Find Better Eggs Benedict than Little Pete's And I'll Give You A Dollar

Last month, I was at the Brooklyn Inn on Hoyt Street and I overheard someone say they’d been to nearby Prime Meats earlier that day for brunch and had eaten the best Eggs Benedict ever. I laughed, I cried, and I hurled on her.

Not really. But I had to investigate. I didn’t even know her, but I had to walk over to her little group and ask her how it’s even possible. I had to ask her the question that anyone who thinks they’ve had the best Eggs Benedict must be asked: Have you been to Little Pete’s in Philly? She hadn’t. Poor girl.

That’s the thing. You think you’ve had great Eggs Benedict, and you probably have. I mean, some people do it with salmon, or do other dirty things to that little English Muffin (by the way, did you hear this guy's story about the secret Thomas's Nooks and Crannies). When I was in Austin, Texas, Magnolia Café (their sign says “Sorry – We’re Open”) had this amazing take on E.B. called eggs zapatino, a fabbo confabulation of scrambled eggs and queso, and while getting the sliced ham is extra, it’s still less than $8.

Enough about that. Little Pete’s. Their take on Eggs Benedict (look at that picture and drool on yourself, I just did) is to put two English Muffins at the bottom of their own little dish, and build on that foundation with perfectly poached eggs, and a definitely hard-to-cut (who cares?) coupla slices of country ham, and then a bucketload of hollandaise sauce and some kind of cheesy topping that gets bubbly, brown, and seriously, just look at it? How the hell are you ever going to top that? I think it has less than 3,400 calories too. So it's HEALTHY!

Maybe it can happen. Maybe someone can top that. Eggs Benedict, at his core, is an elegant dish. It’s hard to do really well, I mean I love the Red Lion Inn in the Berkshires but theirs are just average and kind of weird. Cooking with hollandaise sauce involves doing good things with uncooked egg yolks, and that's not easy. And Canadian Bacon alone would be. Well. It's just Canadian (although in Canada, it's just called "bacon," and they have something else called "Canadian back bacon" - and I think they call it something called peameal or something too - that's even worse). The point is, it's Canadian. And that's FINE. Not that there's anything WRONG with Sidney Crosby.

So basically, I’m just going to give you an order. I don’t care how the Eggs Benedict is at the Waldorf, or the Palm, or Prime Meats, or wherever. The E.B. argument starts with Little Pete’s, and until someone proves otherwise, it ends there too. Go there.

And P.S. The place is in a good ‘hood in Philly, but it's a crampitated little 24-hour diner. And don’t order anything else for breakfast. Don’t share the omelettes (I’m not saying that they’re bad), don’t get French Toast. Don’t be a stupid idiot. Get the Eggs Benedict and thank me. Don't be a traitor. Benedict.

And if you find ones that are better, challenge me on this. Seriously. Do it. We'll go together. I'll buy (if they're not expensive.)

Perfection Ratings: Eggs Benedict at Little Pete's in Philly (the one on S 17th St)

What’s Closest to Perfect? The little dish, the sauce, the bubbly topping, the meat, the eggs, the friggin EVERYTHING.

What’s Furthest From Perfect? The meat is hard to cut, even with that flimsy steak knife they give you.

How’s the atmosphere? The booths are too small, the place is cramped, the waitresses are curt but friendly, and the taskmaster that runs the place and seats you has the most perfect mustache since Keith Hernandez.

Does my search for Eggs Benedict perfection end or continue: I'm skeptical that anyone can do this dish better.

Motorino and My Four Tenets of Pizzaness

Motorino Pizza - 319 Graham Avenue, Williamsburg, Brooklyn. 718-599-8899

After watching Spain destroy the Dutch , 1-0, in the highest scoring sporting event in history (clearly I wrote this entry months ago), Danielle and I walked from Matt Torrey’s elegantish sports bar to the Williamsburg version of Mathieu Palombino's Motorino for some pizza. We sat right by their oven, one of those giant brick ones with wood inside it. You can like, see the fire. It was burning.

We ordered a tomato salad (amazingly fresh slices of yellow and red tomatoes salted properly, with fresh basil laying on them and a bit of olive oil drizzled in good proportion. Not drenched.)

For pizza, we ordered the 14-incher with the fresh, buffalo mozzarella, figuring it would be just big enough. It definitely was. (That's what SHE said.)

