OFFICIAL NFL Week by Week Thread:

[S2M]

First off, to put Dilfer in the same sentence as Namath and Bradshaw is a sin.

Second, to call Terry Bradshaw a lucky hack is mind boggling. The Steelers pretty much ran the same staple as they did in the 90's era with Cowher. Run the ball, run the ball, be aggressive, and run the damn ball. Bradshaw made a lot of things happen, and when it came down to it, he was a gritty son of a bitch who would lower the boom when needed, and he threw a deadly accurate ball and had a beautiful deep pass. He put up the numbers he needed, in a HEAVY run oriented offense. For Bradshaw to put up the numbers he did then in that kind of system is spectacular. Again, looking at the H.O.F as a number thing is a MISTAKE and is NOT the way it works. Also, that is an era to where the defense was allowed to maul you, even after the 5 yard range, to where receivers were limited when targeted down field.

As for Brady, although he had solid defense's, the staple to that team was the offense, period. I always said Brady piled up all of his yardage more-so on relying on throwing the dump off and his receivers pounding out the major yards after the catch. In every game that I've watched, Brady and the Pats used that to perfection and most of Brady's yardage are dump offs within 3-5 yards at the line of scrimmage.

Trav, that is the most intelligent thing I've ever read from you here.....YAC yardage awarded to a QBs stats is a travesty. A QB should only get credited for the actual yardage the ball is in the air.....Unless that's not what you meant.


Personally, I'm not a stats geek, I'm a results oriented person....So I couldn't care less that Peyton has such and such yardage, or Brees came within 8 yds of Marino's record a couple of years ago. Did either of them win SBs equivalent to those stats? NO. So they are usless.
Give me 3 SB victories, and dump off passes(which was in essense their running game) anyday.

[YoungJRNY]

Also, you got to look at circumstances. Back in the 70's, the Steelers defense was SO DOMINANT, that they would carry the game long enough to where Bradshaw and the offense didn't need to put it through the air to win games, and used Harris and Bleir as their hammers. When talking numbers of a quarterback, every quarterback and offense isn't given the same script as someone like, a Tom Brady led offense. The game of football changes every minute, and the flow of the game changes how the way you play the game and the run/pass ratio plays in the factor. So, numbers could be deceiving. It's what the players did when givin the opportunity on those evident passing downs and guys like Bradshaw and yes, even Brady rise above in those occasions.

[YoungJRNY]

First off, to put Dilfer in the same sentence as Namath and Bradshaw is a sin.

Second, to call Terry Bradshaw a lucky hack is mind boggling. The Steelers pretty much ran the same staple as they did in the 90's era with Cowher. Run the ball, run the ball, be aggressive, and run the damn ball. Bradshaw made a lot of things happen, and when it came down to it, he was a gritty son of a bitch who would lower the boom when needed, and he threw a deadly accurate ball and had a beautiful deep pass. He put up the numbers he needed, in a HEAVY run oriented offense. For Bradshaw to put up the numbers he did then in that kind of system is spectacular. Again, looking at the H.O.F as a number thing is a MISTAKE and is NOT the way it works. Also, that is an era to where the defense was allowed to maul you, even after the 5 yard range, to where receivers were limited when targeted down field.

As for Brady, although he had solid defense's, the staple to that team was the offense, period. I always said Brady piled up all of his yardage more-so on relying on throwing the dump off and his receivers pounding out the major yards after the catch. In every game that I've watched, Brady and the Pats used that to perfection and most of Brady's yardage are dump offs within 3-5 yards at the line of scrimmage.

Trav, that is the most intelligent thing I've ever read from you here.....YAC yardage awarded to a QBs stats is a travesty. A QB should only get credited for the actual yardage the ball is in the air.....Unless that's not what you meant.


Personally, I'm not a stats geek, I'm a results oriented person....So I couldn't care less that Peyton has such and such yardage, or Brees came within 8 yds of Marino's record a couple of years ago. Did either of them win SBs equivalent to those stats? NO. So they are usless.
Give me 3 SB victories, and dump off passes(which was in essense their running game) anyday.

Exactly what I've been saying.. somewhat. Championships are all that matters, esp to an organization and one's legacy, but it sure isn't everything on an INDIVIDUAL plat form, and that's where guys like Marino and a guy like Jim Kelly earn their stripes, because even though the team couldn't get it done, they stood out throughout the league of quarterbacking ability.

[S2M]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

[Ehwmatt]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

I think consensus and observance of the rest of his career before and after would say he was a lucky hack

[YoungJRNY]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

[S2M]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

Ahem....Matt didn't lose that SB, the zebras pulled victory from the Seahags.....I dare you to HONESTLY say otherwise....you homer.

