Superbowl XLIV: Indianapolis Colts vs. New Orleans Saints @ Sun Life Stadium

[Redsfan320]

Well, let's get it started.

I'll be in Orlando for it, so I may not be able to post then.

I'm definitely rooting for the Colts here.

320

[paintmered]

I'm guessing the early line will be Colts (-4).

[George Anderson]

I wonder how many times Archie Manning will be asked how hard it will be to root against the Saints.?

[dabvu2498]

I'm guessing the early line will be Colts (-4). Too low.

[gilpdawg]

I think the line will open at Indy -3.5.

[dabvu2498]

I wonder how many times Archie Manning will be asked how hard it will be to root against the Saints.? Or Vilma and Garcon's Haitian roots will be discussed.

[Chip R]

I think the final line will be Indy -5.5.

[KronoRed]

They changed the name of the stadium again? I liked Land Shark! :D

[ChazzReinhold]

It would be nice had the Colts decided not to be pansies and go for history. They could be going for 19-0 and a team that everyone would remember.

Now, most people will have to think for a minute in 10 years (and still probably not get it) who won the 2010 Super Bowl.

[IslandRed]

I'm loving seeing the Saints in the Super Bowl. It's been a long time coming.

I have to admit, though, I think the Vikings had a better chance to beat Indianapolis. They were probably the most across-the-board rock-solid team in the NFL, and they had the type of defense that had a chance against Manning, with a great front four that can get pressure without selling out on the blitz. Unfortunately, they decided to be generous today after having the lowest turnover figure in the NFC this year. Go figure.

[George Anderson]

The announcers just said the opening line is 3.5.

[Danny Serafini]

It's opened at Colts -4, and depending on where you look it's already gone as high as -5 1/2.

Edit: or opened at 3 1/2 depending on where you go I guess!

[George Anderson]

It would be nice had the Colts decided not to be pansies and go for history. They could be going for 19-0 and a team that everyone would remember.

Now, most people will have to think for a minute in 10 years (and still probably not get it) who won the 2010 Super Bowl.

The NFL doesn't give trophies to teams with undefeated regular seasons.

They only give trophies to SB Champs.

That trophy is all that matters!!

[gilpdawg]

The NFL doesn't give trophies to teams with undefeated regular seasons.

They only give trophies to SB Champs.

That trophy is all that matters!!
Damn straight! I've already decided I'm taking the day off after the game. I'll need a day to recover from a devastating loss/or go to the victory parade. Either one.

[Redsfan320]

They changed the name of the stadium again? I liked Land Shark!

Yeah, Sun Life, the insurance company with all the commercials saying how, soon, you will know their name.

Now its on a stadium. :laugh:

[Eric_the_Red]

The announcers just said the opening line is 3.5.

Take the Colts and give the points.

[KoryMac5]

The NFL doesn't give trophies to teams with undefeated regular seasons.

They only give trophies to SB Champs.

That trophy is all that matters!!

However teams that go undefeated and win the Super Bowl go on to live in our memories forever. Most folks can't remember who won the Super Bowl in 2002, however folks always remember the 72 Dolphins.

People have opinions that go either way on this matter. I feel that if you have a chance to make history, you go for it.

[Roy Tucker]

I'm loving seeing the Saints in the Super Bowl. It's been a long time coming.

I have to admit, though, I think the Vikings had a better chance to beat Indianapolis. They were probably the most across-the-board rock-solid team in the NFL, and they had the type of defense that had a chance against Manning, with a great front four that can get pressure without selling out on the blitz. Unfortunately, they decided to be generous today after having the lowest turnover figure in the NFC this year. Go figure.

I agree with this. That Vikings defense made the vaunted Saints offense look like the Bengals. They had a hard time even throwing screens. I had thought once the Vikings got outside the Metrodome they would look ordinary but they proved me wrong. But I don't know if Favre would have been healed up enough to be effective. He got pretty banged up yesterday.

I think it will be a shootout. Neither defense is strong enough to really control each other's offense. Manning and Brees will throw for all kinds of yardage. Turnovers will decide the game (as usual).

[George Anderson]

However teams that go undefeated and win the Super Bowl go on to live in our memories forever. Most folks can't remember who won the Super Bowl in 2002, however folks always remember the 72 Dolphins.

People have opinions that go either way on this matter. I feel that if you have a chance to make history, you go for it.

Undeafeated no doubt would have been great, but again it all comes down to winning the SB.

Colts fans in general were very angry when they pulled the starters against the Jets, but the next week in Buffalo when they played on a slick, snow covered field just ripe for danger, the anger from the fans for the most part kinda went away.

[cumberlandreds]

Should be a great game. Both teams are prolific on offense. Defense wins games in the end. The Colts defense is better than the Saints. Colts will win this one 27-24.

[IslandRed]

However teams that go undefeated and win the Super Bowl go on to live in our memories forever. Most folks can't remember who won the Super Bowl in 2002, however folks always remember the 72 Dolphins.

That's a very good point. But in the end, it's really our problem, not theirs. They know who won. Super Bowl rings have a way of jogging the memory.

[Eric_the_Red]

The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002. I'd say many fans remember past winners, and for fans in that city they remember forever.

Bengals fans know what years they were in the Super Bowl, and they lost. How many remember what the Bengals' records were those seasons?

[Big Klu]

The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002. I'd say many fans remember past winners, and for fans in that city they remember forever.

Bengals fans know what years they were in the Super Bowl, and they lost. How many remember what the Bengals' records were those seasons?

12-4 both times.

[Eric_the_Red]

12-4 both times.

Point being, more fans remember who won the Super Bowl than remember that teams regular season record. The Colts made the right decision.

[BRM]

Point being, more fans remember who won the Super Bowl than remember that teams regular season record. The Colts made the right decision.

They would remember the record if it was an undefeated season. That said, I don't have a huge problem with their decision either.

[Eric_the_Red]

They would remember the record if it was an undefeated season. That said, I don't have a huge problem with their decision either.

True, but teams have to evaluate perfect seasons on a team-by-team basis. The Colts had some starters dealing with injuries, and they were able to rest them up before the playoffs. It was the right call, IMO.

[RedsBaron]

Take the Colts and give the points.

I agree. I expect the Colts will win, and cover the point spread.

[KoryMac5]

Undeafeated no doubt would have been great, but again it all comes down to winning the SB.

Colts fans in general were very angry when they pulled the starters against the Jets, but the next week in Buffalo when they played on a slick, snow covered field just ripe for danger, the anger from the fans for the most part kinda went away.

However they played Dallas Clark and a few others to meet personal records. I just don't get pulling them in the Jets game one week but have them start on slick turf in Buffalo so they can get there catches. Seems like a double standard.

My biggest thing is this if you have a chance to do something only one other team has done (72 Dolphins) you go for it. It's the difference between being great and becoming legendary.

[ChazzReinhold]

Undeafeated no doubt would have been great, but again it all comes down to winning the SB.

Colts fans in general were very angry when they pulled the starters against the Jets, but the next week in Buffalo when they played on a slick, snow covered field just ripe for danger, the anger from the fans for the most part kinda went away.

No one's going to remember who won the 2010 SB in 10-15 years anyway unless you're one of those geeks who remembers SB winners from the past 40 years.

Did Cal Ripken shut it down 2 months before his streak to get ready for an AS game or playoffs? (If he was even in playoff contention.)

[Puffy]

This is a bad matchup for the Saints. They face a team that has an offense on par with theirs. Thats OK if the defenses are equal and they are not. The Colts D can stop the Saints O, but I'm not sure the Saints D can stop Indy's O.

The Saints hope is that they get turnovers - but counting on Manning to turn the ball over is not a great bet.

