My wish has come true: the Arizona Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers will play in the Super Bowl this year. I really hope it's good.
Both of today's conference championships followed the same pattern, except the AFC game was infinitely more boring: one team was in control handily in the first half, then allowed the other guys back in late before sealing the deal.
In both cases the team that played the better game won. The Ravens didn't really show me anything that hinted as to why they were in the AFC Championship in the first place (though perhaps it's asking too much to expect them to have a mural of Tom Brady getting hurt on their sideline). Good for them that they made it, but they're as lame to watch for any Raven-non-partisan as any other Baltimore team of recent vintage.
The Eagles played the way they usually do in NFC Championship games, which is to say they played inexplicably poorly, although by now I guess it's to be expected. It honestly makes no sense to me whatsoever why this team only got over the hump and into the Super Bowl once. It defies rational explanation. I mean, the Bills of the early '90s, though I don't really remember the details, I can sort of get. I can see how the Super Bowl is such a different beast: a week off, everything on the line, etc., and I can see how somehow mentally that might be a lot to overcome. But the game to get into the Super Bowl? Why does Philly always look so good going in but always so bad during the game? And they lose the NFC Championship to different teams, too: this isn't the Pistons knocking out MJ for a few seasons in a row before he broke through. It could just be a weird coincidence that they always lose then (for the Eagles and for the Bills), I guess, but it boggles my mind. Any theories? (And please, make it a better one than, "Andy Reid's not that good of a coach" because I have never heard of anyone in any field with a level of ability this specific.)
Other lowlights of the day included a two-hour review of a possible San Antonio Holmes catch and a serious Willis McGahee injury. I really hope he's okay but am not eager to watch his next performace.
The highlights, of course, are the Steelers and the Cardinals. For years I've called Big Ben the No. 2 QB in the NFL, so it is a small shock if any that his team is back on the verge of a championship. The Cardinals are, like their QB, a fantastic story, but they've also got some serious talent, starting of course with Larry Fitzgerald, who I supported a few years ago for the Heisman. By the way if you can't find that vote of confidence for him in my archives then I must have been really busy but totally meant to write it down. My gut reaction today is to anticipate a Steelers blowout but I want a few more days before I make an official Super Bowl prediction, which in the history of this website has always been wrong. What do you say?
Comments
I agree that the Eagles have made an annoying (I like the Eagles) habit of playing terrible in the NFC Championship games. Where was their vaunted Jim Johnson D yesterday? Except for the third quarter the Eagles D was awful. How do you not ALWAYS double cover Fitzgerald? Why did it take 3 TD catches by Fitzgerald before Andy Reid and Jim Johnson decided to put two guys on him? Also, I thought McNabb was exceptionally inaccurate in the first half. He missed at least 3 easy passes that would've been big gains, if not touchdowns. Anyway, I'm glad the Eagles came back in the third quarter so at least the game was exciting in the second half.
Side note on Larry Fitzgerald: I'm sure you saw yesterday that he broke Jerry Rice's record for most receiving yard in a single post season. I would say that Fitzgerald is the best receiver in the league right now and has a chance to break a lot of records in his career. What do you think?
I know the Ravens were facing the best defense in the league, but did they have any offensive game-plan at all? Why weren't they running the ball nearly every single play to set up the long ball that Flacco is suppose to be so good at throwing? Why didn't McLain get more touches? Yesterday looked like the same Ravens team we've grown accustomed to over the last 8-9 years: great D, and no idea what they're doing on offense.
As for Larry Fitzgerald, he's a great player, but Randy Moss is still playing and I've seen him do things that no other receiver can. So I hesitate to anoint L-Fit as the game's best pass-catcher, though as of today he is playing as well or better than anyone. As for records, well, you'd really have to say which records you think he's going to break before I comment, but if we're talking career marks I think it's way too early to say. A lot of guys get off to fantastic starts, but the challenge is setting career records is doing that AND staying healthy AND staying hungry AND having good teammates. Fitzgerald's great and should play well for years but I don't want to disrespect a guy like Jerry Rice and throw his records out the window just because a guy has had a few good games or seasons (and compared to Rice, that's ALL Fitzgerald has done).
The Ravens suck at offense, and looking back I have never rooted for a team like that. I'm not even sure I could.
The NFC Champsionship, and more specifically the Eagles' performance, was predictable. The game simply confirms that Donovan and Andy Reid can't get it done when it matters. Sure, Donovan got his team back in the game, but then promptly choked in the final drive. How much longer will Philly fans put up with these guys?
I predicted the Steelers would win the Super Bowl right about the second Brady went down for the year and probably won't change horses . . . but the Cardinals' postseason has been so much better than their regular season that I can't help but think they have a chance, particularly if Anquan Boldin quits whining and gets back on the field.
I, personally, don't think he belongs in the hall of fame even if the Cardinals win next week. I think he's a great QB, but he's only been successful when he's had amazing receivers. I do think this year's performance with the Cardinals is more impressive because he had no running game to speak of, and didn't have a back with great hand a la Marshall Faulk. Plus, Warner went like 5 years when he wasn't even the starter.
Anyway, I wanted to get your take.
Kurt Warner is awesome when he's on and a great story, but he is not a Hall of Famer. It's interesting that he had about as many good years as Terrell Davis, whose Hall candidacy I do support. But T.D. never had a bad year and was always awesome in big games, two things you can't say about Warner.
Let's see the Nuggets win a playoff series, or two, before I consider the Iverson trade a smart move. Besides, they still cheaped out on Marcus Camby so they don't deserve praise.