The Super Bowl

Last week I went to great lengths to get all of my anti-Colts feelings out, on paper, and out of the way. This week I have a story to tell you, then a few thoughts on the game, and a pick to make. First, with the story.

THE STORY

I was born in April of 1986; roughly two a half months prior to my birth the Chicago Bears claimed their first Super Bowl title, their ninth NFL championship in all. That Bears team is, by many measures, the greatest team to ever take the field in the NFL. When one considers their opponent winning percentage (.505) stands in stark contrast to that of the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins team, whose opponent winning percentage (.357) is the second easiest all time to the 1970 Baltimore Colts (.352). That Bears team featured a fierce defense with a more than competent offense. They sacked the opposing QB 80 times (!) and had 36 interceptions; they held the opposing QB to an average rating of 47.9 and allowed a meager 82 yards per game on the ground, while allowing less than 200 yards of total offense a game. No defense has ever been close to that dominate, and that total dominance is best illustrated by the total scores of their three playoff games: Bears 91 - the Rams, Giants and Patriots 10. Nobody even scored on them in the NFC playoffs.

That Bears team was unlike anything we have ever seen, and, if the past few years are any indicator, they are unlike anything we will ever see again. In the past five years the NFL has decided to change the rules so that defenses cannot stop the offense, particularly the opposing passing games. Defensive holding, an increase in the frequency in pass interference calls, and making it so the quarterback is practically wearing a red practice "don't hit me" jersey ... well, these changes have made it so that it is impossible to play defense in the NFL anymore. A good indicator of this is the number of players who make it to the 4,000 passing yard mark each year. In the past only the best arms were able to make it there, and generally only then if they were playing in an offense conducive to lots of passing.

In 2009 a record TEN QUARTERBACKS threw for at least 4,000 yards. The previous record years, seven in 2007 and six in 2008, were the two previous years. The next highest totals came in a three way tie at five 4,000 yard passes. Those years were 1999, 2004 and 2006. In other words, four of the six years with the most 4,000 yard passers have taken place AFTER Colts President Bill Polian complained to the NFL that it wasn't fair the 2003 and 2004 Patriots were beating his team. No, seriously, this happened. Scroll about half way down this article if you need a refresher course. Even in the increasingly pass-happy decade of the 1990s there were only 22 QBs total to reach 4,000 in a single season. Now we've had twenty three players do that in the last three years alone!

So ... if you can't bump and run the wide receiver without fearing a flag ... and you can't play tight defense down-field without fearing a flag ... and if you can't even touch the QB without getting a flag ... how can you play defense? On a recent podcast Bill Simmons stated that he didn't think that even the awesome Patriots of 2003 and 2004 could have hung with the Colts because they wouldn't have been allowed to play defense. I would go a step further: the 1985 Bears, the greatest team ever, wouldn't even be able to be in Super Bowl contention if they were to play in today's environment. They would simply be unable to hang with a team like the Colts, not because the Colts are better (they're not), but because the rules are so far in favor of offense that you now need to be able to score 35 points on any given Sunday in order to have a chance to win. That Bears team was built on controlling the ball, time of possession, and beating the crap out of the other team. That is the formula that won football games for nearly a century, and five years ago the NFL changed it.

That said, this Super Bowl matchup has to be one that gets you excited if you are even a casual sports fan. Would Manning v Favre have been a little better? Probably ... but I'm happy I don't have to pick between two of my least favorite teams to find one to root for (for the record, I would have been in ViQueens purple if this apocalyptic event had occurred, much as I was pulling for the Red Sox over the Cards in 2004 and the Astros over those South Side fairies in 2005. I am nothing if not logical, and I've had plenty of practice of late in picking the lesser of two evils.) In this game we have two teams, both with totally self-contained story lines that make them fascinating. Take the New Orleans Saints:

• A team which hails from a city which was torn apart by the worst natural disaster in modern times to befall this country
• A team which has a coach (Sean Payton) who was passed up by Green Bay, and a QB (Drew Brees) who was let go by San Diego in favor of Phillip Rivers, and was then given the ultimate kick in the crotch as the Miami Dolphins said "no thanks, we'd rather have us some Daunte Culpepper with a side of torn ACL." Two spurned people, uniting together, then seeing the city they united in be torn apart.
  
• A team which drafted Reggie Bush, then has barely had to use him to get to where they are today. If you don't think Bush is a huge potential x-factor in this game you are probably forgetting that the man knows how to win on the big stage. (All Notre Dame fans are silently nodding right now, and will soon go into the fetal position as they secretly think about how much different Charlie's time in South Bend might have been if only Reggie wasn't so darn strong pushing in Matty Leinart)
• A team that nearly moved to San Antonio ... then was resurrected to become the heart and soul of a city in desperate need of something other than a mutual hatred of FEMA to rally to.