Colts win 35-24 I think.

[Puffy]

No one's going to remember who won the 2010 SB in 10-15 years anyway unless you're one of those geeks who remembers SB winners from the past 40 years.



Hi, I'm Puffy. I am one of those geeks ;)

[George Anderson]

Did Cal Ripken shut it down 2 months before his streak to get ready for an AS game or playoffs? (If he was even in playoff contention.)

I sure can't argue with a point like that. :rolleyes:

[RedsBaron]

I believe that great teams that win multiple titles are the teams that are the more remembered. The 1972 Dolphins were a great team, yes their undefeated season is remembered, but, even though Miami repeated in 1973, the team that pretty much everyone agrees was the team of the 1970s is not Miami--it is the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers four Super Bowl victories that decade are what are remembered and are the first thing recalled by many.
And I am with Puffy on this---I can remember who won, and who lost, every Super Bowl, and the scores of most of the games.

[Joseph]

Colts 37
Saints 17

I don't think its close even.

[Razor Shines]

No one's going to remember who won the 2010 SB in 10-15 years anyway unless you're one of those geeks who remembers SB winners from the past 40 years.

Did Cal Ripken shut it down 2 months before his streak to get ready for an AS game or playoffs? (If he was even in playoff contention.)

Colts fans will remember. Saints fans will probably remember. I remember that MD beat IU in the NCAA championship in 2002, I can't imagine forgetting that.

And your second point: What?

Tell your Mom to make me some meatloaf.

[fugowitribe]

True, but teams have to evaluate perfect seasons on a team-by-team basis. The Colts had some starters dealing with injuries, and they were able to rest them up before the playoffs. It was the right call, IMO.

When you play the game, you play to be the best. Not just of that time, but of all time. Hard to argue against the 72 dolphins as the greatest of all time. Good Luck winning an argument against them. If a guy takes a play off, we rip him for it, what teams are doing by "resting players" is the same as EE not hustling out an infield fly ball, but it is on a much bigger scale. You learn from history in all of life, but sports gives you the opportunity to chase it. Succeding to instant gratification is doing the game a major injustice.

[Eric_the_Red]

When you play the game, you play to be the best. Not just of that time, but of all time. Hard to argue against the 72 dolphins as the greatest of all time. Good Luck winning an argument against them. If a guy takes a play off, we rip him for it, what teams are doing by "resting players" is the same as EE not hustling out an infield fly ball, but it is on a much bigger scale. You learn from history in all of life, but sports gives you the opportunity to chase it. Succeding to instant gratification is doing the game a major injustice.

Yes, and the winner of the Super Bowl is "the best". The Colts put themselves in a great position to be "the best".

Your arguments are not based on logic. If EE doesn't hustle, it would be the same as if Peyton Manning didn't hustle. If Peyton Manning was rested by his coach, it would be the same as EE getting a night off by his manager.

[Dom Heffner]

Point being, more fans remember who won the Super Bowl than remember that teams regular season record. The Colts made the right decision.

I think every fan in football knows about the 1972 Dolphins.

That's what makes undefeated special is that everyone would remember it. You get four or five years away from a Super Bowl, and the only people who remember are the fans of the champion.

But not if the team is perfect.

Being perfect and undefeated is about as rare a gem as there is in football- I wouldn't underestimate that.

I'd venture to say that the Patriots losing in 2008 will live on far longer than any particular year they won it all.

[Eric_the_Red]

I'd venture to say that the Patriots losing in 2008 will live on far longer than any particular year they won it all.

Wholeheartedly disagree. Vinatieri making the game winning FG just months after 9/11 will be the Pats most-remembered game.

And, sure, a perfect season would be remembered forever. But I think a 2-loss season with a Colts title would be remembered longer than a perfect regular season and a loss in the playoffs.

I'm sure the Colts organization would have loved to had a perfect season and SB title. But, with the team where they were in terms of health and injuries, they had a decision to make: Go for a perfect season or put themselves in the best position possible for a championship run.

[Donder]

I'm a Colts fan who was very disappointed when they pulled their starters in week 16.

That said, everyone here is discussing whether or not this team will be "remembered" or "special". If we've learned anything about this Colts team the past decade it should be that they don't care about that stuff. They aren't as ego maniacal as the majority of the sports world. They don't care about grabbing the headlines (as Manning's quote about not talking illustrates).

I guess we can debate whether or not they should want to be memorable or special, but that obviously is not much of a concern to the team itself.

[RedsBaron]

When you play the game, you play to be the best. Not just of that time, but of all time. Hard to argue against the 72 dolphins as the greatest of all time. Good Luck winning an argument against them.

Oh the members of the '72 Dolphins are so full of themselves that no one will ever get them to concede that perhaps they are not the greatest NFL team ever, but they barely got by a Steelers team in the AFC championship game that year, a Steelers team that was still a few years away from maturing and hitting its peak. I hated the Steelers, but match up the 1972 Dolphins against the 1975 or 1978 Steelers and the game wouldn't be close; the Steelers would dominate.

[Hoosier Red]

Oh the members of the '72 Dolphins are so full of themselves that no one will ever get them to concede that perhaps they are not the greatest NFL team ever, but they barely got by a Steelers team in the AFC championship game that year, a Steelers team that was still a few years away from maturing and hitting its peak. I hated the Steelers, but match up the 1972 Dolphins against the 1975 or 1978 Steelers and the game wouldn't be close; the Steelers would dominate.

If I remember correctly, the Dolphins were underdogs in the Super Bowl. Can you imagine being 13-0 and favored to lose?

[RedsBaron]

If I remember correctly, the Dolphins were underdogs in the Super Bowl. Can you imagine being 13-0 and favored to lose?

Actually the Dolphins were 16-0 by that point, but, yes, the Redskins were a one point favorite (maybe the odds makers expected Garo Yepremian to throw more than just one pass ;) ) .

[Roy Tucker]

Hey, the '72 Browns had a 4th quarter 14-13 lead over those Dolphins in the playoffs.

But Mike Phipps threw 5 gol-durned INTs in that game with the last coming when the Browns were driving late and gave the stupid game away. Dolphins won 20-14. Bo Scott had a nice game IIRC. I still have a burr in my saddle about that game. Like most Browns playoff games.

[15fan]

I think this would be an epic year to go to the Super Bowl...just to people watch.

Doughy midwesterners + drunk cajuns + South Beach = :eek:

[Razor Shines]

