happens.

I'm sure Norwood doesn't like to be reminded of that kick. He had other achievements in his career. He helped the Bills get to the Super Bowl for the first time. He became their leading scorer, eclipsing O.J. Simpson.

But he is remembered for that one field goal attempt in Tampa 20 years ago today. It truly lives in infamy.

---

---

It has become a cultural flash point, of sorts. It served as the inspiration for an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond in which Raymond and Debra, while celebrating their wedding anniversary, decided to watch the video tape of their wedding — only to discover that Ray had accidentally taped over it.

He had taped Super Bowl XXV.

Debra sat there, stunned. "Did you hit something?" she demanded.

"No, it's still going," he replied.

"Then why am I seeing football?" she asked.

And a fight ensued that seemed to mark the beginning of the end for their marriage. But Ray wasn't giving in that easily.

To make it up to her, Ray went to elaborate lengths so they could renew their vows. Naturally, some people were curious about why they were renewing their vows, and Ray confessed that he had taped over their wedding video.

After the ceremony, Ray, the priest and most of the men sat down to watch the tape of the game. Some of them ranted about what a great game it had been.

As I recall, one of the characters — it might have been the priest — said he had never seen the ending. He had only heard about it, and he was excited to finally be seeing it.

The punch line was that somehow Ray's recording of the game stopped just before Norwood's kick — and the tape was showing the wedding footage again.

(That was funny but bewildering — for a couple of reasons, which I will explore briefly. For one, most football games take more than three hours to play, and Super Bowls usually go longer because of the lengthy halftime shows and the additional commercial time that is sold. When was the last wedding ceremony you attended that went for 3½ hours?

(Second, it was never really explained how the recording stopped. Perhaps the writers should have had Ray say something like, "Oh, yeah, now I remember. So–and–so accidentally hit the button on the VCR, and it stopped taping just before Norwood's kick!")

I'm sure Norwood wishes he could erase the memory of that kick as easily. But he's linked to it forever now. I predict that, whenever he dies, the first paragraph of his obituary will say, "Scott Norwood, whose missed field goal in Super Bowl XXV cost the Buffalo Bills a world championship, died ..."

It will be that way even if he wins the Nobel Prize. That might not be mentioned until the second paragraph.

S**t happens. Kickers miss field goals. Some husbands accidentally erase wedding videos.

Deal with it. Have some dip.

The Primal Force of Nature

---

---

In the 1976 movie "Network," Peter Finch's character (the TV newsman known for ranting that he was "mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!") was told by Ned Beatty's character (the chairman of the conglomerate that owned the TV network), "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you must atone!"

I had a similar sensation yesterday when I watched the video of the collapse of the roof of Minneapolis' Metrodome.

The bad weather had already forced the postponement of the game — the New York Giants, who were scheduled to face the Vikings, couldn't get there because of it — but that wasn't really relevant. The collapse occurred when most of the fans who were planning to attend probably were still snuggling in their warm beds. It was 5 a.m. No one was there.

It is fortunate, indeed, that the roof collapsed when it did, that it didn't wait about seven hours — when more than 60,000 fans were expected to be in those seats.

But in the absence of loss of life, I have found myself pondering the supposedly controlled environments in which many football and baseball teams must play.

It wasn't always this way.

When I was growing up, many of the most memorable games were played in adverse conditions — including games in Minnesota.

It's been more than four decades since the "Ice Bowl" was played, but people still speak of it.

When I was in college at the University of Arkansas, the football team played a bowl game in a fog that was as thick as pea soup. I wasn't there, but I watched it on TV. And I can remember more details of that game than I can of games I watched yesterday.

---

---

And just about 35 years ago — in an NFC playoff game on Dec. 28, 1975 — Dallas' Roger Staubach threw the pass that was dubbed the "Hail Mary" pass.

Watch it in the attached clip. That white stuff along the sidelines is snow.

Previous generations called such a play an "Alley–Oop." But, as the saying goes, a rose by any other name ...

My point is that the condition at gametime is the kind of intangible neither team can really prepare for. Victory belongs to the team that can make the needed adjustments first.

And sometimes I wonder if humans have simply been meddling with the primal forces of nature in their attempt to create ideal conditions for the teams and their fans.