Here’s the thing about this pizza: It had that burnt look and taste, which I love, but Danielle doesn’t. A lot of people don’t love it, in fact, and I have to admit that the burntness overpowered everything just a smidgen too much, even for my perfect taste buds. I noticed other pizzas coming out of the oven were charred relatively similarly. I wouldn’t call these pizzas your basic thin crusters because the edge of the crust had gigantic bubbles, something you won’t always get at John’s, Lombardi’s, Grimaldi’s, Patsy’s, or any of those other thin slice havens. There was, in general, more crust on Motorino’s pizza (a little like Lucali, which I'll post about soon).

The pie is cut into four gigantic slices (As shown in this photo of the pepperoni pie I stole from Motorino's Web site) and let me tell you, the cheese was so so so fresh that I don’t know I’ve ever had better cheese on a pizza in my life. That’s how good it was.

The sauce – and I’m a believer that if your pizza is good, you don’t need a lot of sauce – was JUST enough. It didn’t overpower the cheese, and it shouldn’t have. The obvious leaves of fresh basil made for quite an excellent coupla slices. Also, one thing that even some great pizza places do horribly is not know how to perfectly salt the top of the crust – the part not covered by cheese or sauce – with REALLY GOOD salt. No such problem at Motorino. It was salted wonderfully.

Real quick, for the sake of this blog that will probably have more than one posting about pizza, I must announce my four tenets of pizzaness. If you find yourself disagreeing with me for some reason, maybe this can be a guide as to why:

1. Pizza in New York is like sex anywhere: Even when it’s bad, it’s good. It’s tough to get a really bad grade on pizza even if you’re Famous Semi-Original Ray’s On 84th Street. That’s what makes it perhaps the toughest food to analyze. It’s something that can be done reasonably well by anyone – I can make good-tasting pizza four different ways in my own regular oven – but exceptionally well by only a few. You remember great sex, and you remember great pizza.

2. If I’m ordering pizza from a reasonably prominent place, I’m always going to try their most basic pie first. That’s the only way to go. Things like sausage or pepperoni or even fresh vegetables can skew the taste – good or bad – and I don’t want that. It’s the pizza, stupid.

3. Too much sauce on pizza, or any Italian food in general, is a sign of some sort of over-compensation, like blindly pouring buckets of parmesan cheese on everything from your stromboli to your wine glass. Socially awkward people want to seem more comfortable to others. So they drown themselves in the sauce. Subpar pizzas try not to show off their bubbly little warts, either. So they too drown themselves in the sauce.

4. The same goes for too much cheese, too much of a garlic taste (I love garlic, but not so much garlic that I can’t kiss anyone for 7 months.).

Perfection Ratings: Motorino

What’s Closest to Perfect? The cheese, the sauce/cheese proportion.

What’s Furthest From Perfect? Just a bit too burnt of a flavor, overpowers some of the good things about the pie.

How’s the atmosphere? It’s airy, and windowy, and you can see the oven, there’s a modern-looking bar. A big loud family came when we were about to leave, and they just set up one gigantic long table and accommodated them well. There’s also a big chalkboard with the beer list, which has some great local brews from Red Hook, etc. I like chalkboards.

Does my search for the perfect pizza end or continue? continues

Jesus Probably Made Perfect Rice Balls

The rice ball parm from L & B Spumoni Gardens in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. Umm. Yeah. It's THAT good that it gets mentioned in the same post as Jesus.

“Nothing is perfect in life, Joseph. Except for Jesus. Jesus is perfect.” – My Mom, circa every single day, 1987-1999

For years, I’ve been trying to find out if my mother was wrong when she told me that. So far, she’s right. I’m always obsessively looking for the perfect slice of pizza, the perfect dive bar, the perfect buffalo wing, the perfect recipe to make perfect macaroni and cheese.

And you know what? I never ever ever ever effin’ find it. It’s often good, but it’s never perfect. So here, on I’ll Take The Check, I’m going to take you through my culinary and alcoholly search for perfection. My job isn’t to tell you how to make reservations or whether the restaurant is good for groups or if you can take your disgusting, smelly dog without getting kicked out. It’s to specifically tell you what’s perfect about a certain food or establishment, and why I still need to search more.