[Ehwmatt]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

Ahem....Matt didn't lose that SB, the zebras pulled victory from the Seahags.....I dare you to HONESTLY say otherwise....you homer.

lol, I agree. I'm biased, but seems just about anyone outside of Pittsburgh thinks the same.

[YoungJRNY]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

Ahem....Matt didn't lose that SB, the zebras pulled victory from the Seahags.....I dare you to HONESTLY say otherwise....you homer.

No homer. I can honestly say, that if Seattle learned how to manage the game of football correctly, then they would have beaten the Steelers in XL, because the Steelers didn't play their best ball of the season as brilliant as they were in the playoff run. Instead of Holmgren managing, before halftime, they possibly put on the worst offensive managed series in the history of football, getting too greedy and going for the endzone too many times and the clocked worked against that. I mean come on, the Steelers didn't get their first firstdown until the second quarter.

To my understanding, XL was determined off of splash plays. Randle El's throw to Hines, Bens 3rd and a mile heave to Hines, Willie Parkers record touchdown run, all of these were factored into the victory, not the zebra's. Their was a blatant pushoff in the endzone, Ben crossed the plain, and Hasseback threw a ball right into the hands of Ike Taylor, not the Steelers fault. The Steelers didn't play good, but obviously, the Seahags were worse. The refs are a favorite culprit around here, but when it's all said and done, The Steelers got the W and it isn't changing anytime soon.

[S2M]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

Ahem....Matt didn't lose that SB, the zebras pulled victory from the Seahags.....I dare you to HONESTLY say otherwise....you homer.

No homer. I can honestly say, that if Seattle learned how to manage the game of football correctly, then they would have beaten the Steelers in XL, because the Steelers didn't play their best ball of the season as brilliant as they were in the playoff run. Instead of the Holmgren managing, before halftime, they possibly put on the worst offensive managed series in the history of football, getting too greedy and going for the endzone too many times and the clocked worked against that.




To my understanding, XL was determined off of splash plays. Randle El's throw to Hines, Bens 3rd and a mile heave to Hines, Willie Parkers record touchdown run, all of these were factored into the victory, not the zebra's. Their was a blatant pushoff in the endzone, Ben crossed the plain, and Hasseback threw a ball right into the hands of Ike Taylor, not the Steelers fault. The Steelers didn't play good, but obviously, the Seahags were worse. The refs are a favorite culprit around here, but when it's all said and done, The Steelers got the W and it isn't changing anytime soon.

Ohhh....so you don't care how a team wins, just that they win? So if a team wins because of a phantom tag by the 2nd baseman, when replays show clearly that there was no tag (not a reviewable call in baseball) - that is an ok win in your book?

I really don't care what the Hawks did in the first half....sure, it would have made it easier to win if they managed the clock, but in football you have to look at the last instance a team has to win, or lose....and in THAT instance Seattle got hosed by the refs....you are in denial, Trav....

[YoungJRNY]

So....you never answered my question. Probably didn't pose it as a question but.....

Was Dilfer a lucky hack, or just the benefit of a great DEFENSE?

In my honest opinion, the game still needs to be managed the correct way, and that puts the quarterback in the position to not only lead the offense in a manageable set of circumstance, but also to not force things, or force a throw you think you can make that could crumble the team. I think it's harder to manage that way, other than flinging the ball around left and right, and to a certain spot. Dilfer, of course you could say was a game manager (I hate that term) but how many times have we seen quarterbacks buckle under the pressure of not managing the game the correct way, thus blowing their teams chances? (Matt Hasselback, Super Bowl XL.) So, without putting the team on his back, Dilfer deserves a ring, just like all the special teams guys running down the field to make 1 tackle. Just something to think about.

Ahem....Matt didn't lose that SB, the zebras pulled victory from the Seahags.....I dare you to HONESTLY say otherwise....you homer.

No homer. I can honestly say, that if Seattle learned how to manage the game of football correctly, then they would have beaten the Steelers in XL, because the Steelers didn't play their best ball of the season as brilliant as they were in the playoff run. Instead of the Holmgren managing, before halftime, they possibly put on the worst offensive managed series in the history of football, getting too greedy and going for the endzone too many times and the clocked worked against that.