Sure, in some circumstances, I can see the wisdom of building an indoor facility for what is essentially an outdoor game. It rains so much in Seattle, for example, that I can see how it would be difficult to complete a baseball season there without an indoor facility.

But football games are different. Football games have always been played in all kinds of weather. It takes something really severe — like flash floods or extremely strong winds or lightning — to interfere with a football game.

Personally, I always thought the possibility of bad weather gave the home team an added incentive to win. After all, who wants to come out to watch a losing team play in the rain or the snow or the fog?

The Vikings of the 1970s made the game conditions part of their home field advantage.

Maybe the indoor stadiums are better — for the fans' comfort — but I think something good has been lost.

Perhaps, when the Vikings return to Minneapolis for their final home game next Monday, a local outdoor stadium will be used — and Minnesota football fans can experience football the way it once was in Minneapolis.

Scenes From a Series

History will be made here tonight when the Texas Rangers host the first World Series game in their existence.

No doubt many folks in these parts had something quite different in mind, though. They didn't expect to need to rally these Rangers from a 2–0 deficit in this best–of–seven series.

It was bad enough when, as Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury News wrote, the Giants claimed a "psychedelic" 11–7 victory in Game 1.

They were playing in San Francisco, after all, so I guess it was appropriate that the first game was something of a mind–altering experience. Certainly, it altered perceptions — of players, of pitching rotations, of victory scenarios.

Of teams.

But at least the Rangers were conscious in that game. It was hard to tell in Game 2. The Giants won, 9–0.

Tonight, they return to Arlington, to home cooking and their long–suffering fans. And the objective should be clear, writes Jean–Jacques Taylor in the Dallas Morning News.

In the words of Al Davis — Just win, baby.

Just win this game. Worry about Game 4 tomorrow. And Game 5, if there is one, on Monday.

But don't think about those games — or the games that were played in San Francisco on Wednesday and Thursday.

A win can make a big difference, at least temporarily.

A win can take that monkey off the Rangers' backs. They will know that they can win against these Giants, that it is possible.

That is not something they can say with confidence today.

But if they win today, they know they will get two more games in Arlington. And they will have a chance to return to San Francisco with a 3–2 lead.

But if the Giants win today, the Rangers will be down 3–0. They will have to run the table against a team they still haven't proven they can beat at least once.

So they better not think about that right now.

Or that, historically, teams who got off to 2–0 leads in the World Series went on to win it all about 80% of the time.

The odds are against these Rangers, no matter what happens tonight.

But the odds will be much longer if they don't win this one.

And, Now, the World Series ...

As I wrote the other day, folks in north Texas have been waiting a long time for a World Series to come here.

Tonight, the long wait comes to an end.

Well, not literally.

I mean, the first World Series game to be played in north Texas is still a few days away.

But tonight, the Texas Rangers will make their first World Series appearance when they take the field in San Francisco.

And a fellow named Darrell Cook — who happens to be a lawyer from Irving — will be there, too.

Cook made a motion to postpone a pretrial conference in a lawsuit in which he is participating so he could attend the game. That conference was supposed to be held this afternoon. But the judge granted the request.

OK, the postponement really isn't a big deal. As Mede Nix writes in the Dallas Morning News, the hearing really is a routine matter.

Still, why did it have to be postponed? The case involves the City of Irving and the Villas of Irving (which, Nix reports, Cook represents). If Cook has a partner, couldn't the partner attend the meeting in his place?

Should a baseball game — even the first game in the World Series — permit the judicial system to be slowed down even more than it already is?

Around here, I guess, some folks would say yes. Certainly, that's what Darrell Cook would say — if you could reach him. But he's probably flying to the West Coast right now — and you know the airlines don't like for folks to use their cell phones during flight.

Tim Cowlishaw writes, in the Dallas Morning News, that the Rangers will win in seven games — which would be quite dramatic. It certainly would set up a storybook ending with the Rangers looking for their first title and the Giants looking for their first since they were the New York Giants.

Over at the Fort Worth Star–Telegram, Ray Buck has learned there is some mileage to be gained from this Cinderella angle.

And Gil LeBreton, in a Star–Telegram column that most Giants fans are not likely to see (unless they surf over to the Star–Telegram's website), urges San Francisco baseball fans — for whom "Giants baseball ... torture" appears to have become a local rallying cry — not to compare their stories of victimization to the Rangers' fans. It's just no contest.

