Much as it pains this Patriots fans to say anything nice about the choke-prone golden boy who quarterbacks for the Colts, I am forced to say, in the immortal words of Teddy KGB, “He beat me. Pay this man his money.”

Okay, so it’s not quite that cut and dried: in the second half my Pats looked very un-Pats-like, making mental mistakes (Caldwell’s two dropped balls), and taking stupid penalties (Evans’ 12-men-in-the-huddle). Throw in some profoundly suspect playcalling, a defense that couldn’t get off the field, and an Indy DB mugging Caldwell in the back of the endzone that went unflagged and almost certainly cost New England four points… well, let’s say there were shades of last week’s New England/San Diego game, only in reverse.

Still, congratulations to the Colts — maybe now your fans will whine less about how New England gets all the breaks and Peyton never gets the respect he deserves. Me, to the extent I watch the Super Bowl at all, it’ll only be to see how many new assholes Brian Urlacher tears your insufferable quarterback.

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 3:37 AM

Centerfire, you can just shut that all the way down.

Sorry, Anwyn, but facts is facts: ’til this year, your boy had a history of folding in big games (see also, the 2003, 2004, and 2005 playoffs). Now, sure, he’s not the only one responsible for those losses, but if he’s really the great player that he’s constantly made out to be, why wasn’t he able to elevate his game and carry his team on his back? Answer: because he’s not that great a player. Oh, sure, he’s got a better arm than just about anybody in the league, and he’s a statistical wunderkind who reliably racks up impressive numbers running up the score against bad teams in a soft division. But in the only statistical category that really matters — i.e., winning big games — your boy’s long been an enormous fraud.

I mean, honestly, is this really open to debate anymore? That the Colts won is great for Indy fans and all, and certainly a nice notch in Peyton’s belt, but it hardly turns the guy into something special. It just puts him a step closer to being some semblance of the great player we’re constantly told (by kneepad-wearing media figures) that he is. It begins to erase his history of failure. It certainly doesn’t put him in the same conversation as Tom Brady (peace be upon him); I think we’ll wait until Peyton gets his third ring, first.

In any case, as nice as it would have been for my Patriots to get their fourth title in six years, and as vexing as it was for them to cough up the game/beat themselves the way they did, in a sense I’m glad they’re done this season; it was getting a little tiresome dealing with all the haters (see RightWired, above). Maybe now that the NFL will surely overexpose Manning (to the extent that it hasn’t already), maybe the haters will discover a new and far more deserving target.

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Don’t you mean Vinatieri?

No, I mean Brady. Without Brady running the offense, Vinatieri is sipping Gatorade on the sidelines as time expires, the team having never gotten into field goal range.

I admit it, I am a marginal football fan

I’m shocked. No, really.

I’ll still be here when he *does* have three rings

Keep hope alive.

and he’ll have earned them with a lot less aggregate help from Vinatieri than Brady needed.

Last week’s game against Baltimore, where Vinatieri scored all of the Colts’ points, would seem to militate against that argument. But let’s say it’s true, and the biggest reason Brady won all those Super Bowls because he had a blue-chip kicker. What does it say about Manning that he heretofore hasn’t been able to win a Super Bowl despite having an entire corps of blue-chip receivers the likes of which Tom Brady only dreams about being able to throw to? Or does the “aggregate help” that Manning gets from guys like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne not count?

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Because getting into field-goal range is the only job of the QB that matters?

Sometimes, yes. If you need a field goal to tie or win the game, then getting the team into field goal range is the only job of the QB that matters.

I’m saying *you* are, in praising Brady.

Actually it sounds more like you’re trying to rehabilitate Manning’s reputation by tearing down Brady, suggesting that Brady’s past successes owe substantially to having a blue-chip kicker to work with.

To the extent that’s the case, is it not fair to point out that Manning’s past failures have come in spite of him being surrounded by significantly more offensive talent than Brady has ever been, at any point in his career?

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 5:12 PM