Brought to you by P Manning NFL: Super Bowl Edition Redux

[Jaime L]

Still can't get over Eli Manning being a two time Superbowl MVP. Or him being the utlimate Patriot killer, succeeding where his more legendary brother consistently failed. Or him now repeatedly outdueling Tom freakin' Brady in the fourth quarter. It's a twist too bizarre for me to fathom. The only thing better than that Manningham catch along the sidelines was Eli's throw. This is a guy who wins a free Corvette and leaves the stage before receiving the keys. And yet he's also the guy who brings near universal mockery on himself saying he's in Tom Brady's class and then he goes out and beats him for a Superbowl. The younger Manning's got a way deeper resolve than I could've ever imagined. Another poignant reminder that looks can be and are ridiculously deceiving.

The funny thing is, if Dallas just holds onto its 12 point late 4th quarter lead in December against the Giants all of this is moot and we're talking about someone else today. I don't think there's ever been a team buried as deeply as this Giants team and yet found a way to rise from the grave to win a Superbowl. This was some Kill Bill part 2 shit. Remarkable story.

For the first time in, well, ever, Eli looks like there's a shot he may one day equal if not excel big brother.

Maybe some day. But that's still a long way off IMO. Peyton would've probably had a few more rings if he could play with the Giants D.

[Mack Kilimaro]

How fucking pissed is Tom Brady at the Devil? This was not part of the deal. He gave you his fucking soul, Satan. He was supposed to get at least four rings.

Consolation prize of banging a billionaire supermodel was probably still included in the deal.

[Jaxom 1974]

Very Peyton-esque if you ask me. One man does not make a team, that's why the Patriots haven't won a superbowl in 7 years. And it's a damned miracle that the Colts won even one.

Please. They were playing a Lovie Smith coached Bears. There was never a doubt who was going to come out on top in that one, regardless of how things might have looked...

Come on Mex, how can 49ers/Bengals 3 NOT happen?

So you think Peyton's going to take his talents to the Bay too, huh? :P

[Arakasi]

Please. They were playing a Lovie Smith coached Bears. There was never a doubt who was going to come out on top in that one, regardless of how things might have looked...

The miracle was getting past the Pats that year. They were down how much at halftime in that game?

[awesome possum]

Maybe some day. But that's still a long way off IMO. Peyton would've probably had a few more rings if he could play with the Giants D.

Yeah, I actually changed that to remove excel because I don't think he ever could. He plays great in the 4th quarters and is more clutch than Peyton, but Peyton maintained excellence over all 4 quarters of most every game.

And yeah, if Peyton had just half of that Defense, the vitriol in this thread and the sports world would be directed at the hated Colts dynasty instead of the hated Patriots dynasty.

Please. They were playing a Lovie Smith coached Bears. There was never a doubt who was going to come out on top in that one, regardless of how things might have looked...

Give it a rest. Lovie Smith is a good coach hampered by years of no depth and trying to make the best out of a few gems buried in mediocre talent. Unless the head coach is now responsible for his QB throwing idiotic interceptions?

[Jaxom 1974]

Give it a rest. Lovie Smith is a good coach hampered by years of no depth and trying to make the best out of a few gems buried in mediocre talent. Unless the head coach is now responsible for his QB throwing idiotic interceptions?

And it's crystal clear that he's as much to blame for the lack of depth as Jerry Angelo was. No matter how you try to spiin it. But that isn't my contention. Lovie Smith is not a closer. He coaches scared rather than from strength when he has leads and he does not coach his teams to go for the throat and put teams down when the opportunity comes.

Face it, Chicago will never win a Superbowl with Lovie coaching. Make it there? Sure, maybe. He is a good coach. He's just not a closer and if Virginia wasn't so enamoured with him, he would have been out the door properly when they fired Jerry and allowed the new GM to build from the gorund up from the start, rather than in the stages he'll have to go through now. This year's draft will be most telling, because if it's full of "Lovie guys" again, rather than with an eye on two, three or four years down the road then the GM farce will be complete.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Peter King is a hack. In his top 15, there is one playoff team that doesn't make that list: the Bengals. Who is ahead of them? The Arizona Cardinals (who the Bengals beat on their way to the playoffs) and the Miami Dolphins (who finished 6-10). Guess we'll start the year a little higher than 32 but I doubt it's much higher than 22.

Peter King is a hack. The guy can't write for shit and he's an ass kisser of the first order. How this guy ever got his own weekly column in SI is beyond me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Oops, double post. That's how much I hate Peter King.

[Mexal]

And it's crystal clear that he's as much to blame for the lack of depth as Jerry Angelo was. No matter how you try to spiin it. But that isn't my contention. Lovie Smith is not a closer. He coaches scared rather than from strength when he has leads and he does not coach his teams to go for the throat and put teams down when the opportunity comes.