Saints, Colts Hoping To Resolve Super Bowl Through Diplomacy

MIAMI—Team officials from the New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts emerged from a tense, 12-hour negotiating session Thursday and told reporters that, while they had yet to reach a settlement that would prevent a massive on-field conflict, the AFC and NFC champions were committed to resolving the Super Bowl through diplomatic channels.
"Playing this Super Bowl is our last resort," said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who was flanked by the coaches and quarterbacks for the opposing teams. "Yes, there are some difficult issues that need to be hashed out, such as who will be the game's MVP, the number of total passing yards for each quarterback, and which team will be named Super Bowl champion, but I think we made progress today."
"The Colts and the Saints are unwavering in their commitment to avoid any violence and wish to resolve the Super Bowl peacefully, without a single football being thrown," Goodell added.
According to team sources, formal overtures to crown a Super Bowl victor through peaceful negotiation began almost immediately after Saints kicker Garrett Hartley connected on a game-winning field goal against the Vikings last Sunday.
Saints general manager Mickey Loomis reportedly sent one of the team's high-level ambassadors, Deuce McAllister, to Indianapolis to see if the Colts would agree to a 42-38 outcome wherein the Saints would be named Super Bowl champions. Sources confirmed Colts general manager Chris Polian told McAllister that, while he was open to diplomacy and would do anything to avoid sending his players into harm's way, his organization would prefer a final result that favors the Colts 27-17.
"Absolutely no one wants to see these teams forced to take the field and play 60 minutes of brutal football against each another," Colts owner Jim Irsay said. "But the Saints have to understand that if they aren't willing to meet us half way on some our demands, specifically those that are outcome-related, we are fully committed to using all our offensive firepower to achieve our goals."
"If this game is played, I assure you it's going to be a bloodbath," Irsay continued.
Saints owner Tom Benson told reporters that, while he believes the teams are capable of compromise, the major sticking point preventing the negotiations from moving forward has been a failure to agree on who would be the winner of the Super Bowl.
"The Colts don't seem to want to bend on this, and unfortunately, this is one area where we as an organization are firm," Benson said. "We are more than willing to give the Colts 36, 42, or even 986 points, just so long as the Saints receive 37, 43, or 987 in turn."
Continued Benson, "I'd just like the Colts to take a moment and think about what this long, bloody clash would be like, not only for their players, who will be putting themselves in the line of fire, but also for their families, who will have to watch their husbands and fathers be shipped out to Miami, some of them for the second time."
Commissioner Goodell said both teams reached a tentative agreement Thursday for the Saints to win a theoretical opening coin toss. However, this arrangement was contingent upon Saints kickoff return man Courtney Roby not running the ball deep into Indianapolis territory—an incursion the Colts said they would consider an act of aggression.
While some have praised Goodell's step-by-step approach to reach a game outcome through diplomacy, many believe it won't be enough.
"In my experience, negotiations like this always break down, and on Sunday, Feb. 7, at 6:28 p.m., all hell will break loose," said former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who has tried with little success to broker similar deals. "It will be just like last year and the year before that and the year before that. You'd think that after what the Giants did to the Patriots in 2008 these guys would learn their lesson."
Added Tagliabue, "That entire Patriots team was basically wiped out that night."
As of press time, Saints coach Sean Payton had been fired for making a verbal agreement to lose the Super Bowl prior to it being played.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/saints_colts_hoping_to_resolve

[Redsfan320]

Added a poll here.

320

[Chip R]

Peyton Manning: Hard worker or freak?

http://www.slate.com/id/2243726/pagenum/all/#p2

[Eric_the_Red]

Peyton Manning: Hard worker or freak?

http://www.slate.com/id/2243726/pagenum/all/#p2

Freaky hard-worker?

I think he has the same competitive streak as MJ and Tiger. Let's hope he has more sense than they did when dealing with his vices.

[KoryMac5]

As much as I like Peyton Manning I decided to go with the Saints. I think Sean Peyton is going to air it out and we will have one of the highest scoring games in history. 45-35 Saints.

[redsfandan]

That's 2 votes for the Saints and 20 votes for the Colts. It's almost like people think this will be like the Bears/Patriots Super Bowl 25 years ago.

[Deepred05]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfVmfzX_sY

This was hilarious. Goes hand in hand with that Onion article.

[Redsfan320]

FG, Colts.

3-0, COLTS!

320

[Joseph]

Boo Saints.

[Reds4Life]

I'm seeing awful lot of chippy play out there, and a couple things it looked like players should have been ejected (or at least flagged) for.

[RedsBaron]

I'm seeing awful lot of chippy play out there, and a couple things it looked like players should have been ejected (or at least flagged) for.

Yep. I just hope that if the refs "let 'em play" that the calls remain consistent.

[Chip R]

Nantz said that Sean Payton used to block for Gale Sayers. If he did, it was only in Nantz' mind since he would have been 7 years old in Sayers' last season.

[Roy Tucker]

Nantz said that Sean Payton used to block for Gale Sayers. If he did, it was only in Nantz' mind since he would have been 7 years old in Sayers' last season.


I think he was talkiing about Howard Mudd.

[Boston Red]

Great second half so far. Replay on this two point conversion should be interesting.

[Boston Red]

Can't imagine being on Bourbon Street for that pick six. Must have been absolutely insane.

[KronoRed]

Saints :D

[RBA]

Nice win by the Saints.

[Roy Tucker]

I was rooting for the Colts but I can't say I'm upset about the Saints win. A nice story and I'm happy for team and NOLA.

From about the middle of the 2nd quarter on, the Saints just knocked the snot out of the Colts.

[15fan]

Someone needs to let the D Coordinator for the Colts know that it's ok to rush more than 4 guys.

Especially when the opposing QB is sitting in the pocket and carving up the D play after play after play...

[redsfandan]

Good game. Especially since alot of people didn't give the Saints a chance.

[Dom Heffner]

Someone needs to let the D Coordinator for the Colts know that it's ok to rush more than 4 guys.

Especially when the opposing QB is sitting in the pocket and carving up the D play after play after play...

I don't know that blitzing Brees is any more effective than blitzing Manning.

[oneupper]

Very entertaining for a change. Nice game.

[Chip R]

Great win for the Saints!

Congratulations, Sandy!!!

[redsfandan]

I couldn't resist. I had to rub it into a guy that told me that he thought the Saints might get their butts kicked just as badly as the Patriots did vs the Bears. I didn't know who would win but I at least thought they had a chance. They sure were impressive in the 2nd half. I loved the on-side kick to start the 2nd half.

[blumj]

Very entertaining for a change. Nice game.

I don't know where you've been, but I think most of the recent SBs have been very entertaining for about 10 years now.

[Tony Cloninger]

Exactly. Someone said the same thing to me about all SB's being blowouts.....My friend must have stopped watching after the 1994 SB beacuse just about every SB has been close for the last 7 out of 10 at least.

I hope I do not hear (BUT of course I will) about how manning lost this game. The Saints just really outplayed them and made some gutsy calls like that onside kick to begin the 3rd.

[Matt700wlw]

Congrats, Saints! Hell of a job.

I wish I was on Bourbon Street right now :D

[WMR]

New Orleans Saints
dabvu2498, joshnky, KoryMac5, KronoRed, WMR

[Joseph]

I'll repeat my earlier sentiment, boo Saints.

This had to be one of the more boring Super Bowls in recent memory though. It just seemed to kind of plod along most of the time.

[redsfandan]

I was only disappointed about the commercials. Overall, they didn't seem all that great this year.

[cincinnati chili]

I'll repeat my earlier sentiment, boo Saints.

This had to be one of the more boring Super Bowls in recent memory though. It just seemed to kind of plod along most of the time.

This post proves you can't please everyone. Other than a blown coverage here and there and a Manning interception at the very end this game was impeccably played and will go down among the best Super Bowls in history.

Anybody heard from Sandy D. Did she make it out of the sports bar alive?

[Caveat Emperor]

This post proves you can't please everyone. Other than a blown coverage here and there and a Manning interception at the very end this game was impeccably played and will go down among the best Super Bowls in history.

Anybody heard from Sandy D. Did she make it out of the sports bar alive?

Agreed -- very few penalties, very few blown up plays or missed assignments. In terms of execution, it was one of the cleanest and best played games I've seen in a while.

Great coaching, great plays, great players -- what more could you ask for in a Super Bowl?

[kaldaniels]

I'll repeat my earlier sentiment, boo Saints.

This had to be one of the more boring Super Bowls in recent memory though. It just seemed to kind of plod along most of the time.

Yeah...I don't get your take. Colts driving for the tying score in the final minutes when Manning gets pick-6'ed. Now of course that makes the scoreboard look like the game was anticlimatic...but the 2nd half had that tense feeling throughout that the last team to have the ball would win. Granted it did not turn out that way, but as a game...it was a good one. Not a great one, but very entertaining.

