Washington at Seattle: The player who impressed me the most in Saturday’s game was Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. He helped the ’Hawks overcome the loss of Shaun Alexander, who’d gotten off to a pretty bad start anyway (six carries for nine yards). I have to agree with those who've said the quarterback is Seattle’s real MVP.
I’d be hearing whispers about Hasselbeck’s greatness for years, then watched him fall flat in the biggest games. But Saturday, when his team needed him the most, he threw with impressive touch and accuracy all over the field, and halfback back-up Maurice Morris gave Seattle the absolute bare minimum they needed.
As for the Redskins, they could be solid next year if they find a real quarterback, which is a pretty big piece of the puzzle to be missing. Brunell had solid numbers, but against a defense keyed on the run, he couldn’t make any big plays. It really seems like he’s hanging on by a thread at this point, at least against the tougher defenses (he was terrible against Tampa Bay, too).
New England at Denver: Here’s a prediction: Champ Bailey never slows down near the end zone again.
I think the reason I’ve felt the Broncos were a bit lucky all year is because they win in ways in which Broncos teams never win. Past Shanahan-coached squads have won because of offenses that could put up thirty points in any game. This year, we’re thriving with defense and timely turnovers-and this is a team that has never been able to come up with big turnovers, at least not since back-to-back Super Bowl victories.
The Broncos are also carrying themselves with a confidence unlike they’ve had for a while-again, a confidence that calls to mind the Super Bowl champions of ages past. They’ve been cocky in recent years, but that’s not the same thing.
Case in point: John Lynch celebrating in New England’s backfield at the start of the game, after which Tom Brady followed Lynch, pumping his fist. I could not have been more worried for my prediction than I was at that point. But Lynch backed it up with as good a game as he’s had since coming to Denver before last season (and without any illegal hits), and while Brady and the Pats racked up huge yardage, it never seemed to come at crucial points in the contest.
The biggest reason the Broncos have for concern is that the running game never really got going against New England, though the Broncos were unstoppable when they ran near the goal line (the offense was much easier to contain when the team opted for fade routes). Pittsburgh might be even better against the run.
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh: Who would have guessed I’d call only one game wrong this weekend because I had faith in the Colts in the postseason? That’s just delicious.
I love the fact that the game came down to a quarterback making an athletic play-Roethlisberger’s shoestring open-field tackle on the late fumble recovery, which turned a sure touchdown into an opportunity for Mike Vanderjagt to threaten all previously-held notions of the limits of the phrase “wide right”. Do you think Peyton Manning could have made that tackle?
The officiating was abysmal, especially late in the game. Afterwards, Joey Porter accused the league of wanting Manning and the Colts in the Super Bowl. There were unfathomable calls, especially when Steelers safety Troy Polamalu’s interception was overturned, but I have to ask: why would the league do that? It’s not like Indianapolis is a major media market (or that the Super Bowl needs that boost anyway).
The only possible explanation is that Peyton Manning, with his off-field endorsements, is the closest thing the NFL could have to the huge superstars in other sports...if he starts winning titles. Of course, the league already has Tom Brady, who, while well-known, doesn’t seem to have the major crossover appeal outside of football that puts him in the fame stratosphere with someone like Shaq or even Allen Iverson. I don’t think Manning does, either, but maybe the league feels differently. Even that’s pretty weak, though, as far as explanations go.
Of course, I look at the league and say it’s good enough. The league is constantly looking for ways to make even more money-else why look for a team for Los Angeles? So maybe the Peyton thing makes sense. Your thoughts?
My brother John and I were discussing during the game why Indianapolis, which has so many good players and wins so many regular season games, has such trouble in the postseason. I speculated that perhaps Peyton’s teammates resented the does-no-wrong Golden Boy and that team chemistry is more of a problem than anyone has been led to believe. Then Peyton stabbed his offensive linemen in the back after the game and if chemistry wasn’t a problem before, it sure is now. (And what kind of quarterback calls out his O-line? They’re probably some of the toughest guys on the team, don’t get paid much (compared to other NFL players), and fight through myriad injuries to keep Manning standing against blitzes he apparently can’t handle. Does he think they’re going to block harder for him now?) Despite whatever public proclamations we hear before next year, wounds like that never seem to heal fully-or have we all forgotten McNabb and T.O. already?
