It's official:

Peyton Manning is the MVP of the National Football League for a record fourth time.

I can't say that any of us are surprised by the results.  I'm not as excited as I was last year for reasons I've already gotten into.  Drew Brees finished second, Rivers a distant third and Favre got one vote.  It wouldn't have mattered at all in this particular contest, but I would still like to see the AP go to a weighted vote system where writers get to vote for their top five players.

Still this year was all about Manning.  Week 14 was pivotal for a lot of people as Manning hit Wayne on a bomb to beat Jacksonville and Brees failed to rally the Saints past Dallas just two nights later.

So without further ado, I bring you

18 Things that are Better in Fours...

1. Tops

2. Gospels

3. Seasons

4. Baggers

5. Fantastics

6. Leaves on a clover

7. Connections

8. More years

9. Finals

10. Frozens

11. Aces

12. Horsemen of the Apocalypse

13. Eyes

14. Cardinal directions

15. Squares

16. H's

17. Episodes

18. MVP Awards

Manning's Four MVP Seasons:

While we all eagerly await the MVP announcement that should come today (CORRECTION: Apparently it will be announced Sunday, though I can't find that verified anywhere), I thought I would post a plea for a "Research Intern".

I'm currently working on a book about the history of the Indianapolis Colts.  As many of you know, I live in Argentina, and that makes certain research I need for the book hard to come by.  There are certain game details and box scores and attendance figures that aren't readily available on line (especially for games that took place 20 years ago).

What I need is a volunteer willing to give up one or two afternoons over the next few months to go to the library for me and look up old box scores and newspaper articles.  There are lots of old games that I remember, but have grown hazy as to specific details.  To be honest, it's been so long since I've been to a public library in Indy, that I don't know where and how they keep old archives of the Indy Star or News (yes, children.  There used to be a paper called the Indianapolis News.  I delivered it in elementary school.  Yes, there used to be a thing called a "paper boy", too.  Also, there used to be "newspapers", but that's another topic).  I assume they still have them on microfiche.  The Star online only dates back to 1991, but I need some game info from years 1984-1990 too.

Anyway, if you are interested in helping with the book, email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .  I'm not paying anything other than a thank you in print, a copy of the book (signed no less!  I'll even put on lipstick and kiss it if that's any incentive.  Then again, if that's an incentive for you, I don't know that I'm all that jazzed about working together!), and a letter of recommendation that you were an awesome intern for a "journalistic type project".  On the other hand, I'm not guessing it would take a lot of time either.

Anyway, if you are a high school or college student (or adult with too much time on his or her hands) and want to contribute to what I jokingly refer to as "18to88: the book", drop me a line, and I'll give you more specifics for what I need.

Shutdown Corner on Yahoo.com has arguments for all the MVP candidates.  Personally, I find the guy who wrote the case for Manning to be compelling.  He's an articulate and thoughtful man, that one is.  By the way, the reason I left Chris Johnson off my discussion yesterday is because he isn't a viable candidate.  His team finished just 8-8 and out of the playoffs.  He's a running back in an age when running the ball has little causation on winning.  Offensive Player of the Year?  No question.  MVP?  No chance.

Meanwhile, our old buddy Big Sexy has some thoughts on the playoff format.  There's lots to talk about in his piece, but I found his MVP ballot particularly interesting.

My MVP ballot: 1. Peyton Manning; 2. Philip Rivers; 3. Chris Johnson; 4. Drew Brees; 5. DeSean Jackson.

That’s right. After spending the first half of the season campaigning for Brett Favre, the Minnesota QB didn’t crack my top five. He still had an incredible year. He still proved his critics, including me, wrong. I love watching the dude play.

Wow.  I never saw that coming.  He voted Peyton first AND bailed on Favre?  Whitlock is getting it done.  Now about those Ravens...

You may have noticed that we've been fairly subdued in our trumpeting of Peyton Manning as the NFL MVP this year.  As we've mentioned before, last year the Manning MVP campaign was the emotional highlight of the season.  This year has consistently felt like the best is yet to come, so focusing on a regular season award has seemed unnecessary.