I've been to the Coast, and I wore the hell out of my Saints hat. I purchased the hat when the Saints hired Ditka, and I wore it almost every day on the coast. There was never a day where someone didn't come up to me and say something about the Saints. That team came behind the community in a way we rarely see pro athletes do, and that entire region is one, united behind this team. I wouldn't be surprised if Miami is overrun by Saints fans because, lets face it, Colts fans suck and don't travel well ... and the Saints fans want it, hell they need it much more than Colts fans can understand.

On the other hand, you have the Indianapolis Colts:

• A team looking to win a Super Bowl for the second time in four years.
• A team with a QB looking to surge into the debate of G.O.A.T. (greatest of all time)
• A team with an offense that has taken full advantage of all the rules their team president worked so hard to get into place (did I mention he sits as a very respected member of the frickin' NFL competition committee?)
• A team that knows this feeling before, won't be nervous, and won't feel they are out of this game no matter how the first three quarters go

Two teams, two very different engines driving their Super Bowl hopes. The Saints and the city they helped to save. The Colts, and one man's drive to be the G.O.A.T.

THE BREAKDOWN

So how can we tell who is going to win this game? There are a few areas to look at, starting with team statistics:

• In total offense the Saints were number one in the NFL with 6,461 yards, while the Colts were 9th with 5,809 yards. That broke down to a difference of 40.7 yards per game between these teams in total offense.
• Within the subject of offense the Colts were second in the NFL in passing offense, gaining 282.2 yards per game through the air, while the Saints were fourth at 272.2. Both of these teams are efficient through the air.
• While, on the ground, the Colts were dead last (80.9 rushing yards per game) and the Saints were sixth at 131.6. The difference is very telling, and what it tells me is that the Saints like to run, and believe they can run. The Colts, on the other hand, don't feel they can run, but don't believe they need to.
  
• Finally, in the ultimate measure of an offense's effectiveness, the Saints were the NFL's most potent offense, averaging 31.9 points per game (and, it should be noted, they have scored 30+ points in each of their first two playoff games). The Colts, while still very effective, were only seventh at 26 points per game. Interestingly enough, the line in this game moved to Colts (-5.5) ... which is the same as the differential in points per game, only inverted to favor the Colts. Hmm...
• On to the defense, the Colts were middle of the pack, 18th in the NFL, allowing 339.2 yards per game, while the Saints were 25th allowing 357.8 yards per game. Less than 20 yards a game difference, and both teams were in the bottom half of the league, indicating even more so that A) the nature of the game has changed drastically since 1985, and B) that this looks, on paper, to be one heck of a high scoring game.
• In the specific area of passing defense the Colts were actually pretty decent, in the top half of the NFL at 212.7 yards per game, good for 14th in the league. The Saints, on the other hand, were 26th in the league allowing 235.6 yards per game through the air. Although, as a budding Saints apologist I feel the need to remind you that they were missing their number one corner back for half the season.
  
• Running defenses flip the scale a little bit: New Orleans was 21st, allowing 122.2 yards per game on the ground to the Colts 126.5, good for 24th in the league. George Halas is now rolling over in his grave at the thought of two defenses with core numbers this bad playing for the Super Bowl...
• When you put it all together and look at the number of points per game allowed by each of these porous defenses you get the following: New Orleans 20th allowing 21.3 points per game, while the Colts were a stunning 8th allowing only 19.2 points per game. Despite allowing a ton of yards the Colts managed to do a bit of the following:
• The Colts managed to finish with 34 sacks while allowing a league low 13 (!!!!) sacks. Think about that for a minute ... Manning was sacked only 13 times the whole season. Wow. By comparison, New Orleans had 35 sacks while Brees was sacked a reasonable 20 times. And Aaron Rodgers, in other news, is still not buying his offensive line any end of year presents; he was sacked 51 times.
  
• Finally, in terms of turnover differential, the Saints were +11 (having turned the ball over 28 times and forced 39 turnovers), while the Colts were +2 (having turned the ball over 24 times and forced 26 turnovers). In short, if the Saints can replicate this aspect of their regular season they have a very good chance of winning the game.

Adding this all up we see that both passing offenses are potent, the Saints run the ball much better than Indy, and that Indy's defense is slightly better than the Saints, although New Orleans was much better in turnover differential. Now, on to another area where we should be able to get a bit of information: common opponents.

1. New England - (Colts 35 - Patriots 34; Saints 38 - Patriots 17)

In this common matchup the Colts were banged up, but the Saints were more banged up, missing both starting corner backs. The Patriots featured the most potent offense either of these teams has faced before Sunday, and the Saints just rolled along, while the Colts faced the toughest test they have had to date. Let's just put this one in the "Pro Saints" category and move on.