In another year — when the Cowboys weren't 1–5 and the Texas Longhorns weren't 4–3 — even a berth in the World Series for the Rangers might not warrant this much attention.

But sports fans around here are hungry for a winner, damn it!

And a majority of Sports Illustrated's "experts" think they'll get it.

Eagles-Giants May Be Best Game This Weekend

Peter King of Sports Illustrated — a sportswriter for whom I have a great deal of respect — points out that this weekend's playoff games are all rematches of regular-season encounters.

And each one was a "barnburner," King says.

"Philadelphia beat New York by six, New York beat Philly by five, Carolina beat Arizona by four, Tennessee beat Baltimore by three, Pittsburgh beat San Diego by one," he observes. "Wow. You can't make this stuff up."

No, you can't.

Only the outcome of one of the four playoff games is guaranteed to be a reversal of a regular-season game — the Philadelphia-New York game. Those teams play in the same division, which means they face each other twice during the regular season.

As King notes in his column, the Giants and Eagles split their games during the season. So what is to be gleaned from that? Well, the visiting team was the winner in both instances. If that trend continues, that means the Eagles will prevail over the defending Super Bowl champions.

That may turn out to be the relevant factor. The Eagles were very hot at the end of the season, going 4-1 in their last five games. And one of those wins was a 20-14 victory over the Giants at the Meadowlands.

The Giants, meanwhile, sort of staggered to the finish line, going 2-3 in the same stretch.

The Giants still won the NFC East, with a 12-4 record. The Eagles took a wild-card spot with an 8-7-1 record, including a much-maligned tie with Cincinnati that many observers believed would keep them out of the playoffs.

Nevertheless, the Eagles made it to the playoffs, beat the Minnesota Vikings, and should be very confident when they take the field Sunday against the Giants, having won five of their last six games.

Do the statistics support the suggestion that the Eagles will advance to the NFC title game and face either Carolina or Arizona?

• Well, neither team seems to have an advantage at quarterback. Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb and New York's Eli Manning both have ratings of 86.4.
  
  McNabb threw for 3,916 yards and 23 touchdowns during the regular season. In his 10-year career, that's the highest yardage total he has compiled and his third-highest TD total. He threw for 300 yards or more four times this season, but came up just short of 200 yards in each of the games with New York.
  
  Manning's NFL career has been half as long as McNabb's, and neither his yardage total (3,238) nor TD total (21) represented his best efforts. But Manning threw only 10 interceptions (his lowest total since his rookie year, when he only played in nine games). He failed to throw for more than 200 yards in either of his previous encounters with the Eagles.


• Both teams appear to have spread the ball around in the passing game. Rookie DeSean Jackson led the Eagles with 912 yards on 62 receptions and scored two TDs. Brian Westbrook led the team in receiving TDs with five — one came at New York on Dec. 7.
  
  For the Giants, second-year receiver Kevin Boss led the team in receiving TDs with six, one of which came against Philly on Nov. 9. He had 33 catches during the season for 384 yards. Steve Smith led the team in receptions with 57, accounting for 574 yards and one TD.


• The Giants seem to have the edge in the ground game. Both Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward ran for more than 1,000 yards, while the Eagles' leading rusher, Westbrook, accounted for 936 yards. However, when you combine his rushing and receiving yards, Westbrook accounted for 1,000 yards for the fifth consecutive season.
  
  Jacobs was third in the NFC in rushing TDs (15), and he got two of them at Philadelphia in November, but Ward got into the end zone twice. Westbrook, meanwhile, scored nine TDs, one of them at New York on Dec. 7. For both Jacobs and Westbrook, those are career high TD totals.
  
  But Jacobs has been hobbled by injury in recent weeks. The Giants have to hope that having some time off since the last regular-season game will help him get back to normal.


• On defense, things look fairly even in the sack department. Justin Tuck (12.0) and Mathias Kiwanuka (8.5) were New York's top producers in that category; Darren Howard (10.0) and Trent Cole (9.0) set the pace for Philadelphia.


• Putting additional pressure on the quarterbacks are Eagles cornerback Asante Samuel, who picked off four passes this season, and safety Quintin Mikell, who intercepted three passes. Giants safety James Butler, second-year cornerback Aaron Ross and cornerback Corey Webster had three interceptions each.