To my understanding, XL was determined off of splash plays. Randle El's throw to Hines, Bens 3rd and a mile heave to Hines, Willie Parkers record touchdown run, all of these were factored into the victory, not the zebra's. Their was a blatant pushoff in the endzone, Ben crossed the plain, and Hasseback threw a ball right into the hands of Ike Taylor, not the Steelers fault. The Steelers didn't play good, but obviously, the Seahags were worse. The refs are a favorite culprit around here, but when it's all said and done, The Steelers got the W and it isn't changing anytime soon.

Ohhh....so you don't care how a team wins, just that they win? So if a team wins because of a phantom tag by the 2nd baseman, when replays show clearly that there was no tag (not a reviewable call in baseball) - that is an ok win in your book?

I really don't care what the Hawks did in the first half....sure, it would have made it easier to win if they managed the clock, but in football you have to look at the last instance a team has to win, or lose....and in THAT instance Seattle got hosed by the refs....you are in denial, Trav....

That's not what I'm saying at all. Seattle had their many opportunities that they blew. People forget at one point, the Steelers could of taken a 21-3 lead if it wasn't for Ben throwing a pick in the endzone that brought the Hags back into the game. We'll agree to disagree. People like you seem to cry over spoiled milk when it's needed. There is always an excuse depriving the team that won in every game so I don't get worked up about it anymore since every game has their fair share of questionable calls.

I've been in pissing matches about this every time it's been brought up pretty much and I'm burned out from it. The way I've seen it, the calls that were made were legit and the Seahawks are the ones that shot themselves in the foot, BIGTIME. They never took advantage of the Steelers miscue's and lost because of a poorly managed game who couldn't stop the big splash plays when it was all said and done. You can't take away of what the Steelers did to the Seahawks that game and they simply gutted them on huge plays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzXQsoy3og

If you think that isn't a push off then you're delusional. If you think that Ben's scramble didn't nudge the plain, you are delusional. Hassellback made a block below the belt, something you're not allowed to do. The Steelers outside linebackers were getting dog tagged all game. Seattle got away with a lot of things also. It's a haters dream to argue it, but what's it going to solve? Nothing and you can flip and manipulate all you want.

[S2M]

Whatever, Trav.....and I'm sure you think you beat AZ as well.....

[YoungJRNY]

Also, if anyone can remember, the '05 post season was the post season that was probably the worst officiated post season, and year as a matter of fact, of all time. Anyone remember Polamalu's interception that was ruled incomplete? That call right there could have neglected the Steelers from advancing to the AFC Championship game and put the Colts in prime position to take control from the Steelers. And make no mistake about it, Malone, the worst call in history came against the Steelers, and ironically it involved your Detroit Lions.

Heads/Tails. HAHA, gimmie a break.

[Rockindeano]

Also, if anyone can remember, the '05 post season was the post season that was probably the worst officiated post season, and year as a matter of fact, of all time. Anyone remember Polamalu's interception that was ruled incomplete? That call right there could have neglected the Steelers from advancing to the AFC Championship game and put the Colts in prime position to take control from the Steelers. And make no mistake about it, Malone, the worst call in history came against the Steelers, and ironically it involved your Detroit Lions.

Heads/Tails. HAHA, gimmie a break.

Without looking, wasn't 05 the year the Steelers were given a Super Bowl victory over Seattle?

[YoungJRNY]

Whatever, Trav.....and I'm sure you think you beat AZ as well.....

Hahaha, WHAT are you talking about dude?! I'm sure the refs had a conspiracy against the Vikings, The Cowboys (twice), and St. Louis as well. What about Super Bowl XXX? Did the refs secretly pay off Neil O'Donnel to throw the game? Holy shit this is old.

[YoungJRNY]

Also, if anyone can remember, the '05 post season was the post season that was probably the worst officiated post season, and year as a matter of fact, of all time. Anyone remember Polamalu's interception that was ruled incomplete? That call right there could have neglected the Steelers from advancing to the AFC Championship game and put the Colts in prime position to take control from the Steelers. And make no mistake about it, Malone, the worst call in history came against the Steelers, and ironically it involved your Detroit Lions.

Heads/Tails. HAHA, gimmie a break.

Without looking, wasn't 05 the year the Steelers were given a Super Bowl victory over Seattle?

It's not hard to look up, big Dean.

[Rockindeano]

LOL Trav, even die hard Stealer fans were saying they didn't deserve that Super Bowl. That was a crock of shit and you know it. Poor old fat Jerome needed his ring, so Seattle was the sacrificial lamb.