Beyond that, however, I've felt like this season was just 'typical Peyton' rather than 'holy crap Peyton'.  Sure, he's carried the team the way he always does, but 2009 was NOTHING like 2008 where he freaking willed them (along with 98 and 93) to 12 wins with 8 win talent.  Coming off of last year, it's been hard to get too fired about just another "ho hum, he's the best in the league" kind of season.

Now, it's the bye week and there really isn't anything else to talk about, unless you want to discuss the Jets game again...  no?  Nobody?  Are you sure?  Ok then...

So without further ado, here is the case for Peyton Manning as 2010 NFL MVP:

First we begin by defining the debate.

• The award is going to be given to a QB or RB unless 1986 Lawrence Taylor happens to emerge from a time machine.
• The Offensive Player of the Year Award goes to the player with the most outstanding statistics almost every year, so we know there must be a difference between the criteria for MVP and OPY.  The same people are voting on both, and they are often given to different players.  Because almost all MVPs are offensive players, the distinction is more than just OPY is the MVP off offenses, while the MVP can be from defense or special teams.  It doesn't work like that.
• The candidates I've selected were picked because they are the players most likely to get votes.  If you have a serious suggestion I've left off (I mean you honestly believe this guy is the real MVP and should win the award), let me know and I'll break him down too.
• This list is my real opinion and real reasoning.  In the past, I've tried to read the media's mind.  This is what I really think.

1.  Peyton Manning

Pros:  2nd in Completion %, yards, and TDs.

Ultimately, this race comes down to 5 quarterbacks all with similar stats.  Each one is a little better or a little worse in this one or that one.  This rate stat is higher or that volume stat is lower.  I don't think any of the QBs set themselves apart enough to judge the race only on stats.  For me, it comes down to 7 game winning drives in the fourth quarter, and the fact that no team has a bigger drop off from #1 to #2 QB in football than the Colts.  Manning CARRIES the Colts and the city of Indianapolis emotionally in a way that only a few guys in football can match (Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger).  He replaced two of his top receivers from last year on the fly.  He played in the tougher conference and dominated it.  Manning played biggest in the biggest moments and kept his team in every game.  Every time he had the chance to win a game, he pulled it off.  Bill Belichick was so terrified of him that he went for it from his own 28.

At the end of the day, his team never lost when he was in the game in the fourth quarter.

That's an MVP.

Cons: The ONLY knock on Manning this year was the 16 picks.  He threw some bad ones down the stretch.  His first pick of the year almost cost them the Jacksonville game.  Both picks in NE were bad, he had a bad one in Baltimore. There were ducks in the Denver game.  Even that pick in Buffalo last week was ugly (though Tamme fell down on the play).  16 is the 4th highest total in his career and the most since 2002.  It could also easily be argued that this wasn't in his top 5 best seasons.  I would put it behind 2008, 2007, 2004 right off the top of my head.  It's almost identical to 2006.  His defense is way better than people realize.

2.  Drew Brees

Pros:  Best stats in the NFL.  He broke the completion % record, threw the most TD passes, and had the highest rating.  I have zero problem with anyone who voted for Brees.  He was every bit the leader Manning was.

Cons:  That drive at the end of the Dallas game just haunts me.  When it comes to choosing between Manning and Brees this year, we are just splitting hairs after all.  He threw 1 more TD than Manning.  Manning threw for a few more yards.  Brees had a better rating and YPA.  On paper, I cannot argue with Brees as MVP.  The problem is that I keep seeing that final drive against the Cowboys, and I put that up against the fear of Manning in BB's eyes, and I vote Manning.  He's an assassin now.  Brees is still something of an unknown quantity.  He doesn't have that 'been there before glow' to him.  It's an utterly emotional, non-quantitative thing, I know, and I won't put up a fight with anyone who says Brees was the MVP.

3.  Phil Rivers

Pros: Lead the NFL in the most important stat there is:  Yards Per Attempt.  Never had a rating below 80 in any game.  Took a team more one dimensional than the Colts and made them a serious Super Bowl contender. Had a better rating than Manning and fewer picks than Brees.