2. Buffalo - (Colts 7 - Bills 30; Saints 27 - Bills 7)

Just to remind the Colts that they lost two games on purpose this year, this being one of them. Even if you win it all Colts fans, it could have been a perfect season. Now you'll never know. In other news, the Bills were the number two passing defense in the league this year, to the Jets, and while they shut down Brees generally (only 172 yards) the Saints were able to run (126 rushing yards from Pierre Thomas, 222 total rushing yards at 5.8 yards per carry). That fact bodes well for the Saints chances in this game as well: they can win without Brees doing the bulk of the damage, and they can run the ball and control time of possession. Two things you have always had to do if you were going to beat Senior Manning.

3. Miami - (Colts 27 - Dolphins 23; Saints 46 - Dolphins 34)

Miami played tough against both teams, but the overwhelming thing to take away from this common opponent is that both of these teams have the ability to win games they probably shouldn't. Two close, come from behind wins here.

4. New York Jets - (Colts 15 - Jets 29; Saints 24 - Jets 10)

I guess Colts fans can say that they beat the Jets when it counted ... but the Saints looked better here. And the Colts threw a game. Since when was that legal? Isn't Shoeless Joe Jackson banned from baseball forever (even through death) because of this very issue?

5. St. Louis - (Colts 42 - Rams 6; Saints 28 - Rams 23)

The Colts cream a bad team ... the Saints just survive...

Out of all of this the most pertinent game remains the New England game for each. The Colts barely survived, and probably wouldn't have if Belicheck hadn't lost his mind. The Saints absolutely destroyed New England.

THE PICK

So what does all this mean? My Grandfather would probably like to say that all of this means that I need a life. I think that it means one thing: the Saints are going to win the Super Bowl. The reasons are clear: they can run the ball and the Colts can't. They can't stop anyone on defense, but the Colts can't stop the run. They are capable of winning at least two different ways (running the ball or passing it in a shoot out) while the Colts only have one way (drop back and pray). Both teams are good about keeping their respective QB upright, and the Colts are especially hurt here with Dwight Freeney trying to play with torn ankle tendons. The Saints take care of the football and force the other team into mistakes. Hell, there is a former Indiana Hoosier STARTING FOR THE SAINTS (God bless you Tracy Porter). How can you top that.

Wait a minute...

...

I feel like I'm forgetting something ...

...

...

... maybe something I actually managed to write two weeks ago? ...

... ("So ... what does that all mean? It clearly means we are headed to a New Orleans v New York Super Bowl. And, despite the fact that I really tried hard to be unbiased in my analysis, I think it also must mean that I ... undervalued Peyton Manning.")

... Did you catch that? ...

...

... ("So ... what does that all mean? It clearly means we are headed to a New Orleans v New York Super Bowl. And, despite the fact that I really tried hard to be unbiased in my analysis, I think it also must mean that I ... undervalued Peyton Manning.") ...

... what?

... ("I ... UNDERVALUED PEYTON MANNING.")

All things equal, you bet the Saints in this game. They have karma on their side. They have the numbers on their side. They've got a rabid fan base on their side. But they don't have Peyton f'in Manning on their side. I really can't stand the man; to say that I hate him may actually not be an understatement. But, much like Wes Mantooth's feelings towards Ron Burgundy ... I may hate him, but I respect him. And I've seen this same old song before:

A talented player comes up, racks up individual accolades, is berated as a poor teammate, and is reminded that he can't win the big game. But that player eventually breaks through, and then, every once in awhile, that talented player becomes something else. He becomes transcendent, and then all bets are off.

I hope Peyton Manning's teammates drop a few balls, he yells at them like always, and they start to fall apart just like the good old days. I hope that the Saints come into the Super Bowl not just happy to be there like the Bears in 2007, but driven to prove everyone who is picking the Colts wrong. I hope that Brees connects deep to Devery Henderson. I hope Pierre Thomas runs through the porous Colts defense. I hope Manning connects with Saints in big moments, rather than Colts. I hope Jim Caldwell blinks at least once as Sean Payton raises the Super Bowl trophy and the entire Gulf Coast celebrates. I hope...

But I think that Peyton Manning is about to become transcendent. It's funny, but in a way Bernard Pollard is the most important person in the world when it comes to the debate of NFL QB G.O.A.T. Had he not submarined Brady's knee, and subsequently the Patriots season and the second half of Brady's career, this is likely not where we'd be. Nor would we be here had David Tyree not found a way to hold on to the last catch of his NFL career, moments after the Patriots let Eli go for fear of a roughing the passer penalty (see, those rules suck). But here we are, and when Manning wins on Sunday there will soon be only two: Montana and Manning.

For years I had felt we would get an heir to Montana's throne, but I always figured it would be the golden boy, Brady, he of 3 Super Bowl rings. After Sunday we'll know if that history will be changing. I suspect that it will.

SUPER BOWL PICK: COLTS 37 - Saints 28