[kaldaniels]

I've never seen such intensity on a fumble recovery as I saw on that onside kick. Hard to tell what the bottom of that pile was like.

[cincinnati chili]

I've never seen such intensity on a fumble recovery as I saw on that onside kick. Hard to tell what the bottom of that pile was like.

I agree (and assume you mean the onside kick?). 500 zillion cameras and there was no way to tell who came up with the ball.

[Deepred05]

I thought the first half was boring. But that onside kick to start the second half sure livened things up. Manning seemed tentative to me, I don't remember the man throwing so many two yard passes during the regular season. Must of been a great defensive scheme by New Orleans.

That goal line stand at the end of the first half should have sealed New Orleans. You have to take your hat off, they didn't get down and salvaged the points anyway.

[KoryMac5]

I jumped on the Saints pick as soon as I saw that Freeney had torn an ankle ligament. He was pretty effective in the first half but having it tighten up on him in the 2nd half was a game changer. Brees sure looked comfortable in there without any rush coming. Nice to see a kicker make a few big ones in the playoffs too, yes I am talking to you Shayne Graham.

Good game overall.

[bucksfan2]

Never have liked Manning so I was happy watching the game. I did think the first half was kind of boring, but overall it was a very good football game. The onside kick was a gutsy call and probably the game changing play in that super bowl. Drew Brees played a great game and deserved the MVP. I think as the game wore on and the score was closer Manning started to get happy feet and started to lock onto Wayne. On the pick 6 I thought it was going to Wayne and on the last play of the game thought it was going Wayne's way.

[oneupper]

I don't know where you've been, but I think most of the recent SBs have been very entertaining for about 10 years now.

I was thinking of this post-season, which had been dull except for 2 or three games. (Ari-GB, Minn-NO, maybe another.).

[Chip R]

Agreed -- very few penalties, very few blown up plays or missed assignments. In terms of execution, it was one of the cleanest and best played games I've seen in a while.

Great coaching, great plays, great players -- what more could you ask for in a Super Bowl?


It was. Only one turnover, hard hitting and only one replay which the call was overturned. Great Super Bowl.

[Sea Ray]

I wonder how Phil Ivey feels today, who is a professional poker player. He apparently put down $2 million on the Colts to win. I'm no expert in this area but if I understand it correctly it was a straight bet on the Colts to win, no point spread. If the Colts won then he'd not double his money but he'd win his bet back plus a third of it. So he's risking $2mill in order to win about $700K. I would think losing two mill would be painful even to a guy like this. Interesting story:

http://www.bigleague...he-colts-to-win

[Eric_the_Red]

Sad end of a season being a Colts fan, but I am happy for Brees and New Orleans. If there was one team to lose to, the Saints would be at the top of that list.

A few observations:
After stopping the Saints on 4 and goal, I thought the Indy playcalling was awful. Almost 2 minutes left and 2 timeouts should be good enough to at least get into FG position. But they go 3 and out and NO gets the late FG.

The onside kick was ridiculous. First, what an amazingly gutsy call by Payton. However, the officials did a terrible job in sorting out that scrum. It took too long- who knows how many times the ball changed hands? The competition committee should take a look at possibly giving delay of game penalties to players that don't back up after being pulled off the pile.

The two-point conversion replay. I'm still not sure there was enough evidence to overturn that call, but then again, I am viewing it through Colts blue glasses.

I was dissappointed in the Colts D. I think they gave way too much space to the receivers in an effort to stop the long ball, and Brees ate them up.

Oh well....next year.

[Sea Ray]

I agree with the 2 pt call. I thought it was a "judgement call" and as such the call on the field should have stood. I'd say the same thing if the call on the field was TD.

I also thought Peyton did the Saints a favor by running the ball 3x at the end of the first half. Definitely a superior coaching job by the Saints

[kaldaniels]

I agree with the 2 pt call. I thought it was a "judgement call" and as such the call on the field should have stood. I'd say the same thing if the call on the field was TD.

I also thought Peyton did the Saints a favor by running the ball 3x at the end of the first half. Definitely a superior coaching job by the Saints

Yeah I agree. I almost feel like it was overturned because the HD camera shot was just "too good" if you know what I mean. Sure there is one or two frames where it appears he might have possession before the ball was knocked out...but what is that...1/20 of a second or even less with those slow-mo replay shots?

[bucksfan2]

The onside kick was ridiculous. First, what an amazingly gutsy call by Payton. However, the officials did a terrible job in sorting out that scrum. It took too long- who knows how many times the ball changed hands? The competition committee should take a look at possibly giving delay of game penalties to players that don't back up after being pulled off the pile.

I think its that way on a scrum. I think especially so in the Super Bowl. It did take a while to clear the pile but I didn't see anything wrong with it.


The two-point conversion replay. I'm still not sure there was enough evidence to overturn that call, but then again, I am viewing it through Colts blue glasses.

I dislike the rule but under the goal line rule the call was correct. Once possession is gained and the ball crosses the goal line it is a TD, or in this case a 2 pt conversion. What the replay showed was the Saints receiver gained possession and had his body on the ground (which counted as his two feet) with the ball across the goal line.

[Tony Cloninger]

Now I know it is stupid to watch ESPN 1st take...but they are already pretty much blaming Peyton (Skip of course....how is that guy not rung up by his neck when he shows up at any sporting event? By players and fans alike)
...and now they are going to speak about his legacy. Like he has to continue to only be judged if he does not win another SB.

1. First drive, Garcon drops a ball on 3rd down, they kick a FG.

2. Drive when Garcon drops a ball on 3rd down, they punt. He catches
that it's a huge gain; right in his hands.

3. Drive before the half, when they start from their two and Mike
Hart cannot convert 3rd and 1.

4. Drive in the 4th quarter, where Stover missed a 50 yard FG. (I will say that not just going for the 1st down or at least getting closer for Stover was a questionable call)

5. The pick-6.

Wow, that's a real "terrible" game, I guess. No mention that
Sean Payton is the best young coach (and top 3 overall) in
football. The onside kick was brilliant, and I'd say that play
was the turning point. Going for the 4th down in the first half,
also brilliant---you kick a FG there, and you have to believe at
best the Colts are going to get a FG, and maybe a TD.

But it's all Manning's fault. A good argument could be
made that from 2003-2005, Brady was better, but there is no doubt
that Manning is better from 2006-2009, along with before Brady
was really good. Manning does more with less (now). Garcon and
Collie are not great receivers. They are just guys, at least at
this stage.

(Also, he DID NOT revolutionize the game with the no huddle.)

[kaldaniels]

I dislike the rule but under the goal line rule the call was correct. Once possession is gained and the ball crosses the goal line it is a TD, or in this case a 2 pt conversion. What the replay showed was the Saints receiver gained possession and had his body on the ground (which counted as his two feet) with the ball across the goal line.

Like I mentioned previously...how long did he have possession for in real time? I understand the time doesn't matter but I am more concerned with the camera shot. On those awesome slo-mo cameras they could capture a guy clearly bobbling a ball, but for a few frames it will look like he has possession.

[kaldaniels]

Sad end of a season being a Colts fan, but I am happy for Brees and New Orleans. If there was one team to lose to, the Saints would be at the top of that list.

A few observations:
After stopping the Saints on 4 and goal, I thought the Indy playcalling was awful. Almost 2 minutes left and 2 timeouts should be good enough to at least get into FG position. But they go 3 and out and NO gets the late FG.

The onside kick was ridiculous. First, what an amazingly gutsy call by Payton. However, the officials did a terrible job in sorting out that scrum. It took too long- who knows how many times the ball changed hands? The competition committee should take a look at possibly giving delay of game penalties to players that don't back up after being pulled off the pile.