Cons:  Volume stats were good, but not quite as good the other guys.  He played in a very easy division.  I don't think he carries the city of San Diego on his shoulders at all times the way Brees and Manning do.  In all honestly, there isn't much to say against Rivers.  He had a monster season.  I think he's a notch below the other two men on the list because of the burden they carry for their teams and communities. I know Rivers is a leader in the San Diego locker room, but he doesn't quite have the pressure the others do.

4.  Aaron Rodgers

Pros:  Huge numbers, few picks, team finished hot.  He had a lot of pressure on him this year, and played outstanding football.

Cons:  Played very uneven under heavy duress against the Vikings.  The Packers played the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL (according to Footballoutsiders).

5.  Brett Favre

Pros:  2nd in TDs, 2nd in fewest INTs, 2nd in rating, 3rd in completion %.  He had a huge year and played his best against his old team, which helped seal the division for the Vikings.

Cons:  The MVP doesn't have his coach try to pull him in the 3rd quarter of a meaningful game and then turn the whole thing into a screaming match.  The Vikings also played an easy schedule (4th easiest), and only finished 2 games better with Favre than they did without him last year.

****

I haven't written this column before because it is unsatisfying.  I hate saying, "The stats don't tell the whole story".  It goes against my nature to disbelieve the numbers.  Like I said, Brees has a rock solid case, and Rivers' is respectable as well.  Last year, I would have battled all day for Manning as MVP.  That team was crap without him.  This team would have been crap with Matt Curtis Painter, but perhaps someone like David Garrard could have gotten 10 wins out of it.  Peyton Manning is going to win his fourth MVP award, and it will be well deserved.  In 10 years, some Saints fan will write an angry blog post about how Brees deserved to have won the award, and he'll be right.  I wish the NFL used the 'points voting' system (like MLB).  They only do first place votes however.  It may look like a landslide in the end, but shouldn't be.  It's a close contest.

But the right guy is going to win.

No football column today, at least not right now.

For new readers:  sometimes I review movies.  Why?  People asked me to.  Feel free to check back when football is on the menu. I'm sure it won't be a long wait.

Last night I went to see Avatar at the IMax in Buenos Aires with some friends.

To be 100% honest, I still don't know what to make of it.

My first impression was that I was watching The Empire Strikes Back.  Not because it was good and amazing like the best movie ever was.  It was as if I was watching Big Hollywood fire back at internet pirates everywhere.  Avatar is a movie whose value is entirely wrapped up in the experience of seeing it in 3D on a massive screen.  It is more like an amusement park ride than a movie.  As the images flooded over me, challenging my mind's ability to concentrate on anything plot or story related, I recall wondering to myself, "How could you ever watch this movie on a television set?".  Everything you've heard about the amazing world created by James Cameron is true, to an extent.  While there were parts of the visual experience that felt derivative of the Star Wars Prequels, Terminator films, and a half dozen video games, Cameron did manage to create a world that fooled the eyes into believing...as long as the mind stayed distracted enough not to question the improbability of it all.  The floating mountains, for example, were breath taking, but I found myself annoyed that Cameron made precious little effort to explain why they were floating at all.  Yes, I realize that makes me a huge geek, but good Sci Fi has to either attempt to explain the impossible, or at the very least provide a skeptic with whom the audience can identify.  Too often the world was filled with the impossible and the characters showed remarkably little curiostiy about it.  If they don't care...why should I?