• Second-year linebacker Stewart Bradley led the Eagles in tackles with 108. Antonio Pierce was the best tackler for the Giants with 94.

The Giants-Eagles game may well be the best playoff matchup of the weekend, although, as King observed, all four games are rematches so they should all be reasonably familiar with each other.

Bob Glauber of Newsday says the Eagles look like last year's Giants team that, as a wild-card team, won three straight road games and then beat the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.

But Gary Myers of the New York Daily News is adamant that the Eagles will not beat the Giants on Sunday.

The Giants "take the Birds seriously," Myers writes. But, he insists, "The Eagles come flying into Giants Stadium but will pack up their season and leave by bus."

Sounds like bulletin board material.

The Greatest Game Ever Played

Today is an important anniversary in the history of the National Football League.

Fifty years ago today, the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants played for the NFL championship. At the end of the fourth quarter, the score was tied.

And, for the first time, a professional football game went into overtime.

I've seen the highlights from the game before, but they were always in the original black-and-white — the way TV viewers saw it on Dec. 28, 1958.

But, to mark the 50th anniversary, ESPN Films and NFL Films created a special colorized presentation of the game film. For the first time, TV viewers could see the Colts and Giants in the uniform colors that the fans at their games saw in 1958.

It also includes commentary from several people who participated in the game — although some of the people who might have had the most interesting insights (Johnny Unitas, Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Weeb Ewbank) are no longer around.

The film was first broadcast a couple of weeks ago.

Oddly, it does not appear to have been scheduled for broadcast today — on the actual anniversary.

However, you can see it on New Year's Day on ESPN Classic from 6-8 p.m. (Central).

Home Field in Playoffs May Be On Line Today

On this Sunday before Christmas, the NFL's playoff picture is coming into focus, although there are still some berths to be assigned.

In the AFC, Tennessee, Pittsburgh and Indianapolis have clinched spots in the playoffs so three others are still undecided. In the NFC, the New York Giants and Arizona Cardinals are definitely in, leaving four spots to be determined.

However, there are two games being played today that should go a long way toward determining who gets home-field advantage through the playoffs — Pittsburgh (11-3) at Tennessee (12-2) in the AFC, and Carolina (11-3) at the New York Giants (11-3) in the NFC.

Pittsburgh at Tennessee

It's supposed to be windy in Nashville today, and neither quarterback has been leading the league so I don't expect either team to throw the ball a lot.

The QBs have nearly identical ratings. Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger has an 80.2. Tennessee's Kerry Collins has a 78.7. Roethlisberger averages about 30 yards passing more than Collins, and he has four more TD passes as well as a slight edge in pass completion percentage.

But Roethlisberger can be turnover-prone — he has thrown nearly twice as many interceptions as Collins, and he's lost five fumbles.

Hines Ward is Pittsburgh's leading receiver, and he can reach 1,000 in receiving yards if he averages 68 yards per game in the final two contests. Ward also has more receiving TDs than anyone else playing in the game — his nearest competitors are Tennessee's Justin Gage, who has five, and teammate Santonio Holmes, who has four.

Tennessee running back Chris Johnson is second in the league in rushing yards with 1,159, more than 500 yards ahead of Pittsburgh's leading rusher, Willie Parker, who has missed some playing time with a knee injury. Johnson has eight rushing TDs; his teammate, LenDale White, has pitched in 700 yards and 14 TDs. For Pittsburgh, Mewelde Moore has tried to pick up the slack during Parker's absences, contributing 537 yards and four TDs.

Personally, I'm inclined to think defense will dominate the game.

On defense, several of the AFC's sack leaders will be featured in the game. Pittsburgh linebacker James Harrison is second in the AFC in sacks with 15, and he needs only one more to break Mike Merriweather's 24-year-old team record for a season. Another Steeler linebacker, LaMarr Woodley, is tied for third in the AFC with 11.5.

Tennessee defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth is seventh in sacks with 8.5, and his teammate, defensive end Jacob Ford, is 11th with six — half a sack ahead of Pittsburgh defensive end Aaron Smith. And Smith is only half a sack ahead of teammate Lawrence Timmons.

Pittsburgh linebacker James Farrior is tied for fourth in the league in tackles with 112. Harrison is the only other defensive player in the top 20 in that category — he's 19th in the league with 85 tackles.