Quick disclaimer: My correct idea of what makes food taste perfect might be different from your incorrect tastes. I’ll try to be specific enough to sort out our differences.

Super Bowl Pick, 2010

Record for the playoffs: 5-5
Record against the spread: 5-5

Colts vs. Saints, Sunday at 6:25 p.m. (Colts favoured by 4.5)

This isn't going to be a blowout. If you think it's going to be a blowout, you probably shouldn't even watch the game. Actually, that's mean. You should watch the game. The reason I know it's not going to be a blowout is that the Colts aren't really a team that blows everyone out. They had a stretch early in the season where they blew everyone out, but now they just win. Which is fine. I'm going to make a wishy washy prediction in this one. I think the Saints are going to be inventive, and Sean Payton is going to call a quadruple reverse flea flicker early in the game, and the Colts are going to get into trouble. The problem for the Saints is, they're playing against Peyton Manning. And he's good at getting out of trouble. This game comes down to a final drive, with the Saints up 34-31, and Peyton Manning sticks it in to win. That's what she said. And that's what happens here.
Colts 38, Saints 34

Playoff Picks, Conference Title Games, 2010

Record for the playoffs: 5-3
Record against the spread: 5-3

Jets at Colts, Saturday at 3 p.m. (Colts favoured by 8)

I'm really tempted be the only person in the world who actually picks the JETS to win by MORE THAN A TOUCHDOWN, but that sounds silly. I think the Jets are going to win, not because of any numbers that exist that say "Mark Sanchez will beat Peyton Manning with a Super Bowl berth on the line," or even any numbers that suggest the Jets are better than the Colts in any other way. Sure, they have the defense, the running game, the Revis factor. But an intelligent analysis of this game should point you to a Colts pick. The thing is, I'm against intelligent analysis. The last five years of NFL football have taught me that intelligent and rational don't always win. In fact, I think unintelligent and irrational might even win more often. So here's what I think is going to happen in this game:

I think the Jets are going to figure out ways to cover the Colts' receivers (sure, whomever Revis covers is going to be stopped, but the Jets have to worry about all of Manning's other options. They're weakish at safety, but because of the Colts inability to consistently run the ball, the Jets will be able to be creative with the way they cover.) I dont' see any way that the Jets are going to get consistent pressure on Manning, but they should get SOME. They should move him around a little. And he's going to make some mistakes. There are going to be some disguised coverages, maybe the Jets will be fortunate on a few of those crazy safety blitzes. The Jets will win this game if it's ugly, and I think they're going to get it ugly. That's not to say the Colts can't win a game like that. They totally can. And they kind of did last week. But not this week. Sometimes, destiny and all those crappy cliches defy anything we can actually see on paper. Let's just say I think the Jets will get all their big wishes: The game will be played in the high teens and low 20s, Manning will make at least three mistakes, and - perhaps most importantly - the Colts will get more field goals than touchdowns.

Sanchez will make one play downfield, maybe two. And that will be enough with the Jets running game. I don't know why, but it will. Just trust me on this one.
Jets 23, Colts 16



Vikings at Saints, Saturday at 6:40 p.m. (Saints favoured by 3.5)

In my highly expert opinion, gained from spending all my time hanging out with the teams, going to practices, talking to the head coaches, I think this game will go in one of two directions: Either Brett Favre: Mistake Maker will return to the field, with the Saints hawking balls and taking advantage of the turnovers with touchdowns, or Jared Allen of the Vikings will physically and emotionally abuse Saints' left tackle Jermon Bushrod and get plenty of hits on Drew Brees. That's right. We know about these teams' offenses, but I think this one comes down to defense. It won't be a Green Bay/Arizona style shootout. It will instead be a game where one of the defenses makes plays, and the other one doesn't (or maybe both make a few plays.) In the end, I think it's the Vikings getting pressure on Brees, to the point where the Saints can't get into the 30s. When they don't have rhythm, they're in trouble. And I think this week, they are.