Immediately after seeing the movie, I had a favorable impression of it.  My mind was still on a sensory sugar rush from the experience.  Now, all that springs to mind are the massive problems with the film:

• The dialogue.  No one had ever dare rip George Lucas for 'wooden, cliche ridden' lines again.  He's David F. Mamet compared to Cameron.  Ugh.
• The preachy plot.  The was an hour in the middle where I lost myself in the story and the world.  That's an amazing experience, and I give him credit. However, for too much of the movie, I felt like I was watching Dances With Space Wolves.  District 9 is the perfect example of how to work a metaphor into a sci-fi flick without beating the life out of it.  The metaphor made that movie richer.  The ham-handed attempt to preach about Iraq and the treatment of Native Americans (issues I actually care passionately about) almost ruined the movie.  I wept aloud when I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and even I felt assaulted by the over the top tone of this movie.
• The bad guys with no discernable motives.  There was Military Bad Guy.  He just wanted to kill him some natives.  There was Coorporate Greed Bad Guy.  He just wanted money.  Together they committed unspeakable attrocities on the level of Hitler with no depth, pathos, or explination for their actions.  Horrible, horrible writing.
• The score.  A good score should leave you with the music in your head at the end of the film.  Avatar had the most forgettable music of all time.  Play three bars of most great movie themes, and you can immediately get people to name them.  You could play me the whole sound track of Avatar 12 hours after I watched it, and I still wouldn't be sure it was the music from the movie.  If you are going to spend $500 million on a movie, why not bother to write some decent music for it?  Don't even get me started on the train wreck of a final song at the end. I have no idea what that was that played during the credits, but it caused me pain.
• The MacGuffin:  Unobtanium?  Really?  They didn't even bother to explain why it was so valuable.  They killed scores of people on screen for something that was never explained.  Awful.  People would have burned Lucas at the stake for such a crime.
  

There was a lot of good in the movie as well, perhaps more than I anticipated.

• Cameron created a world I would like to know more about.  I would love to see a movie about first contact with Pandora.  I would have loved more scenes at the end showing the cease-fire negotiations where they escorted the miners off the world.  He created a valuable sci-fi world and some great concepts.  He gets lots of credit in my book for that.
• The animated characters were utterly believable.
• The acting was acceptable whenever the actors were given anything decent to say.
• The middle hour is engrossing
• The plot was essentially sound.  Sure, it relied heavily on borrowed ideas, and wound up with a typical mano a mano fight, but the subject matter was sufficiently epic for the quality and scope of the visuals.

Do I reccommend the movie?  If you can see it in 3D, especially at an IMax theater?  Definitely.  Without question.  You'll get your money's worth.  Our IMax is two hours from my house.  That means I invested roughly 7 hours in seeing this movie.  For the experience of it, it was worth it.

Whatever you do, however, don't rent it from Netflix.  You are better off with Star Trek or District 9.  On a normal TV, it's just another lame space movie.

I've had a great time writing for Cold Hard Football Facts this year, and today marks the final edition of the Monday Morning Hangover column that I contributed to. I want to say thanks to Kerry Byrne for giving me the chance to contribute.  I've paid him back by systmatically ignoring all the snarky stuff he's written about the Colts recently.  I've decided to stop defending this team against every little slight because they are about to shut everyone up once and for all.

Sigh, I wish that were true.

Oh it's true that they'll win it all, but when they do, the media will just find something new to complain about.

Anyway enjoy the last Hangover of the 2009 season.  I'm sure you'll miss such gems as:

The Browns and Jags are like two ships passing in the night, assuming both are the Titanic and their offenses are icebergs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me now present the Main Stream Media award for the most annoying team of 2010:
YOUR....

INDIANAPOLIS....

COOOOOOOOLTS

You see, the Colts violated their solemn pact with the media to provide them story lines. Now that the Colts can't go 16-0, everyone has to wring every last drop out of the story possible because in two weeks it'll be gone.  The Colts have irritated everyone because they accomplished exactly what they wanted:

They are perfectly set up for a Super Bowl run.

Note the things the MSMers say.  First Bob Kravtiz, who chastises the team for playing starters for a quarter yesterday:

Even if this wasn't all about statistics -- and you can still color me dubious, by the way -- why expose Manning, Clark and Wayne to the risk of injury at all? If it didn't make sense to play them one additional series against the Jets, what was the logic behind keeping those players on the field Sunday (and in weather conditions a penguin would find unpalatable)?