[Rockindeano]

Also, if anyone can remember, the '05 post season was the post season that was probably the worst officiated post season, and year as a matter of fact, of all time. Anyone remember Polamalu's interception that was ruled incomplete? That call right there could have neglected the Steelers from advancing to the AFC Championship game and put the Colts in prime position to take control from the Steelers. And make no mistake about it, Malone, the worst call in history came against the Steelers, and ironically it involved your Detroit Lions.

Heads/Tails. HAHA, gimmie a break.

Without looking, wasn't 05 the year the Steelers were given a Super Bowl victory over Seattle?

It's not hard to look up, big Dean.

LOL, that's just it. I didn't look one post up..I guessed. Now I feel like an idiot.

[YoungJRNY]

LOL Trav, even die hard Stealer fans were saying they didn't deserve that Super Bowl. That was a crock of shit and you know it. Poor old fat Jerome needed his ring, so Seattle was the sacrificial lamb.

It's cool people feel that way, mostly haters anyhow, and trust me, no diehard Steelers fan will ever say they didn't deserve it. The Steelers made enough HUGE plays in the game that beat Seattle, BAD CALLS OR NOT, the Seahawks still had the opportunity and blew it significantly and if they played their cards right, they would have beaten Pittsburgh. You got to look at the overall picture, re-watch the game, the Steelers made some plays that put themselves in position to win, while Seattle pretty much ripped theirs to shreds.

Like I said, even with those calls "made" or whatever, they still threw an interception deep in Pittsburgh territory, and came away with 0 points with over 1:00 left at the Steelers 40 yard line before halftime. I'd say there was probably maybe one bad call, a holding against Clark Haggans that certainly got outside of the jersey, but other than that, the calls that were made, (the pushoff, the ball breaking the plain) were all legit to me and would say the same if it worked against Pittsburgh. It's a dead issue.

[S2M]

As you can see, Trav is ignoring the AZ example....

He knows that Pitt escaped that SB with an undeserved win......but please, Trav, keep waxing about the Seahag game....this is interesting.

We will continue this in May, if you go.....

[YoungJRNY]

As you can see, Trav is ignoring the AZ example....

He knows that Pitt escaped that SB with an undeserved win......but please, Trav, keep waxing about the Seahag game....this is interesting.

We will continue this in May, if you go.....

(I'm going to keep feeding the troll, it's fun ) There's nothing to continue Malone, other than tears, haha.

Undeserved, what a laugh. There's a point where you can't debate statements like that any longer really. Not only did the Steelers overcome a phantom holding call in their own end zone towards the end of the game for a safety (and we all know how you love phantom calls) they had started their final drive with a holding penalty as well and driven the length of the field, Montana like and were the results of one of the most prettiest pitch and catch in the history of the Super Bowl. They also blanketed Larry Fitzgerald all game long until the 4th quarter and had intercepted a Warner pass on the one yard line and took it to the house that changed the out look of the game. Before you say it, I know what's coming. Santonio didn't get two feet in right ? As far as the Warner fumble, that was very close, and the booth actually reviewed it for 90 seconds and upheld it and the ruling on the field stood, ball game over. Arizona wasn't scoring anyhow.

Wonder what the excuse is going to be whenever the Saints/Colts win the Super Bowl and how they won't be deserving it. (Just like the NFL was restored when Tom Brady came back this season and how the Steelers didn't deserve their ring because they didn't beat New England, even though they lost in the Super Bowl that earlier year.) Man, it must be miserable being a Lions fan where Barry Sanders is ALL you have going for you, the bitterness is tasteful.





Anyway, back on topic.

Saints/Colts, Super Bowl 44

Prediction- Colts: 34-28.

[YoungJRNY]

All this happy talk amongst ourselves may not matter....

Updated: February 4, 2010, 6:15 PM ET

Smith demands teams open books


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith says the chance of a lockout after next season is a "14" on a scale of 1-to-10.

Painting a bleak labor outlook Thursday, Smith said the NFL would receive $5 billion from its network television deals even if no games are played in 2011. He regarded that as proof owners are preparing for a lockout.

"Has any one of the prior deals included $5 billion to not play football?" Smith said, referring to previous collective bargaining agreements that were extended or redone. "The answer's no."

Smith reiterated the union's demand that the NFL's 32 teams open their books and show who is losing money and how much. Citing financial reports by the community-owned Green Bay Packers, Smith wondered how such a small-market franchise can make a $20 million profit while other teams claim they are losing money.

But he noted that the Packers did have a profit decline, which NFL executive vice president and chief counsel Jeff Pash said was 40 percent.

"In most businesses, that would be a serious cause for concern," Pash said. "It would indicate a serious issue that has to be dealt with. You look at your single largest expense, which is player costs."