The two-point conversion replay. I'm still not sure there was enough evidence to overturn that call, but then again, I am viewing it through Colts blue glasses.

I was dissappointed in the Colts D. I think they gave way too much space to the receivers in an effort to stop the long ball, and Brees ate them up.

Oh well....next year.

As that scrum was going on you could see the determination by both teams. Are you telling me a 5-yd delay of game penalty is going to prevent that? What I saw were 22 guys realizing (or at least believing in their heads) that who ever came up with that ball was going to win the game. I loved it.

[Sea Ray]

I dislike the rule but under the goal line rule the call was correct. Once possession is gained and the ball crosses the goal line it is a TD, or in this case a 2 pt conversion. What the replay showed was the Saints receiver gained possession and had his body on the ground (which counted as his two feet) with the ball across the goal line.

The question you have to ask yourself is if this was a play in the middle of the field, would it have been called complete? I'm guessing not.


I think its that way on a scrum. I think especially so in the Super Bowl. It did take a while to clear the pile but I didn't see anything wrong with it.


On replay it showed a Saint pouncing on the ball immediately and appeared to have secured possession before getting pummeled by the massive pile so I think the call was correct

[George Anderson]

I wonder how Phil Ivey feels today, who is a professional poker player. He apparently put down $2 million on the Colts to win. I'm no expert in this area but if I understand it correctly it was a straight bet on the Colts to win, no point spread. If the Colts won then he'd not double his money but he'd win his bet back plus a third of it. So he's risking $2mill in order to win about $700K. I would think losing two mill would be painful even to a guy like this. Interesting story:

http://www.bigleague...he-colts-to-win

Back in May I had my dad put $50 on the Colts to win the SB at 12-1 odds.

Imagine how I feel now.

[George Anderson]

I think the 2 point conversion was the deciding factor. With around 5 minutes left and the Saints only up by 5, I felt pretty confidant Manning could chalk up an easy 7. When the two point conversion was overturned it just seemed to give the Saints even more momentum than they already seemed to have.

It would have been interesting if Dwight Freeney had been 100% because Brees had all day to throw.

Had the Saints and Colts played 10 times they both probally would have split the series. Saints were obviously just better yesterday.

[Tony Cloninger]

IF Stover does not miss that FG....Saints probably do not go for the 2 point conversion.

Either way...Peyton still probably is picked off. Do not know how much it was the route the WR ran or just a lain bad throw.

[Hoosier Red]

The last team to come back from losing a Super Bowl to win the Super Bowl with the same quarterback were the Broncos in 1997.

Losing the Super Bowl seems to have a huge negative impact on teams so it will be interesting to see if the Colts can recover from this.

[bucksfan2]

Like I mentioned previously...how long did he have possession for in real time? I understand the time doesn't matter but I am more concerned with the camera shot. On those awesome slo-mo cameras they could capture a guy clearly bobbling a ball, but for a few frames it will look like he has possession.

As soon as possession is maintained across the goal line the play is a TD or or in this case a 2 pt conversion. It is a little tricky because you do have to possess the ball through the ground, which the Saints WR did, and since his body was on the ground that counted as two feet. Im not saying I like the rule, but it is the rule. Albeit the Saints WR had the ball for a very short time, he showed possession across the goal line, play over, 2 pt is good.

[bucksfan2]

But it's all Manning's fault. A good argument could be
made that from 2003-2005, Brady was better, but there is no doubt
that Manning is better from 2006-2009, along with before Brady
was really good. Manning does more with less (now). Garcon and
Collie are not great receivers. They are just guys, at least at
this stage.

Manning now sounds a lot like Brady did pre-Moss. Manning for the majority of his career had two HOF WR's and a HOF TE. Until Moss came Brady didn't really have a Pro Bowl type WR.

FWIW I think Manning played an average game last night. He played well, but not up to Manning standards. I think as the game wore on he got happy feet a little bit. I also think the young WR's caught up to the Colts, especially with the Garcon drops. Also the running play on 3rd and goal was an awful call, still don't know why Manning didn't audible out of it.

[joshnky]

I wonder how Phil Ivey feels today, who is a professional poker player. He apparently put down $2 million on the Colts to win. I'm no expert in this area but if I understand it correctly it was a straight bet on the Colts to win, no point spread. If the Colts won then he'd not double his money but he'd win his bet back plus a third of it. So he's risking $2mill in order to win about $700K. I would think losing two mill would be painful even to a guy like this. Interesting story:

http://www.bigleague...he-colts-to-win

That is one of the things I found most enjoyable about this. I heard several of the big gambling names claiming this game was easy money and guaranteeing a Colts win. Well, I'm sure Brandon Lang and others have plenty of money to burn but it is humorous to see them so sure of their analysis and yet so wrong.

[Sea Ray]

The last team to come back from losing a Super Bowl to win the Super Bowl with the same quarterback were the Broncos in 1997.

Losing the Super Bowl seems to have a huge negative impact on teams so it will be interesting to see if the Colts can recover from this.

How does that compare to winning a Super Bowl? My guess is the losers fair better than the winners did

[MWM]

Tom Brady is a great QB, but he was never as good as Manning. The 2007 Patriots have created the impression that their offense is what led them to their super bowl wins when that wasn't the case. I know in their first couple of SB wins, they had an above average offense and nothing more. They had a dominant defense and that is the primary reason they won. Manning is by far the biggest reason the Colts win.

[RichRed]

I like the obscure facts and stats they trot out for the Super Bowl, like the NFC team winning the opening coin toss 13 years in a row.

One that I thought of myself: no one named Pierre had ever scored a TD in a Super Bowl before and two different Pierres scored last night. Take that, Elias Sports Bureau.

[Hoosier Red]

How does that compare to winning a Super Bowl? My guess is the losers fair better than the winners did

You would think so, but in the last 15 years there have been 3 teams that won the Super Bowl with the Same quarterback,(Broncos, Pats, Steelers) and four more that made it back to the Super Bowl with the same quarterback but lost,(Packers, Rams, Patriots, Colts) but once the team loses it seems to take about 7 years to come back.

[kaldaniels]

As soon as possession is maintained across the goal line the play is a TD or or in this case a 2 pt conversion. It is a little tricky because you do have to possess the ball through the ground, which the Saints WR did, and since his body was on the ground that counted as two feet. Im not saying I like the rule, but it is the rule. Albeit the Saints WR had the ball for a very short time, he showed possession across the goal line, play over, 2 pt is good.

Did he have posession or did it just look like he had possession? I'm on the fence myself.

[Hoosier Red]

Did he have posession or did it just look like he had possession? I'm on the fence myself.

As I said last night, the best catch since Santonio Holmes got one foot down.

[Roy Tucker]

I like the obscure facts and stats they trot out for the Super Bowl, like the NFC team winning the opening coin toss 13 years in a row.

One that I thought of myself: no one named Pierre had ever scored a TD in a Super Bowl before and two different Pierres scored last night. Take that, Elias Sports Bureau.

Odds were 8100-1 for that to happen.

Pierre? Bah! Freedom fries!!!

[Caveat Emperor]

The question you have to ask yourself is if this was a play in the middle of the field, would it have been called complete? I'm guessing not.

The issue is that the play is over the instant the reciever has possession and ball breaks the plane -- so you can't really compare it to any situation anywhere else on the field.

The call appeared to be correct. While watching the game in real-time, most of us (with no rooting interest on either side) thought that it should have been ruled a successful try.

[bucksfan2]

Did he have posession or did it just look like he had possession? I'm on the fence myself.

