I always thought the Colts game was a bonus. The Pats had no business beating SD. Courage and pluckiness and "knowing how to win" are only good for one SB every 20 years or so. We got ours that way in 01. The rest you have to be deeper (or healthier, same diff) to go all the way.
The way we lost was not odd or crushing. It was a tired team, going down valiantly without enough depth to hang on for another quarter on D, or to make one or two key plays on O to seal the game. If we had won, it would have been the second game in a row we had no business winning.
Not that I've watched the game since it happened, but still it seems fitting. The 2004 SB is that much more impressive when you consider we beat the 2005 SB and 2006 SB champs back to back.
I simply refuse to fall into the trap that pundits put out there about "having what it takes" or "not having it what it takes." It's like fame, undeserved when you get it, and fleeting once the next starlet comes along. The Steelers were supposedly too conservative under Cowher, the Colts too nice under Dungy or stuck with Manning in big games, while the Pats supposedly had some mysterious ingredient. All was and is crap. All three of these teams are simply great powers with different strengths and weaknesses knocking each other around from year to year. It makes sense that ups and downs will occur in terms of who comes out on top. It also makes sense that the franchise we all think is better would be up 3-1 over both of them in these recent years, and not be up 5-0. Even Tiger Woods loses two or three majors every year.