One thing is certain: The "coolest" Super Bowl storyline NEVER pans out (the battle of Pennsylvania last year, Undefeated Brady vs. Legendary Favre in Super Bowl XLII, Peyton Manning vs. the rejuvenated but still troubled city of New Orleans three years ago). This year, the coolest storyline would be Manning vs. Favre, two legendary quarterbacks playing each other with the winner getting his second Super Bowl title, putting himself in the same sentence as Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, and all those other guys (there aren't many.) Let's settle for the second best storyline, the Jets vs. the Vikings with Favre playing against the team with whom he had a forgettable one-year cameo, but still was able to get the coach fired and change the organisation. I'll take it.
Vikings 30, Saints 20

Playoff Picks, Divisional Playoffs, 2010

Record for the playoffs: 2-2
Record against the spread: 2-2

Cardinals at Saints, Saturday at 4:30 p.m. (Saints favoured by 7)

I think it's in Bill Simmons's original playoff gambling manifesto that you shouldn't pick an underdog unless you think they can win outright. Well, I DO think the Cardinals have a SHOT to win outright, and I also think that seven points is entirely too high a number in this game. I was under the impression that the Cardinals made the Super Bowl last year and that the Saints are trying to become the first team in history to LOSE their last THREE games of the season and STILL win the Super Bowl. So you think I'm going with the Cards now, don't you? I just can't do it. I'm sorry. I just can't.

Obviously, everyone is saying this game is a shootout (the over/under is like 56.5 or something), but I actually look at it differently. I think it's clear that both teams are going to score SOME points, but the Saints are No. 1 in the league in both yards and points. The Cardinals are barely in the top half in yardage, and like No. 11 or something in points scored. Both teams are at their best when they're rushing the passer. The Cardinals had more sacks during the year, but the Saints aren't bad at getting a little pressure on people. I think that for whatever reason, one of these teams is going to win the game because they applied a TON more pressure on the opposing quarterback than the other. I'm talking, one team gets five sacks the other gets two. Or something. And I really do believe that it's going to be the Saints hurrying Kurt Warner into a few mistakes, and pounding him a bit. Here's why:

The Saints are somehow - even after the 13-3 season - the team that NOBODY believes in. I know I'm hacking from Simmons here, but that's a key in 2010 playoff football. The Cardinals have become the team that "can definitely do it," and the Saints are the team that definitely can't. Motivation-wise, the Cardinals are already proven now. Their Super Bowl appearance wasn't a fluke, everyone thinks they can go back actually. And they definitely are talented enough. But not today.

Oh, and speaking of playoff gambling manifestos, I've come up with a new one: Don't pick an underdog to cover. Just pick a winner. I can only think of a few playoff games recently where the favourite WON but DIDN'T cover. I'm not looking this up, but how come my record against the spread is always the same as my record? So if I think the Saints are going to win the game, I have to put a number on the margin that's bigger than seven. Which I feel good about. This is the game I'm most confident in this weekend.
Saints 30, Cards 20



Ravens at Colts, Saturday at 8 p.m. (Colts favoured by 6.5)

I remember reading a Tony Dungy quote once where he said something like, "We don't care who it is or where we are or what the situation is, we feel like we can move the ball on anyone." Peyton Manning still plays for the Colts, so despite how awesome the Ravens defense can be and was last week, it's not awesome enough in Indianapolis. Peyton rarely gets touched, which wouldn't be such a problem if the Ravens had a healthy and complete secondary. But they won't. They might get stopped for field goals in this game, but they'll put up enough points. The Ravens are going to need big plays from Joe Flacco, and I've heard reports about his hip injury ranging from "he's fine," to "they considered euthanising him during the plane ride to Indianapolis." I'm sure the real answer is somewhere in between, but I don't think his health would swing this game in either direction. If his mobility is hindered, that could lead to some sacks and mistakes. So maybe we'll make it a 10-point win for the Colts instead of my original gut, which was about 7.
Colts 23, Ravens 13



Cowboys at Vikings, Saturday at 1 p.m. (Vikings favoured by 2.5)

Most people say this is the toughest game to predict this weekend, but I say it's actually the easiest. The Vikings are playing against the hottest team in the NFC, and Brett Favre hasn't had one "Bad Favre" game yet. That's actually BAD. It's the playoffs. That's when he pulls out some of those legendarily bad games. (playoff games since 2001: 14 TD, 16 INT.) Dallas is one of the worst teams in the league at intercepting the ball, but I say they get a few tomorrow. Not because they suddenly become ballhawks, but because Favre returns to his usual playoff gunslinging ways after the Vikes fall behind. Nobody pushes the panic button faster than Favre. And nobody will ever call Tony Romo a "small" big-game player after these playoffs.
Cowboys 31, Vikings 17.