In the middle of the field it probably is an incompletion. At the goal line he had possession, the ball was across the goal line, play over, conversion successful.

[Reds4Life]

In the middle of the field it probably is an incompletion. At the goal line he had possession, the ball was across the goal line, play over, conversion successful.

Yup. He had possession, he just didn't try to tuck the ball. Clearly crossed the plane. No problem with that call, conversion was good IMO.

[RedsBaron]

The issue is that the play is over the instant the reciever has possession and ball breaks the plane -- so you can't really compare it to any situation anywhere else on the field.

The call appeared to be correct. While watching the game in real-time, most of us (with no rooting interest on either side) thought that it should have been ruled a successful try.

I was rooting for the Colts but I thought it was in the end correctly ruled a successful two point conversion.

[Roy Tucker]

Idly musing...

What I'd like to know is if there are people still on Bourbon St. drinking from last night.

I could see going all night and then go get breakfast and then the hotel to pass out. But you have to be truly .... something ... to keep it up into the next day.

[IslandRed]

The announcers mentioned something about a "second act" guideline to the possession rule -- the receiver is supposed to maintain possession as he goes to the ground, but the receiver can also demonstrate possession by actually doing something with the football. In this case, he caught it and then stretched it over the goal line, demonstrating possession before the defender knocked the ball out.

[Caveat Emperor]

The announcers mentioned something about a "second act" guideline to the possession rule -- the receiver is supposed to maintain possession as he goes to the ground, but the receiver can also demonstrate possession by actually doing something with the football. In this case, he caught it and then stretched it over the goal line, demonstrating possession before the defender knocked the ball out.

Bengals fans might remember that this is the exact same call as was made a few years back in Tampa Bay when Michael Clayton stretched the ball over the goal line to score a game-winning touchdown and had it knocked out of his hands as he broke the plane.

The call on the field was incomplete pass, but it was overturned to a touchdown because of that very rule -- a play is over when the receiver demonstrates possession (in this case and the Saint's case: stretching the ball over the goal line) and the ball breaks the plane.

[Hoosier Red]

All I remember from that game is Justin Smith not cuddling Gradkowski to the ground.

After that the entire screen went fuzzy probably from me kicking it repeatedly.

[Sea Ray]

The issue is that the play is over the instant the reciever has possession and ball breaks the plane -- so you can't really compare it to any situation anywhere else on the field.




Sure it can. The same play could happen anywhere. If it'd been called incomplete at the 50 then it's incomplete at the goal line. The issue is over the goal line and possession. We all saw he had it over the goal line so that's not at issue. The issue is possession and that can very easily be compared to elsewhere on the field

[redsfandan]

I imagine the Saints kicker is feeling pretty good today. A few months ago he was a nobody. Now he is one of the reasons the Saints won the Super Bowl. That was some great kicking.

[blumj]

Sure it can. The same play could happen anywhere. If it'd been called incomplete at the 50 then it's incomplete at the goal line. The issue is over the goal line and possession. We all saw he had it over the goal line so that's not at issue. The issue is possession and that can very easily be compared to elsewhere on the field

No, it can't be, because the rule is intentionally different at the goal line.

[15fan]

Also the running play on 3rd and goal was an awful call, still don't know why Manning didn't audible out of it.

As someone who watched Jim Caldwell coach at his alma mater for almost a decade, that was a classic Caldwell call.

Caldwell loved the slow-developing running play on 3rd down. Loved it like Tony LaRussa loves making a double-switch or Dusty Baker loves batting his speedy CF leadoff. The more critical the need to convert, the more likely Caldwell was to call it.

And 9.9 times out of 10, it got the same result as it did last night.

[bucksfan2]

As someone who watched Jim Caldwell coach at his alma mater for almost a decade, that was a classic Caldwell call.

Caldwell loved the slow-developing running play on 3rd down. Loved it like Tony LaRussa loves making a double-switch or Dusty Baker loves batting his speedy CF leadoff. The more critical the need to convert, the more likely Caldwell was to call it.

And 9.9 times out of 10, it got the same result as it did last night.

I thought Caldwell was completely outmatched as a coach last night. Actually I am not too fond of Caldwell as a head coach. To me he is just a figure head that allows Polian to dictate what happens and when. IMO Moore is more important to that team than Caldwell.

[Sea Ray]

No, it can't be, because the rule is intentionally different at the goal line.

Whether a pass is complete or incomplete is not different depending on where the player is on the field.

[yab1112]

I thought Caldwell was completely outmatched as a coach last night. Actually I am not too fond of Caldwell as a head coach. To me he is just a figure head that allows Polian to dictate what happens and when. IMO Moore is more important to that team than Caldwell.

I get a kick out of seeing Caldwell on the sideline. I don't think his expression changed the entire game. Aside for the 2 minute interview with a sideline reporter at half time, I'm pretty sure I didn't see his mouth move at all.

[Dom Heffner]

Whether a pass is complete or incomplete is not different depending on where the player is on the field.

The rule is different because nowhere else on the field other than the goal line is the play ruled dead for merely crossing a specific point, such as the goal line.

[Sea Ray]

The rule is different because nowhere else on the field other than the goal line is the play ruled dead for merely crossing a specific point, such as the goal line.

We can debate whether he had possession or not and as I said earlier, that is a judgement call but as I will show here, the rule is not different in the end zone.

This comes from article three of the NFL rulebook:

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

Take special note of the line I bolded in black.

Now what is it in the rules that led you to believe that there are different rules for the field of play and the end zone? I think the fact that this line is in the rulebook clearly supports my claim that there is no differentiating between the two

[cincinnati chili]

We can debate whether he had possession or not and as I said earlier, that is a judgement call but as I will show here, the rule is not different in the end zone.

This comes from article three of the NFL rulebook:

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

Take special note of the line I bolded in black.

Now what is it in the rules that led you to believe that there are different rules for the field of play and the end zone? I think the fact that this line is in the rulebook clearly supports my claim that there is no differentiating between the two

Good points. The simple way to think of it is like this: if they play had happened at the 50 yard line, would you have called it a catch and fumble?

I doubt it. I don't think he had control. Phantom call, kind of like U.C. football in the West Virginia game.

[Sea Ray]

Good points. The simple way to think of it is like this: if they play had happened at the 50 yard line, would you have called it a catch and fumble?

I doubt it. I don't think he had control. Phantom call, kind of like U.C. football in the West Virginia game.

Pretty simple really. I'm amazed at the amount of folks who claim that the rule is different depending on what part of the field the catch is made. I don't know what's driving such thought. We can't discuss the call until we agree on the rules

[IslandRed]

I think there's a chance it would be ruled a catch out on the field due to the second-act thing mentioned earlier. The receiver did not drop the ball when he hit the ground. The defender knocked it out, but only after the receiver was already on the ground stretching the ball forward. If that happens on the 5-yard line instead, does that make it an incomplete pass, a fumble or down by contact? Danged if I know for sure.

[Caveat Emperor]

Pretty simple really. I'm amazed at the amount of folks who claim that the rule is different depending on what part of the field the catch is made. I don't know what's driving such thought. We can't discuss the call until we agree on the rules

The difference is in the continuation. Once the receiver controls the ball and breaks the plane, play over, conversion successful. Stop the tape, nothing else that happens from that nano-second onward is relevant to the play.

Your problem is that you want to keep watching -- "See," you say, "the ball came free at the end there. No catch!" Once the ball breaks the plane, play over. It isn't that way on the 50 yard line or anywhere else on the field. On the goal line, the play is over before Moore loses the ball.

[bucksfan2]

We can debate whether he had possession or not and as I said earlier, that is a judgement call but as I will show here, the rule is not different in the end zone.