Face it, Chicago will never win a Superbowl with Lovie coaching. Make it there? Sure, maybe. He is a good coach. He's just not a closer and if Virginia wasn't so enamoured with him, he would have been out the door properly when they fired Jerry and allowed the new GM to build from the gorund up from the start, rather than in the stages he'll have to go through now. This year's draft will be most telling, because if it's full of "Lovie guys" again, rather than with an eye on two, three or four years down the road then the GM farce will be complete.

Lovie Smith and Marvin Lewis are two coaches cut from the same cloth.

Peter King is a hack. The guy can't write for shit and he's an ass kisser of the first order. How this guy ever got his own weekly column in SI is beyond me.

He used to cover the Bengals way back when. I have a feeling Mike Brown stole his woman or something.

[Dinsdale!]

The only thing better than that Manningham catch along the sidelines was Eli's throw. This is a guy who wins a free Corvette and leaves the stage before receiving the keys. And yet he's also the guy who brings near universal mockery on himself saying he's in Tom Brady's class and then he goes out and beats him for a Superbowl. The younger Manning's got a way deeper resolve than I could've ever imagined. Another poignant reminder that looks can be and are ridiculously deceiving.

There is a play I remember from a couple of years ago. Eli gets chased out of the pocket, runs across the line of scrimmage and throws for a completion. Flag comes down for him throwing out of the backfield. He IMMEDIATELY shouts for the challenge flag, confusing just about everybody watching. He wins the challenge, because his back foot was just behind the line of scrimmage. That's a very high football IQ right there. Eli's not a dumb guy. He just has a goofy face and gait and a southern accent.

(Manningham though - that kid is dumb as a brick. God bless whoever signs him next year as featured wideout.)

And wooooo GIANTS!

[awesome possum]

Face it, Chicago will never win a Superbowl with Lovie coaching.

We've got two years to find out. Me, I think we'll be in the game next year.

I don't give a shit the perception that he's not a "closer." So he doesn't blow out a team after victory is all but assured... so what? Victory is all but assured. Why be a douchebag on top of winning? Is a coach really supposed to change the way he coaches a game based on the slim, tiny chance that something might maybe happen?

"well, we've got a lead with two minutes left. I better change my entire coaching philosophy in case a series of events that have less than a one percent chance of happening somehow happen!"

Sheesh.

[Jaime L]

Yeah, I actually changed that to remove excel because I don't think he ever could. He plays great in the 4th quarters and is more clutch than Peyton, but Peyton maintained excellence over all 4 quarters of most every game.

And yeah, if Peyton had just half of that Defense, the vitriol in this thread and the sports world would be directed at the hated Colts dynasty instead of the hated Patriots dynasty.

Agreed on all of this.

There is a play I remember from a couple of years ago. Eli gets chased out of the pocket, runs across the line of scrimmage and throws for a completion. Flag comes down for him throwing out of the backfield. He IMMEDIATELY shouts for the challenge flag, confusing just about everybody watching. He wins the challenge, because his back foot was just behind the line of scrimmage. That's a very high football IQ right there. Eli's not a dumb guy. He just has a goofy face and gait and a southern accent.

(Manningham though - that kid is dumb as a brick. God bless whoever signs him next year as featured wideout.)

And wooooo GIANTS!

Yeah, one thing I heard is that from the moment he arrived in NY, the Giants put the entire offense on Eli. He had to know the entire playbook, the audibles, how to get all his guys lined up correctly, how to pick out what the defense is doing (who's blitzing, where's the Mike etc.). Everything. He's kinda the anti-Tebow in that regard in where you can put everything on him and he's got the football IQ to be that kind of on-the-field General that's really the ultimate luxury for a coaching staff. Whereas the only way Tebow has even a chance of success is if you throw out the old playbook, put in a new one that's pared down to maybe 1/10th the plays and make sure he doesn't have to make any O-line calls whatsoever. Tebow forces John Fox to run one very specific, very limited type offense. Eli, OTOH, lets Gilbride call whatever his heart desires.

He's got a great football mind, he just doesn't have the Peyton Manning "call 45 dummy plays at the line with wild gesticulations" to make his successful passes look like the work of a mastermind. Moreover, he's the doofiest looking guy in the world and first impressions die hard. My first impression of Eli was in his rookie year, against I think the Eagles, and a play had broken down and he was scrambling around like a lost little lamb before getting absolutely eviscerated between two Eagle defenders. It's been hard for me to get "that" Eli out of my mind. But more and more, I'm coming to see him as this lanky, doofy, cold blooded killer. He's fucking Columbo out there - don't buy the act.

[Jaxom 1974]

We've got two years to find out. Me, I think we'll be in the game next year.

I don't give a shit the perception that he's not a "closer." So he doesn't blow out a team after victory is all but assured... so what? Victory is all but assured. Why be a douchebag on top of winning? Is a coach really supposed to change the way he coaches a game based on the slim, tiny chance that something might maybe happen?