Jets at Chargers, Sunday at 4:30 p.m. (Chargers favoured by 7)

The spread on this game has come down two points this week. Why? Not because people think the Jets are going to win, but because they just don't see the Chargers blowing the Jets out. And that's smart gambling. The Chargers AREN'T going to blow the Jets out. There are about four different ways this game could play out, and only one way I see the Chargers winning by more than two touchdowns. That's the "Chargers go up 14-0 early" scenario. If that happens - if Philip Rivers drives them down the field for two early scores, or worse yet, Mark Sanchez does something dumb in the first quarter - it could get really ugly really fast.

So the Jets need to MAKE SURE that they don't get behind big early (this may sound obvious). They need to think of the first quarter as "let's survive, even if we get knocked down a few times, we CANNOT get knocked out." That's all up to the coaches and their gameplan. So scenario 2 is the Jets down by seven, or even (GASP) 10 by halftime, they have a legit shot at - with the help of their defense - getting a score to make it a 4 point game or whatever, and playing good enough defense the rest of the way to get a legit 2-minute drill at the end (where Sanchez is going to have to actually do quarterbacky things to win the game. Maybe they get a break.).

The third scenario is that the Jets do what the Giants did to the Pats in Super Bowl XLII, which is start out with a really long, methodical, manageable third down opening drive and take an early lead - even if only by a field goal - so that the worst-case scenario is that they're down like 7-3 after the first quarter. That's kind of a corollary to the "don't get knocked out early," scenario, but with a little bit more of Jets proactiveness.

The fourth scenario - and the one that I'm betting on here - is that the Jets do something crazy early that shocks the Chargers. I'm thinking it's going to be a flea flicker or other sort of long pass - one that Braylon Edwards ACTUALLY catches - but it could just as easily be a sack of Rivers that causes a fumble and Jet return for touchdown. An early big punch, and maybe a bit of panic by the Chargers. San Diego's inability to run could hurt in this game, because I think it means the Jets can concentrate more on coverage (I still don't know how they'll cover Antonio Gates, but whatevs.)

So anyway, I'm saying the Jets go up 10-0 early or something, and then the Chargers get a few shots in, but it ends up with a Phil Rivers 2-minute drill to try and win the game. And as it's done so much recently, the Jets' defense makes a play to put away the game, and a possible miracle run continues. So there's your big shocker...
Jets 19, Chargers 17.

Playoff Picks, Wild Card Weekend, 2010

I'm useless when it comes to actually blogging about baseball during the regular season, but one thing I can commit to is making my NFL playoff picks right here for YOU.

It's a mad crazy Wild Card Weekend. None of the games have point spreads above four points, and three of them are rematches of games played last week! How often has that happened?

What makes the game so difficult to predict, this year in particular, is we all go in with our "macro" idea of what might happen in the playoffs. "I can see this team winning it all," or "they have no shot." And every year, there seems to be one game in the Wild Card round that can blow up an entire thesis. Last year, it was the Chargers and the Colts in the first round. The last team to get the ball was going to win, and be in position to at least be threatening in the playoffs. The Chargers won a coin toss in overtime, and so they were the team.

This year, I feel like all the games are kind of like that. And that scares me. I'm afraid to leave my house. Not because I live in Bed-Stuy. It's really nice here, actually. You should totally come visit.

Here are my picks. I got the lines from "America's Line," because that's who the New York Daily News used to use when I first started understanding sports gambling, roughly 23 years ago.


Jets at Bengals, Saturday at 4:30 p.m. (Bengals favoured by 1)

I'm a believer in the "Jets can go all the way" theory. I don't know where it started - oh wait, yeah I do, it started in their pompous little locker room - but it makes sense. They run the ball well, have a great offensive line, and a scary-good defense. It really is an amazing defense. It's not easy to lead the league in both point AND yardage prevention. I'm also NOT a believer in the Bengals. I'm really not. They play much better defense than they used to, but I'm sorry, you need SOME sort of identity on offense other than, "well, we play good defense so, let me get out this little handbook to see what type of offense we're supposed to have, ok, page 242, oh, alright, we're supposed to have a good RUNNING game even though our personnel is much more geared toward passing." You might tell me that only four teams in the playoffs ran for more yards this year, but at what cost? Only six teams in the ENTIRE LEAGUE passed for fewer yards this year. SIX teams. Carson Palmer is their quarterback. Carson PALMER. He's good. Like top 10 in the league good. And they don't let him do crap. (I don't count last week's 37-0 loss to the Jets at all, nobody cares.