Both teams need to be wary of the opposing secondary, but Tennessee seems to have more defenders that need to be avoided.

Pittsburgh safety Troy Polamalu shared the league lead in interceptions with Baltimore's Ed Reed when the weekend began, but Reed picked off two passes against Dallas last night. So Polamalu is now second in the AFC with seven.

Tennessee cornerback Cortland Finnegan and safety Michael Griffin have five interceptions apiece, and safety Chris Hope has four.

Pittsburgh kicker Jeff Reed has made nearly 90% of his field goal attempts, and Tennessee kicker Rob Bironas has been one of the league's best all season, making 90.3% of his field goal attempts and connecting on every PAT. But the wind in Nashville today could cause problems for both.

About an hour before the noon (Central) kickoff in Nashville, the temperature is 29° (with a wind chill of 19°), which is nearly today's forecast high of 30°. A west-northwest wind of 15 mph is expected, with gusts possibly reaching 25 mph. But it's expected to be sunny — no precipitation in the forecast.

My Prediction: Tennessee 20, Pittsburgh 17.

Carolina at New York Giants

The Giants rate a slight edge in the QB category.

New York's Eli Manning is ninth in the NFC in QB rating with 86.4. Carolina's Jake Delhomme is 11th, with 82.0. The two are separated by less than 100 yards in passing yardage (with Manning holding the lead), Manning is sixth in the league in passing TDs with 20 (Delhomme has 14) and they're close in completion percentage (Manning has completed 60.3%, Delhomme has completed 58.9%).

As far as turnovers are concerned, Delhomme has thrown more interceptions (12) than Manning (10), and they're about even in fumbles lost (Delhomme has lost three, Manning has lost two).

But the Panthers have the top receiving targets. Carolina's Steve Smith has made 70 receptions for 1,240 yards and six TDs. His teammate, Muhsin Muhammad, has 54 catches for 764 yards and four TDs — but he's also dropped seven passes this season.

The Giants are also led in receiving by a receiver named Steve Smith, but, on 52 catches, he has less than half the yardage (530) his Carolina counterpart has and has managed only one touchdown. Amani Toomer has a few more yards than Smith (537) and four times as many TDs on 44 receptions.

Carolina's DeAngelo Williams is fourth in the NFC in rushing with 1,229 yards. The Giants' Brandon Jacobs recently crossed the 1,000-yard barrier and stands at 1,002, Williams' teammate, Jonathan Stewart, has 751 yards. Jacbos' teammate, Derrick Ward, has 733.

Williams and Stewart have combined for 23 rushing TDs so far this season. For the Giants, Jacobs has scored 12 touchdowns but Ward has only two.

On defense, the Giants have the edge in sacks, and the Panthers have a decisive advantage in tackles. Carolina' Julius Peppers and New York's Justin Tuck are in a battle for fourth in the NFC in sacks. Peppers has 12.5, Tuck has 12.0. The Giants' third-year defensive end, Mathias Kiwanuka, has 8.5 sacks, which matches his total for his first two years in the league, and defensive tackle Fred Robbins has 5.5.

Peppers is tied for second in the league in forced fumbles with five. Tuck has three. Five other players, from both teams, have two each.

Carolina linebacker Jon Beason leads the NFC in tackles with 122, and fellow linebacker Thomas Davis is tied for 11th with 97. None of the Giants are in the top 20 in tackles.

Neither secondary has been overly impressive against the pass. Beason leads Carolina with three interceptions, and cornerbacks Aaron Ross and Corey Webster lead the Giants, with three each.

New York kicker Jon Carney has made 29 of 31 field goal attempts (93.5%) as well as all 35 of his PATs. Carolina's John Kasay has been even more accurate, hitting on 24 of 25 field goal attempts (96%) and all 39 of his PATs.

But the kicking game could be affected by a wicked wind tonight.

East Rutherford, N.J., is expected to have snow until about mid-afternoon today, but the Giants and Panthers won't kick off their game until after sunset — and, by that time, it's supposed to be partly cloudy. During the daylight hours, the temperature is supposed to reach 36°, but the night-time low is expected to be in the teens.

Whether the temperature is actually that low during the game, it will probably feel that cold — if not colder. Forecasters say it will be breezy tonight, 22-24 mph, with gusts as high as 48 mph.

My Prediction: Carolina 13, New York 10.