Anyway, Pittsburgh came up with the upset, and is one game away from riding the No. 6 seed all the way to the Super Bowl.
Carolina at Chicago: The Bears’ offense was better than I thought, which is like saying Kobe and Phil Jackson are getting along better now than they ever have before. Both defenses gave up more yards than I would have thought, though Carolina’s is more of a playoff defense, if that makes any sense at all. I think it will be more effective against Seattle’s attack than Chicago’s defense would have been.
Here’s the thing: how can Chicago be considered a good defense, and how can Lovie Smith be considered a good coach, if they can’t slow down Carolina’s only real receiver? Steve Smith didn’t just break free for his usual game-his numbers say he had a game for the ages (though it seems tempered a bit by Chicago’s total ineptitude).
Jake Delhomme continued to put his finishing touches on the phrase “ugly, but effective”, but can the Panthers survive the loss of DeShaun Foster (a sickening broken ankle) next week?
I’d be hearing whispers about Hasselbeck’s greatness for years, then watched him fall flat in the biggest games. But Saturday, when his team needed him the most, he threw with impressive touch and accuracy all over the field, and halfback back-up Maurice Morris gave Seattle the absolute bare minimum they needed.
As for the Redskins, they could be solid next year if they find a real quarterback, which is a pretty big piece of the puzzle to be missing. Brunell had solid numbers, but against a defense keyed on the run, he couldn’t make any big plays. It really seems like he’s hanging on by a thread at this point, at least against the tougher defenses (he was terrible against Tampa Bay, too).
New England at Denver: Here’s a prediction: Champ Bailey never slows down near the end zone again.
I think the reason I’ve felt the Broncos were a bit lucky all year is because they win in ways in which Broncos teams never win. Past Shanahan-coached squads have won because of offenses that could put up thirty points in any game. This year, we’re thriving with defense and timely turnovers-and this is a team that has never been able to come up with big turnovers, at least not since back-to-back Super Bowl victories.
The Broncos are also carrying themselves with a confidence unlike they’ve had for a while-again, a confidence that calls to mind the Super Bowl champions of ages past. They’ve been cocky in recent years, but that’s not the same thing.
Case in point: John Lynch celebrating in New England’s backfield at the start of the game, after which Tom Brady followed Lynch, pumping his fist. I could not have been more worried for my prediction than I was at that point. But Lynch backed it up with as good a game as he’s had since coming to Denver before last season (and without any illegal hits), and while Brady and the Pats racked up huge yardage, it never seemed to come at crucial points in the contest.
The biggest reason the Broncos have for concern is that the running game never really got going against New England, though the Broncos were unstoppable when they ran near the goal line (the offense was much easier to contain when the team opted for fade routes). Pittsburgh might be even better against the run.
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh: Who would have guessed I’d call only one game wrong this weekend because I had faith in the Colts in the postseason? That’s just delicious.
I love the fact that the game came down to a quarterback making an athletic play-Roethlisberger’s shoestring open-field tackle on the late fumble recovery, which turned a sure touchdown into an opportunity for Mike Vanderjagt to threaten all previously-held notions of the limits of the phrase “wide right”. Do you think Peyton Manning could have made that tackle?
The officiating was abysmal, especially late in the game. Afterwards, Joey Porter accused the league of wanting Manning and the Colts in the Super Bowl. There were unfathomable calls, especially when Steelers safety Troy Polamalu’s interception was overturned, but I have to ask: why would the league do that? It’s not like Indianapolis is a major media market (or that the Super Bowl needs that boost anyway).
The only possible explanation is that Peyton Manning, with his off-field endorsements, is the closest thing the NFL could have to the huge superstars in other sports...if he starts winning titles. Of course, the league already has Tom Brady, who, while well-known, doesn’t seem to have the major crossover appeal outside of football that puts him in the fame stratosphere with someone like Shaq or even Allen Iverson. I don’t think Manning does, either, but maybe the league feels differently. Even that’s pretty weak, though, as far as explanations go.
Of course, I look at the league and say it’s good enough. The league is constantly looking for ways to make even more money-else why look for a team for Los Angeles? So maybe the Peyton thing makes sense. Your thoughts?