Ah, but Master Bob isn't so dense as to miss the other real truth behind the Colts' playing:

Moreover, rust will not be an issue this time. While you might wonder why they played anybody this Sunday -- clearly, I do -- the fact is, they didn't shut it down the way they shut it down completely in 2005.

The offensive starters went more than a half against the Jets and played three series against the Bills. While I question Caldwell's timing, especially in the Jets game, he gets credit for taking a more gradual approach than former coach Tony Dungy did.

For all the madness of the past week or so, the fact remains the Colts have the No. 1 seed and the best opportunity to reach the Super Bowl. When the biggest issue surrounds the health of the kicker -- Adam Vinatieri didn't make this trip -- it's a pretty good sign you're in fine shape heading into the playoffs.

You see, Bob is angry.  The Colts are set up perfectly.  He can whine all he wants about playing for stats, but at the end of the day, he is forced to admit that this team played enough in the final week to take rust out of the equation.  How can any sane person argue that they were just playing for stats while also recognizing that it was a good thing they were playing?  Those irritating Colts!  How dare they execute their strategy to perfection?  How dare they lose to a crappy team who they could well face again in the playoffs just like in 2004?  Boo!  Boo, Colts, boo!

Kravy isn't the only one who is annoyed.  Peter King isn't happy with them either.  He calls them weirdos.  Drops them to second in his rankings behind San Diego (who also benched starters but won because they have a real back up QB).  But at the end of the day, he lists them among the Super Bowl favorites and has to admit:

Now, what I like about the Colts is because they've conserved Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis down the stretch, both should be ready to attack the quarterback in two weeks.

What?  You mean having two elite pass rushers healthy is a good thing? So the very thing you don't like from the 'weirdos' is the very thing you do like.  Gotcha.  I see how that works.

Today, everyone woke up, looked at the bracket and said, "Damn.  The Colts are going to the AFC Championship game where they'll play at home."   In a couple of weeks they are going to realize that Indy has been among the most beat up clubs all year long, but is finally going to be healthy...just in time for the playoffs.  Tim Jennings won't be covering Vincent Jackson on a key third down.  Raheem Brock won't be huffing and puffing after Mark Sanchez or Carson Palmer.  This team is stacked and loaded for bear.

No matter how bad anyone in the media (or on blogs) wants the Colts' brass to look bad for their choices, the unquestionable truth is this:

Indy is right where they want to be.

They are healthy.

They are at home.

They have a manageable draw in a conference with only one other serious contender.

The Colts and Chargers will likely play for the right to go to the Super Bowl and when that day comes momentum won't matter.  Records won't matter.  History won't matter.  It will make no difference that Billy Volek beat the Redskins and Curtis Painter couldn't beat the Bills.

There won't be any curses or hoodoo deciding the game. It will be about which team is better and which team gets the breaks.

The Colts are going to the Super Bowl.

And the country is already pissed about it.

A funny thing happened yesterday in the NFL, everyone lost momentum.

The Chargers still have it, thanks to Billy Volek.  But they almost lost it.

The Colts and Saints waived good bye to it a long time ago.

The Cardinals don't have it, but they claim to not need it.

I'm hazy as to whether the Vikings have it or not.  Yes, they lost three of their last five, but they had a blow out win to close the season.  Does that qualify as getting it back?

The hottest team in the NFC going into yesterday was the Eagles who had won 6 in a row.  But then they lost.  Now they've still won 4 of their last 5, so I'm confused as to whether or not they have it.

DALLAS!  The Cowboys have it, right?  They won their last three. Ah, but they are just 3-2 in their last five, and the numbers show that going back to 1979, that's not hot 'enough'.

Green Bay.  That's an easy one.  They won their last game AND won 4 of 5.  They'll cruise to Miami, I'm sure.

The Patriots don't have it obviously.  Yesterday people were saying to watch out for them, but they lost their last game (and some inconsequential WR), so we can't take them seriously.  By the way, did anyone stop to notice that they won more games with Matt Cassel last year than with Tom Brady this year?

The Pats are playing the Ravens in the first round, who like the Pats, won just three of their last five, but they won the last game, so you have to think they have the momentum going in.  Momentum is, of course, more important than matchups and players.