"well, we've got a lead with two minutes left. I better change my entire coaching philosophy in case a series of events that have less than a one percent chance of happening somehow happen!"

Sheesh.

Let's not use the Denver game this past season as an example then...because, you know, playing one way for 55 minutes of a close game is enough when you're playing a team with a QB who'd been making his bones on coming back in the final moments of a number of games in the previous weeks. But anyway...

[awesome possum]

As I've pointed out about a half dozen times since then and apparently need to point out a half dozen more before it actually registers:

How is it Lovie's fault that his veteran RB made the hugely idiotic decision to run out of bounds instead of killing the clock?

How is it Lovie's fault that the same veteran RB - a guy who had lost 5 fumbles in the previous 1140 carries - fumbled the ball?

Those are what cost the game against Denver. Not the defense going soft cover two. That helped Tim Tebow drive down the field and score, yes. But the facts are plain: even with the soft cover two, the Broncos never would have had a chance at winning that game had Barber not stepped out of bounds. There would have been enough time to score once, yes, but not twice. And even if they had, the Bears had the game won in overtime until Barber fumbled.

Victory was all but assured in that game, and in that instance the tiny, slim chance that something could happen did. It wasn't just one freak play that cost it, but two. Is a coach really supposed to change his entire coaching philosophy because of freak plays?

Should Bill Belichick have made his DBs start automatically smacking WR helmets in practice and in games after the Tyree catch in 2007? You know, just in case another WR makes a freak play catching the ball on his helmet?

[awesome possum]

Just saw this and had to repost, making fun of Middle-finger-gate.

Apparently, a 50-year-old dressed like a 16-year-old on Halloween and her army of scantily clad backup dancers dry-humping the air in various creative ways for ten minutes is okay. Someone flipping the bird for a second is outrageous!!!!!!

[Jaxom 1974]

As I've pointed out about a half dozen times since then and apparently need to point out a half dozen more before it actually registers:

How is it Lovie's fault that his veteran RB made the hugely idiotic decision to run out of bounds instead of killing the clock?

How is it Lovie's fault that the same veteran RB - a guy who had lost 5 fumbles in the previous 1140 carries - fumbled the ball?

Those are what cost the game against Denver. Not the defense going soft cover two. That helped Tim Tebow drive down the field and score, yes.

Seriously? This is my point that isn't registering the other way. There was no reason to go to the soft cover two. Especially in a game that isn't out of control and could swing back against you in the matter of a play or two. Of course Lovie can't control the mindless idiocy of Barber stepping out, but once he did, why is he still playing a soft cover two? Giving Lovie a pass on the way he ran his team in the final moments because you can't ever predict what may or may not happen is silly. Things happen in football games. Failing to adjust properly when a wheel does come off is the problem here.

[awesome possum]

Look, I agree with you in theory. The Bears had the perfect defensive scheme to stop Tebow and they walked away from it in the final minutes. That was pretty dumb in hindsight, but it made sense at the time because of the way Tebow plays. I remember early in the first quarter thinking the Bears D would be wore out by the end, just from having to chase White Frankenstein around all game. And sure enough, they were wore out at the end.

But even with that mistake, the Broncos would not have won the game without Marion Barber stopping the clock for them and then Praeter hitting a 59-freaking-yard field goal. What are the odds that both would happen? And since when is forcing an offense to make a 59-yard field goal attempt equal a failure for a defense?

So yeah, that's three freak plays that had to happen for the Bronocs to win that one. 1) Barber goes out of bounds 2) Praeter kicks a 59-yard field goal 3) Barber fumbles in overtime after the Bears are in field goal range.

I look at those three and I see no blame there for the defense or coaching staff. I just don't. Maybe if I listened more to The Score, I would.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

This is what we've got to look forward to in the offseason, isn't it? Debates about how and why the Bears suck or don't suck or should suck less... :D

[awesome possum]

Just so. It might just be a Chicago thing, but I've noticed Bears fans love to argue, even and sometimes especially with each other.

And hey, I've been trying to contain myself for the last several weeks so the playoffs and SB could have it's share of the conversation. We even got a new GM and I didn't even make a single post about it!

[Howdyphillip]

And it's crystal clear that he's as much to blame for the lack of depth as Jerry Angelo was. No matter how you try to spiin it. But that isn't my contention. Lovie Smith is not a closer. He coaches scared rather than from strength when he has leads and he does not coach his teams to go for the throat and put teams down when the opportunity comes.

Face it, Chicago will never win a Superbowl with Lovie coaching. Make it there? Sure, maybe. He is a good coach.

This statement by it's very merit makes no sense. What you are in essence are saying is that Lovie Smith can't win one football game against a good team. If you think Lovie Smith is a good enough coach to get you to a Superbowl, which he has proven, then that is all that really matters. Anything else is just becoming over emotional about losses.