My brother John and I were discussing during the game why Indianapolis, which has so many good players and wins so many regular season games, has such trouble in the postseason. I speculated that perhaps Peyton’s teammates resented the does-no-wrong Golden Boy and that team chemistry is more of a problem than anyone has been led to believe. Then Peyton stabbed his offensive linemen in the back after the game and if chemistry wasn’t a problem before, it sure is now. (And what kind of quarterback calls out his O-line? They’re probably some of the toughest guys on the team, don’t get paid much (compared to other NFL players), and fight through myriad injuries to keep Manning standing against blitzes he apparently can’t handle. Does he think they’re going to block harder for him now?) Despite whatever public proclamations we hear before next year, wounds like that never seem to heal fully-or have we all forgotten McNabb and T.O. already?
Anyway, Pittsburgh came up with the upset, and is one game away from riding the No. 6 seed all the way to the Super Bowl.
Carolina at Chicago: The Bears’ offense was better than I thought, which is like saying Kobe and Phil Jackson are getting along better now than they ever have before. Both defenses gave up more yards than I would have thought, though Carolina’s is more of a playoff defense, if that makes any sense at all. I think it will be more effective against Seattle’s attack than Chicago’s defense would have been.
Here’s the thing: how can Chicago be considered a good defense, and how can Lovie Smith be considered a good coach, if they can’t slow down Carolina’s only real receiver? Steve Smith didn’t just break free for his usual game-his numbers say he had a game for the ages (though it seems tempered a bit by Chicago’s total ineptitude).
Jake Delhomme continued to put his finishing touches on the phrase “ugly, but effective”, but can the Panthers survive the loss of DeShaun Foster (a sickening broken ankle) next week?
Comments
The Broncos make me nervious. They have not been able to complete drives real effectively outside of one's started after turnovers. None of their drives Saturday were over 61 yard. Sure they can punch in the ball in the redzone, but if they can't get to the redzone with their offense, do the Broncos just have to rely on their defense to set the offense up?
You're right that Denver didn't do much offensively Saturday night. But whatever the stats say, they were facing the two-time defending champions, so I don't think it's fair to have expected us to do much more. While I don't think we'll necessarily get five turnovers again, I do think our offense will bounce back Sunday (more to come on that later this week, of course).
John's point about the Steelers being emotionally drained is a good one, but who knows-maybe that win gave them what we call a shot in the arm. I don't put much stock in looking too much at a team's performance the week before-I mean, New England won the game right after the Tuck Rule, right? And didn't USC coast to an easy win right before the Rose Bowl? (So did Texas, but you know what I mean.) I'd think a bigger factor might be what hanging out in Denver does to Joey Porter psychologically.
As for Delhomme, yes, he was bouncing around, but I think he's like a younger Jeff Garcia in that sense-if they actually tried to play with good mechanics for a whole game, they'd finish 0/30 with seven picks. Good thing for the Panthers that Jake is no SoCal pretty boy.
Interesting comparison, actually, because I will be surprised if Matt Leinart ever becomes as good of a pro quarterback as Jake Delhomme already is. I'm serious-Jake has five playoff wins already (in just two postseasons) and a career rating of 84.5 (with numbers that have climbed steadily since he became a starter). He's pretty good. Too early to say for sure, of course, but I'd much rather have Delhomme for at least the next several seasons.
sorry for the all caps, i know they are rough on the eyes.
i agree with you johnny. i had the marino thougtht before reading your words, but agree wholeheartedly.
great minds think alike.
i think there is an element that marino, and manning both lack. real character and heart.
Basically, they're the Vince Carters of the NFL. Enough natural talent to dominate lesser mortals, but when matched up against peers in pressure situations, they fall far short.
No one has coasted more on opportunities or natural talent than Marino did or Manning does now. "Student of the game"...give me a break. If Manning really studies the game so well, why is he constantly flustered by tough playoff defenses? He has been playing way too long to be surprised out there, hasn't he?
I also say that Manning will eventually fall apart in his later years much the way Marino did...as opposed to actual great quarterbacks, who address their weaknesses and find ways to compensate.
The real question is-if Peyton ever takes a front office job with the Colts, will he keep it for an entire week to see how it pans out?