The Bengals clearly don't have it.  They got blown out in the last game and lost three of their last five.  They are no match for the mighty Jets whose two game win streak towers as the second longest in the AFC playoffs.

So here's the definitive momentum list:

Have it: Chargers, Packers

Don't have it: Colts, Saints, Bengals

Had it, but lost it: Eagles

Lost it, but found it:  Vikings

Don't need it: Cardinals

Could have had it, but it blew out its knee: Patriots

Depends entirely on how you define it:  Ravens, Jets, Cowboys

Losses by the Jags and Pats and a win by Pittsburgh mean that Colts' fans who want the Steelers and Texans out of the playoffs need to root FOR Denver, Baltimore and the Jets.

A Denver, Baltimore, or Jets win eliminates the Steelers completely.

If the Ravens and Jets both win, the Ravens are the 5 and will play AT Cincy and the Jets would play AT New England. The Ravens would play at NE and the Jets would be the 5 and play at Cincy.

The best case scenario for the Colts would be a Denver win, a Jets win, and a Baltimore loss. That would send the Jets to New England and Denver to Cincinnati.  It would accomplish our dream scenario of the worst teams making the playoffs and the Pats getting the three seed.

Really, everything depends on the Jets game.  That would now officially give NE the three seed.

Perhaps no one in the NFL had as good a day as Bill Polian had on Sunday.

First, a blizzard sent on Buffalo, ensuring that even if the Colts HAD been 15-0, no fan in their right mind would have wanted the starters to play the whole game.

Then, Wes Welker blew out a knee in Houston (see!  Injuries happen in the NFL).

Now, neither of those two events excuse what happened last week at the Luke.  It was all handled badly and insensitively, and nothing that happened today alters that.  It does take the "what ifs" out of the equation.  What if the Colts had won the Jets game?  They would have done the same exact thing they did today.

There are three key issues to talk about in this game:

1.  This is not 2005.  In 2005, the Colts starters played just three series in the final two games.  Manning threw just 14 passes.  The Colts offense had just 3 points.

This year, the Colts clearly put more of an emphasis on keeping some semblance of rhythm.  The Colts starters played 9 drives.  Manning threw 39 passes.  The starting offense put up three touchdowns and a field goal in those drives.  This is a better, more sound method of resting guys.  It made a lot of sense to play the starters a full quarter, and I think that if the weather had been better, it would have been nice to see them play a half today.  In 2005, the Colts starting offense went nearly a month without mounting a touchdown drive.  This year, we managed a touchdown in the final game against a good passing defense in a snow storm.  The 2005 Colts played the offensive equivalent of one quarter over the final two weeks.  The 2009 Colts played the equivalent of a full game.

2.  Playing the starters one quarter is the right move.  Stop worrying about the logic of it compared to last week.  It's the right move. It kept the offense in sync.  Clark and Wayne got their numbers without ever putting themselves or Manning in serious danger.  More importantly, the Colts offense showed that it can still move the ball effectively and get points.  We can argue all day about whether 16-0 should have been more important to the Colts than it was, but no one should argue that milestones for the players isn't important.  They do matter.  They should matter.  Two wrongs doesn't make a right.  Pulling the starters in the Jets game was a mistake.  Playing them today wasn't.

3.  Indy needs to sign a second quarterback NOW. Look, God forbid anything happens to Peyton, but let's say he does get hurt with a two TD lead in the third quarter of the Super Bowl.  Curtis Painter would find a way to lose that that game.  In two games he is 8 for 28 with a passer rating of 9.8.  Oh, he also lost two fumbles.  Don't give me that "he played in the snow" crap either.  So did Ryan Freaking Fitzpatrick.  He completed 16 passes for three TDs.  Painter is NOT an NFL QB.  The Colts should sign ANYONE.  Isn't Jeff Garcia around?  Anyone?  They cannot let everything ride on Painter. He may be the worst player currently employed in the NFL.  We need some kind of backup plan that doesn't involve a guy with a career passer rating under 10.