Smith said the latest NFL offer to the players would reduce their share to 41 percent of applied revenues from about 59 percent. He emphasized that the teams take $1 billion off the top of the estimated $8 billion the league generates.

Pash argued that the $1 billion reflects actual costs incurred, money spent in investments "in things like stadiums, NFL network, NFL.com, putting on games overseas, all of which is intended to and has the effect of generating substantial additional revenues that go to NFL players."


Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

This is getting pretty damn serious and we might be NFL-less for the 2011 season. The thought of it makes me depressed.

[Ehwmatt]

Trust me, it won't happen. NFL will be played. They are just building up a frenzy about this on both sides for PR reasons.

[YoungJRNY]

Trust me, it won't happen. NFL will be played. They are just building up a frenzy about this on both sides for PR reasons.

I too have major confidence in the NFL. They are a well oiled machine to not make some kind of agreement but damn it could very well happen. I hope you're right, they have awhile to get things under control.

[S2M]

I have one question:

How many of us really give a shit how much money the owners of our companies make???

'nuff said!

Like I said before....we'll pay anything to be entertained. It's psychology, and the powers that be know this. I've said it before, we'll pay $1200 a ticket for front row for Babs, Jonas, and Miley(we'll *I* won't, but some do.... ) , but bitch, moan, and cry when gas goes up 20 cents a gallon, or the price of a pound of coffee goes up a nickel.....

These players will continue to get paid because fans will continue to buy tickets at egregious rates....

What? $15 million a year isn't enough, Ray Lewis? $20 million isn't enough Peyton?

Brady has THREE effin' rings, and plays for a discount.....Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia(MVP, Rookie of the Year, Batting Title....etc...and STILL plays for a fraction of what he is worth)

IT is a fuckin game, people....just a game.


Food for thought....people who save lives.....you know those people, they're called DOCTORS. They get paid pennies for what they are worth!

[Ehwmatt]

Food for thought....people who save lives.....you know those people, they're called DOCTORS. They get paid pennies for what they are worth!

I agree, but that's the way it is.

Plus, if you ask some people, all doctors are negligent scumbags who should make $40,000 a year after going through 9-10 years of training/education because they are only supposed to "Help people," their personal lives and finances be damned, but HEY, what are you gonna do?

[S2M]

Food for thought....people who save lives.....you know those people, they're called DOCTORS. They get paid pennies for what they are worth!

I agree, but that's the way it is.

Plus, if you ask some people, all doctors are negligent scumbags who should make $40,000 a year after going through 9-10 years of training/education because they are only supposed to "Help people," their personal lives and finances be damned, but HEY, what are you gonna do?

Nope, I save that rant for teachers. When they do there yearly picket line... I'm sure teachers don't go into the profession to get rich, but somehow they want more money every other year....


Ok, all you teachers can lambaste me now.....It's go time!

[YoungJRNY]

Super Bowl 44. February 7th, 2010.

Saints VS Colts:

Ironically, EVERY championship the Colts ever has been acquainted with, won it in Miami, including 2007's championship. The Colts are playing this off like they've been there and the Saints seem to basking in it way too much. Still, the Colts/Saints match up is the ONLY match up that was deserving for '44 all year since both teams never lost a #1 or 2 spot all year, technically. I think this is Manning's time and his prime is at an all time peak, and he won't be denied, esp now that he has an above average defense, which is FAST. The Saints are a powerhouse shootout team, but if they try to take chances on the Colts O, Manning will simply burn them, plain and simple. If they take cheap shots or late hits on the QB, this won't be close. Both teams will play smart, benefiting the Colts all around.

Prediction:

Colts 34- Saints 28.

[JasonD]

Prediction:

Colts 13 - Saints 10

[Ehwmatt]

Super Bowl 44. February 7th, 2010.

Saints VS Colts:

Ironically, EVERY championship the Colts ever has been acquainted with, won it in Miami, including 2007's championship. The Colts are playing this off like they've been there and the Saints seem to basking in it way too much. Still, the Colts/Saints match up is the ONLY match up that was deserving for '44 all year since both teams never lost a #1 or 2 spot all year, technically. I think this is Manning's time and his prime is at an all time peak, and he won't be denied, esp now that he has an above average defense, which is FAST. The Saints are a powerhouse shootout team, but if they try to take chances on the Colts O, Manning will simply burn them, plain and simple. If they take cheap shots or late hits on the QB, this won't be close. Both teams will play smart, benefiting the Colts all around.

Prediction:

Colts 34- Saints 28.

Agree with the above. I say Colts 34, Saints 21