This comes from article three of the NFL rulebook:

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

Take special note of the line I bolded in black.

Now what is it in the rules that led you to believe that there are different rules for the field of play and the end zone? I think the fact that this line is in the rulebook clearly supports my claim that there is no differentiating between the two

Different type of play, but similar end zone example. A RB take the hand off from the QB from the 1 yard line. He jumps over the line, stretches the ball across the goal line, then has the ball knocked loose. Once the ball crosses the goal line, the play is ruled dead, and the touchdown stands. If that happens at the 40 yard line where the RB jumps over the line, stretches the ball out and has it knocked loose it is a fumble and live ball.

Sea Ray I get your point, but I think had that ball been caught on the 40 yard line it would have been ruled incomplete. I think the refs would have interpreted the rule different had it not happened at the goal line.

[Razor Shines]

Never have liked Manning so I was happy watching the game. I did think the first half was kind of boring, but overall it was a very good football game. The onside kick was a gutsy call and probably the game changing play in that super bowl. Drew Brees played a great game and deserved the MVP. I think as the game wore on and the score was closer Manning started to get happy feet and started to lock onto Wayne. On the pick 6 I thought it was going to Wayne and on the last play of the game thought it was going Wayne's way.

The "happy feet" argument is not a good one. He shuffles his feet like that every single game against any team. He did it against the Jets and went 377 and 3tds, and I didn't hear any body say "Peyton had happy feet."

I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.

The Colts lost because the Saints were better, at least during that game (and maybe overall). Keeping Manning on the sideline for the second quarter is a huge reason the Saints won. And the decision for the Colts to run the ball up the middle three straight times at the end of the second quarter didn't make any sense, they haven't done that in those situations all season. The onside kick to start the second half was a great call by S. Peyton, and he out coached Caldwell the whole game, big time.

The Colts may have been able to over come all of that if Freeney had been able to play up to his normal ability. The Colts got no pressure on Brees and he's too good to give that much time.

[BRM]

The "happy feet" argument is not a good one. He shuffles his feet like that every single game against any team. He did it against the Jets and went 377 and 3tds, and I didn't hear any body say "Peyton had happy feet."

I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.

The Colts lost because the Saints were better, at least during that game (and maybe overall). Keeping Manning on the sideline for the second quarter is a huge reason the Saints won. And the decision for the Colts to run the ball up the middle three straight times at the end of the second quarter didn't make any sense, they haven't done that in those situations all season. The onside kick to start the second half was a great call by S. Peyton, and he out coached Caldwell the whole game, big time.

The Colts may have been able to over come all of that if Freeney had been able to play up to his normal ability. The Colts got no pressure on Brees and he's too good to give that much time.

Perfectly stated. Good post Razor.

[RichRed]

Perfectly stated. Good post Razor.

Seconded. And Peyton can "happy feet" in the pocket for my team any day.

I'm glad the Saints won but this was a rare Super Bowl where I liked both teams. Sean Payton definitely outcoached the Corpse of Jim Caldwell, as I think Bill Simmons referred to him.

[George Anderson]

The "happy feet" argument is not a good one. He shuffles his feet like that every single game against any team. He did it against the Jets and went 377 and 3tds, and I didn't hear any body say "Peyton had happy feet."

I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.

The Colts lost because the Saints were better, at least during that game (and maybe overall). Keeping Manning on the sideline for the second quarter is a huge reason the Saints won. And the decision for the Colts to run the ball up the middle three straight times at the end of the second quarter didn't make any sense, they haven't done that in those situations all season. The onside kick to start the second half was a great call by S. Peyton, and he out coached Caldwell the whole game, big time.

The Colts may have been able to over come all of that if Freeney had been able to play up to his normal ability. The Colts got no pressure on Brees and he's too good to give that much time.

Good post Ryan.....You just might know more bout football than baseball ;)

[BRM]

Good post Ryan.....You just might know more bout football than baseball ;)

Easy now. He'll get even more cocky than before...

[bucksfan2]

I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.

It is kind of a polarizing topic. Manning made the biggest mistake of the game. The slant route was predictable and the Saints knew it was coming, that is on Manning. I think the Saints did a heck of a job playing keep away but I just still can't get past the pick 6.

[Razor Shines]

It is kind of a polarizing topic. Manning made the biggest mistake of the game. The slant route was predictable and the Saints knew it was coming, that is on Manning. I think the Saints did a heck of a job playing keep away but I just still can't get past the pick 6.

Wayne didn't run a slant route, that's why it got picked. Manning threw the ball as if it was a slant, but it looked like Wayne was running an In route, I can't be sure though. He was juking the CB while Manning was throwing the ball, again I can't be sure what Wayne was running but it was not a slant.

[Sea Ray]

The difference is in the continuation. Once the receiver controls the ball and breaks the plane, play over, conversion successful. Stop the tape, nothing else that happens from that nano-second onward is relevant to the play.

Your problem is that you want to keep watching -- "See," you say, "the ball came free at the end there. No catch!" Once the ball breaks the plane, play over. It isn't that way on the 50 yard line or anywhere else on the field. On the goal line, the play is over before Moore loses the ball.


The issue here is did he ever establish possession of the ball. Once that is established your point is valid. The review was not over whether he broke the plane of the end zone; it was whether he had possession.

Given your example above, you treat the goal line like the sideline. You can lose possession as you hit the ground out of bounds and it can be ruled incomplete even though you had it for an instant with both feet in bounds. They changed this recently where you have to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Once again my point is this, to which no one has given evidence to the contrary: The rules are not different in the end zone.

I'm glad a bunch of you are not officiating games...

[Sea Ray]

Wayne didn't run a slant route, that's why it got picked. Manning threw the ball as if it was a slant, but it looked like Wayne was running an In route, I can't be sure though. He was juking the CB while Manning was throwing the ball, again I can't be sure what Wayne was running but it was not a slant.

I agree with your assessment.

I also think Wayne wasn't 100% healthy. I think he should have been able to keep the CB from returning it for a TD

[Sea Ray]

Sea Ray I get your point, but I think had that ball been caught on the 40 yard line it would have been ruled incomplete. I think the refs would have interpreted the rule different had it not happened at the goal line.

If it would have been ruled incomplete at the 40 then it should have been ruled incomplete at the goal line if the officials were following the rulebook. If they'd ruled it a fumble at the 40 then it should be ruled a TD at the goal line. That's the only way it could be ruled differently

[Caveat Emperor]

Once again my point is this, to which no one has given evidence to the contrary: The rules are not different in the end zone.

I'm glad a bunch of you are not officiating games...

Snide commentary aside, as I watched the play, he had possession, broke the plane, and lost possession again.

Conversion good.

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"

We're never going to agree on this, so I see no point continuing the discussion further.

[blumj]

Snide commentary aside, as I watched the play, he had possession, broke the plane, and lost possession again.

Conversion good.

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"

We're never going to agree on this, so I see no point continuing the discussion further.
A pretty good case could be made that the officials are considering too much of what happens next(or too much longer?) in deciding possession, but it's clear that they do, and the NFL seems to be okay with that the way it is. What probably deserves more attention about that play is that they actually had the right camera angles to get visual evidence that the ball crossed the plane, while they often don't. They need to have that all the time.

[Sea Ray]

The rules are different because everything after he breaks the plane is a moot point, wheras on the rest of the field the official can continue watching the film to see what happens next as part of his deterimination of "possession"



This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:


"This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

[Caveat Emperor]

This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:

You're missing the point entirely. He has the ball, with two feet down, and breaks the plane.

Conversion good.

That he loses the ball a second later is irrelevant because the play is over the nanosecond that the ball breaks the plane of the goal-line while he has possession of it. The issue isn't whether possession rules are different for the end zone, the issue is when the play ends. That's a very different set of circumstances for the end zone than it is anywhere else on the field.

[Chip R]

This is where you're wrong and I've shown you the rulebook and it states the rules of possession are the same. If you'd like to show me a section of the rulebook that says otherwise I'll cede your point. This isn't a matter of us agreeing or debating. It's a matter of what the rules say. All further discussion should include quotes from the rulebook.

In case you missed it, the line in the rulebook that you have yet to disprove:


Move on. He told you to knock it off once.

[TC81190]

You're missing the point entirely. He has the ball, with two feet down, and breaks the plane.

Conversion good.

That he loses the ball a second later is irrelevant because the play is over the nanosecond that the ball breaks the plane of the goal-line while he has possession of it. The issue isn't whether possession rules are different for the end zone, the issue is when the play ends. That's a very different set of circumstances for the end zone than it is anywhere else on the field.
This. It's a pretty simple rule. He had the ball, stretching it out was the second act that established his possession. It crossed the goal line, play over.

[Roy Tucker]

I think fumbles and pass catches in the end zone are different animals.

If a running back takes a handoff, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground in the end zone and fumbles, its a TD.

If someone catches a ball in the air, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground and fumbles, its no catch. He has to demonstrate control of the ball after he hit the ground.

With this play, he made the catch, crossed the plane, hit the ground, and then the DB knocked the ball out. With the 80 bazillion fps video cameras they have, it appears to happen very slowly. But I think he demonstrated control for about 3 milliseconds. I wouldn't have overturned it. But then, my phone didn't ring with the ref asking me what I thought.

[TC81190]

I think fumbles and pass catches in the end zone are different animals.

If a running back takes a handoff, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground in the end zone and fumbles, its a TD.

If someone catches a ball in the air, sails over the goal line (with control of the ball) and then hits the ground and fumbles, its no catch. He has to demonstrate control of the ball after he hit the ground.

With this play, he made the catch, crossed the plane, hit the ground, and then the DB knocked the ball out. With the 80 bazillion fps video cameras they have, it appears to happen very slowly. But I think he demonstrated control for about 3 milliseconds. I wouldn't have overturned it. But then, my phone didn't ring with the ref asking me what I thought.
it's not so much that he had control, he did bobble it, but due to that rather obscure second act rule, the fact that he was able to take the ball and extend it over the goal line established his possession of the ball.

[Roy Tucker]

it's not so much that he had control, he did bobble it, but due to that rather obscure second act rule, the fact that he was able to take the ball and extend it over the goal line established his possession of the ball.

Hmmm... Interesting. Google up "second act rule" and evidently its as clear as mud. I guess the call was made and what is, is.

Fun read... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/090923&sportCat=nfl

[IslandRed]

I think sometimes the Occam's Razor thing has to apply. The rule is intended to make sure the receiver holds onto the ball when he hits the ground. In this case, he clearly did. The ball was knocked out subsequent to going to the ground, not simultaneously with it. It was a bang-bang play to be sure, and I'm sure examples can be found where similar plays were ruled no catch. The NFL has been very inconsistent at times. But again, I believe the rule is intended to cover the initial act of hitting the ground, not the entire period between hitting the ground and either getting up or getting hit.

But then, we're talking about the guys who came up with the tuck rule...

[Sea Ray]

Hmmm... Interesting. Google up "second act rule" and evidently its as clear as mud. I guess the call was made and what is, is.

Fun read... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/090923&sportCat=nfl


Yes Roy that explains the rule very well and nowhere does it say that the rule is different depending on where the catch occured which was my point.

The article you posted is a good read. I suggest everyone read it.

[joshnky]

Yes Roy that explains the rule very well and nowhere does it say that the rule is different depending on where the catch occured which was my point.

The article you posted is a good read. I suggest everyone read it.

But could we ever hope to achieve your level of brilliance?

[RedsBaron]

The Saints successful onside kick was obviously the game's key play and a gutsy call by coach Sean Payton. What I didn't know until reading the sports page in today's Wall Street Journal is that the surprise onside kick works nearly 60% of the time.
While NFL teams have only been successful in recovering onside kicks in the fourth quarter 14.7% of the time (61 for 416) since 2000, during that same time period onside kicks in the first through third quarters, when it is more of a surprise, have succeeded 58.6% of the time (65 for 111).

[Razor Shines]

The Saints successful onside kick was obviously the game's key play and a gutsy call by coach Sean Payton. What I didn't know until reading the sports page in today's Wall Street Journal is that the surprise onside kick works nearly 60% of the time.
While NFL teams have only been successful in recovering onside kicks in the fourth quarter 14.7% of the time (61 for 416) since 2000, during that same time period onside kicks in the first through third quarters, when it is more of a surprise, have succeeded 58.6% of the time (65 for 111).

Nice, I bet Sean Peyton knew that.

[redsfandan]

The Saints successful onside kick was obviously the game's key play and a gutsy call by coach Sean Payton. What I didn't know until reading the sports page in today's Wall Street Journal is that the surprise onside kick works nearly 60% of the time.
While NFL teams have only been successful in recovering onside kicks in the fourth quarter 14.7% of the time (61 for 416) since 2000, during that same time period onside kicks in the first through third quarters, when it is more of a surprise, have succeeded 58.6% of the time (65 for 111).
Someone needs to tell that to Marvin. Make the first kickoff of the season an onside kick.

[Roy Tucker]

The Saints successful onside kick was obviously the game's key play and a gutsy call by coach Sean Payton. What I didn't know until reading the sports page in today's Wall Street Journal is that the surprise onside kick works nearly 60% of the time.
While NFL teams have only been successful in recovering onside kicks in the fourth quarter 14.7% of the time (61 for 416) since 2000, during that same time period onside kicks in the first through third quarters, when it is more of a surprise, have succeeded 58.6% of the time (65 for 111).

Interesting stat. It really was a gutsy call and changed the game. Nice to see an NFL coach break the mold.

I think someone else mentioned it, but I'll chime in. I've never seen a pileup as intense as that one with the onsides kick. It looked like a pack of hyenas attacking a crippled antelope. If I were the ref, I'd carry a cattle prod to unpile them.

[bucksfan2]

The Saints successful onside kick was obviously the game's key play and a gutsy call by coach Sean Payton. What I didn't know until reading the sports page in today's Wall Street Journal is that the surprise onside kick works nearly 60% of the time.
While NFL teams have only been successful in recovering onside kicks in the fourth quarter 14.7% of the time (61 for 416) since 2000, during that same time period onside kicks in the first through third quarters, when it is more of a surprise, have succeeded 58.6% of the time (65 for 111).

Seems to me like a more obscure stat. Over the course of 9 years it has only happened 111 times. The surprise element is what makes it successful, but if more teams start to do it the surprise will begin to fade. To me it is similar to a suicide squeeze situation. If you do it every time a runner is on 3b or half the time a runner is on 3b your success rate is likely to diminish. If you do it every once in a while you have the element of surprise on your side.

What I think Payton had to weight was the score percentages of giving Manning the ball on their 40 vs the Colts 20.

[RedsBaron]

Interesting stat. It really was a gutsy call and changed the game. Nice to see an NFL coach break the mold.

I think someone else mentioned it, but I'll chime in. I've never seen a pileup as intense as that one with the onsides kick. It looked like a pack of hyenas attacking a crippled antelope. If I were the ref, I'd carry a cattle prod to unpile them.

Only God knows how many times "possession" of the ball may have changed while everyone was under that pile.

[Jack Burton]

If Hank Baskett doesn't headbutt the ball, Sean Payton looks like a fool.