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

[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]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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.

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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.