Sunday, January 21, 2007

NFL is lacking and Super Bowl XLI

ESPN has already called it the Colts O vs. the Bears D. To me that means two big things: There is no need to watch (unless you enjoy bad football) while the Bears are on offense and the quality of play is sadly lacking in today's NFL. Allow me to explain:

Back when I was young there were imposing, dominating giants in the NFL. It was a time when the NFC had a span of 13 straight Super Bowl wins of which the NFC East won 7 and the San Francisco 49ers won 4. It was a time of memorably great teams and coaches such as Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells. It was a time of good offenses with great defenses or good defenses with good offenses.

And it wasn't like the AFC didn't have it's own giants, they were just slightly lacking (the Denver Broncos) or they got unlucky (the Buffalo Bills and "wide right"). When the AFC finally turned it around, it was one of those giants, the Broncos, that broke through.

Then in 2000 something happened. The St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl with a imposing offense but a defense which was not horrible but certainly lacking. The following year the Ravens were NFL Champs with a great defense but with a horrendous offense. All of a sudden, it became alright to have glaring weaknesses because everyone else had them too. So, as long as you had a good offense or defense, you just needed some luck and that would be enough for a Super Bowl win. Just remember, the Titans were a yard and a few seconds short of beating the Rams, and the Giants/Ravens game was close until the 3 back-to-back touchdowns in the third period.

They called it parity and it was in full effect in 2002 when the all-around mediocre New England Patriots beat the one-sided Rams on a last second field goal. In case you needed hard proof of the parity (or the "Putrid Mediocrity" or "Putrid Parity", as I've heard it called) the "Super Bowl MVP", Tom Brady, threw for all of 145 yards. I thought Adam Vinatieri deserved the MVP, but that would have been an all out admission of mediocrity. And the mediocrity has just lingered and even strengthened in the past few years:

  • 2003, BOTH Super Bowl teams from 2002 (Patriots and Rams) failed to make the playoffs and the "defense only" Tampa Bay Buccaneers (with their 24th ranked offense) beat the "offense only" Raiders in the Super Bowl.
  • 2004, Once again both Super Bowl teams from the previous year failed to make the playoffs (the Bucs went 7-9 and the Raiders were 4-12), and the Patriots won their second Super Bowl on another last second field goal, this time against the Carolina Panthers.
  • 2005, The Panthers (last year's Super Bowl runner-ups) fail to make the playoffs. In the Super Bowl, the Patriots barely beat the Eagles who, like all of the Patriot's Super Bowl opponents, fail to make the following year's playoffs (with a 6-10 record).
  • 2006, We reach an undeniable apex of parity when the generally mediocre Pittsburgh Steelers beat the slightly better (but not on that night) Seattle Seahawks. At least the Seahawks made the playoffs the following year, but not surprisingly the Steelers didn't.

Now what does that tell you about the quality of the league? It stinks, and we get to watch playoffs and Super Bowls with mediocre teams and sub par quality of play. We end up with games in which luck is too big a factor (e.g. a botched hold, Cowboys vs. Seahawks, 3 weeks ago; a fumbled fumble recover, Pats vs. Chargers last week; two TDs by linesmen on fumble recoveries, Pats vs. Colts today;). Frankly, I'm tired of thinking "Wow, that was lucky!"

So with that I'll go ahead and give my early pick for the Super Bowl. I'm going against my instincts and going with the recent trend when a good/great defense (i.e. Ravens, Bucs) plays against a good offense... I'm picking the good defense, the Bears.

That is of course unless the Colts get lucky!

No comments: