So I was wrong about Hasselbeck--he's playing very well (and Delhomme doesn't look like he can find the broadside of a barn let along Steve Smith)--and Alexander's playing very well also. So I was wrong, and now you Seattle fans can gloat. But so far I'm NOT taking back my comment that the Hawks are the Bengals of the NFC--heck, even the Bengals play well sometimes. When the Hawks win consistently in the playoffs over several years like the Steelers and others have done, that's when I'll take it back.

It is nw halftime of the Seattle game, and if the "Cats" come back and win it'll be a miracle...

Now, as to the Steelers-Broncos: Congrats to the "Bus" who gets to (maybe) win a Supe in his home town, and the rest of Cowher's crew. But I wonder, not to take anything away from Steelers' play, but I wonder if the Bronc weren't looking behind them, to taking out the "Patriot dynasty", when they should have been look toward the Steelers?

snorky

Oh, what the heck, everyone else is doing it...making predictions on the AFC and NFC Champ games this weekend, and "everyone else" probably knows more than I do about the Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks and Panthers.

Especially the Panthers!

Like I said in my 1st post, I haven't seriously followed the NFL since the mid-80s. Fact is my spouse hates football, and not only that, when we moved into our house out here deep in the west Texas mountains, we didn't have TV for many years until 1999 when we got our DirecTV dish. Because our son liked to occasionally watch a football game, we let him but I never really got to get back into it...I had moved on and didn't want to get back to the point where football meant so much (confession: I was a fanatic in the 70s to the point where I was like those of you who claim to "live and die" by your team.). And I still don't. I started getting interested again this year because the way things looked it seemed it was time that perhaps maybe the Pats would not get back to the Super Bowl, which would make things more interesting.

I have NOTHING against the Patriots, by the way...it's just that it's good to have other teams win the "Big One" once in a while. And, if you read my 1st post, you'll notice I have a fascination for sports dynasties. So anyway...

Steelers over Broncos, and Panthers over Seahawks....

Since I have almost NO knowledge of the Carolina Panthers, why am I picking them to beat Seattle? That's because while I know almost nothing about Carolina I know something about the Hawks, again from history. In my 1st post I said Seattle was the Bengals of the NFC. Historically, the Bengals have been EXTREMELY INCONSISTENT...flaky, winning when they should lose and losing when they have the talent to win, and always (back in the 70s and 80s, anyway), disappointing fans and prognosticators. In other words, the Bengals, defying all logic, always found a way to lose when the jig was up (and they proved that again vs. Steelers in first round...but who would have thought it would be because Palmer was injured?). Seattle, even when they made playoffs, has had the same tendencies. Though it isn't recorded anywhere on the Internet, I have always thought the Hawks were the Bengals of the AFC West, and now that they are in the NFC... Besides, Jake Delhomme just seems more gutsy and impressive than Matt Hasselback (spelling?)...nor do I know if Shaun Alexander is really ready.

To me, the Steelers and Broncos are pretty much evenly matched everywhere, but the Steelers are behaving the way they did in the 70s right now, dominant and finding any way they can to win. Plus, while Denver is also playing very well right now, too, it could be they became so caught up in beating the outgoing dynasty that they may forget about winning against perhaps the next one.

A return of dynasty to Pittsburgh? That's pure speculation, and a lot depends on how the team reacts to Bettis' possible retirement. Bettis shows just how long I've been out of this game...he was a rookie in Steelerville when I stopped watching football, period. Until now. And Cowher is (probably) no Chuck Noll.

snorky

Like I said in my "about me" life imitates history...and if history is any judge...and if it is true that when you start losing assistant coaches like the Pats are (they just lost Maningi to the Jets...talk about how interesting the AFC East will be next year! Bellichick or however you spell it will almost be staring at himself here!), then you know it's all downhill from here. All they need now is for a rival league to steal Bruschi and one or two others, and...oooh boy!

For instance: 74 Dolphins, who lost not only 3 players to WFL but 2 assistant caoches, one of whom, Bill Arnsparger, became maybe the worst coach in NFL history with the Giants (for you younger folks, Google "the fumble--Giants vs. Eagles")

snorky

I don't remember the year...'84? '85? Anyway, I haven't paid much attention to NFL football since around that time, until January 2002 when God appointed the New England Patriots to be the Super Bowl winner.

Oh my gawd, you think, another one of those Religious Right freaks. Heck no. In fact you can take Pat Robertson and blow it out his butt.

But I do run a Christian blog here.

Anyway, the 2001 Pats were God's team. Was the Dallas Cowboys still America's team? If this doesn't sound familiar, then you didn't follow football 20 years ago.

So the Pats are God's team...but was it really because of September 11, 2001?

Rational exhuberance, to use Al Greenspan's phrase (No, Al doesn't write sports columns!), said "yes" but history said "no." Perhaps God preferred the new Pats logo. I much liked the old Continental Army guy in the three-point-stance; on their new helmets I couldn't tell the difference easily between the Pats and Broncos this past playoff game won by the Horses. Yeah, yeah, I know: Pats management changed the logo so they could feel disassociated from the old days when Miami ruled the AFC East and the Pats were the Patsies.

So. did Brady and Co. win Super Bowl 36 (and 38 and 39) because  they are called the Patriots? Is it significant that in each game they won by 3 pts.?

History says "no." History, meaning human and football suggests otherwise. The Pats simply were in the right place (there is no better place to begin a so-called "dynasty" than the AFC East--which has been either very strong or very weak in the past almost 40 years--at the right time (after the Bills, who ruled it in the earlier 90s, had quit, and after the Dolphins, who ruled it the rest of the time, realized they had nothing to show for Dan Marino's spectacular play [note: is Peyton Manning the Dan Marino of the 21st century?] and for screwing over Don Shula), with the right coach (Bellichik, or is it Billechek? I write it one way but I say it the other way!). And yes, because despite everything else, the Jets are still the Jets.

And speaking of history, I have serious problems with calling the Pats or anyone else in  recent football history a "dynasty." When one thinks sports dynasties they immediately think the New York Yankees, who had dominating teams lasting decades and which gave rise to the call, "Break Up the Yankees!" Also, the 50's, 60's, and 70's Montreal Canadiens also qualify, as well as the Celtics of the 60s and John Wooden's UCLA Bruins of the 60s and 70s (I'll never forget that 1974 NC State win over UCLA which effectively ended the Bruin Dynasty).

However, in defense of the notion of dynasty in football I have to admit that due to the nature of the game--it is often brutal--shorter "dynasties" may suffice; even so, the teams that come closest to actually having dynasties are the Steelers of the 70s and the 49ers of the 80s (and maybe the 60s Packers and perhaps the 71-74 Dolphins, if only because they did go unbeaten in 72-73).

Whether you think the Pats were a dynasty of not, it was fitting that it ended this past Saturday, and the Broncos ended it. First of all, the Broncos, in the late 70s, who, along with the Raiders (appropriately!), assured the world the Steelers would not win another Super Bowl for a few years after 9 and 10 by winning the AFC in 1977. In other words, Denver was trying to build a mini-dynasty of their own (and, like the Bills, they accomplished that by winning AFC championships throughout the 90s). so why is it fitting that the Pats "dynasty" came to an end? Perhaps to make room for "Dolphin Dynasty II" (hah hah!) under Rick Saban (and Gus Ferotte? Surely I jest!).

And speaking of the Steelers...I can't be a Steeler fan because I root for some other team (no, it's not the Bungles...er, the Bengals), but if I could I would. This is a team that took about 30 some odd years to go from outhouse to powerhouse overnight from 1971 to 1972, dominated the later 70s, made the playoffs into the 80s, and, after rebuilding, went to the Super Bowl again into the 90s, and, now that they have rebuilt again, are poised to do it again, all Bengals aside. I have nothing but respect for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

But back to where I started this...I have watched games occasionally since that 2002 Super Bowl. My son started watching games late in the 2004 season when I noticed the Pats looked like they were going to wind up winning another Super Bowl, a second-straight, and I just knew someone, either a player or management, would label the Pats a "dynasty." After that I went to my other blog and said that this labelling would be the end of the Pats dynasty. You see, football historically, when a team called itself a dynasty that signalled the end of it. Example: after Miami's second straight (Supe 8), the Miami Herald blared this headline-- "Dolphin Dynasty? You Bet Your Superfish!" About a month later, Csonka, Kiick, and Warfield were headed to the fledgling WFL, which ended that fledgling dynasty!

Next: LIF 102: If Life Imitates Football, it'll be Steelers vs. Panthers (and why the Seahawks are the Bengals of the NFC)

Snorky