At some point in the playoffs, the Jets are going to be behind late or tied or something and they're going to need a big drive from Mark Sanchez (complete with actual downfield passes) and that's how they're going to lose. It will probably be in the second round. But not this week. Definitely not this week. Also, this game is going to have the aesthetic beauty of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Jets 13, Bengals 10.

Eagles at Cowboys, Saturday at 8 p.m. (Cowboys favoured by 4)

All week, I've thought of this as an impossible game to pick. It really is. It's easy to say the Eagles were the hottest team in the NFC until they lost to the Cowboys in Week 17, and now the Cowboys have trumped them. And I never realised how incredible the Cowboys' defense has been. They don't really get beaten badly on the run or the pass (they're better against the run), and they did this really important thing during the season, which is outscore their opponents by a lot. I believe in Tony Romo. I don't think he's a choke artist, I think he's getting better in clutch situations and that will only continue throughout his career. It was puzzling how badly Dallas beat the Eagles last week, puzzling to the point where Andy Reid is probably embarrassed. Say what you want about Reid, but have you ever seen a team of his basically not show up two straight weeks? Plus, they DID show up last week, they just had some bad breaks early on that wound up snowballing like McNabb missing DeSean Jackson on a bomb and one of the other receivers dropping a key third down pass. The Cowboys, after that, destroyed the Eagles. Which is why the spread is four points. And I actually think the Cowboys are slightly better than the Eagles. It's just that I think the Eagles are going to make those plays early in the game that they didn't make last week. And THEY'RE going to be the ones that grab an early lead. And THEY'RE going to be the one that wins this game. PS: The winner of this game might go to the Super Bowl. Pass it on...
Eagles 31, Cowboys 21.


Ravens at Patriots, Sunday at 1 p.m. (Pats favoured by 3.5)

Wow. I really don't care about this game at all. I don't think this whole Wes Welker thing is really a big deal. He only catches like 44 passes A GAME. More concerning to the Patriots, perhaps, is the fact that Tom Brady apparently has an injury on the hand that he throws with. Those aren't good for quarterbacks, since most of them throw with their throwing hand (94% according to Elias Sports Bureau.). None of this really matters, the biggest concern in this game is that it doesn't make any sense that the Ravens would come in and win this game. They obviously have a good defense, but it's better at stopping the run and not AS good against the pass. Brady will find people, the Ravens will make like two mistakes, and this boring game will be a ho-hum win for the home team, the first game of the weekend that the home team actually wins.
Pats 24, Balt 14.


Packers at Cardinals (Pack favoured by 1)

The spread on this game has changed (the Cards were originally favoured, actually), but the Pack's blowout win in a "who cares" game last week plus the uncertain status of Anquan Boldin apparently changed the point spread. I like the Packers, I do. This isn't a game where I should even bother looking at the numbers (actually I just did, the Packers are MUCH better statistically than the Cards). This is one of those things that numbers don't explain. Certain things smell bad. Here is what I wrote about the Cards' wild card game last year (remember, they ended up going to the Super Bowl.)

"Okay, so the Cardinals are not just the worst team in the playoffs statistically, but they’re the worst unstatistically. They’re playing like garbage, they’re soft, they’re everything you don’t want to bet on in an NFL playoff game. It doesn’t matter though. One home team has to win this weekend – it’s impossible for all road teams to win – and so that’s really the only reason I’m going with Arizona."

I then WANTED to pick them in their next game, but I couldn't do it. My point isn't that I'm a genius (you already knew that), it's that when everyone goes against a team, I mean EVERYONE, they're ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS wrong. Plus, why is the team that snuck into the Super Bowl last year with an insane run through the NFC Playoffs being forgotten about again? Why? Why would we do that? That whole "history repeats itself" argument should NOT be valid the YEAR AFTER a run like that. It would be like banks giving 2007-sized bonuses to their employees ONE YEAR after the worst financial meltdown in decades. Oh, wait...
Cards 31, Packers 27