.jpg)
First -- congratulations to the World Champion Green Bay Packers!
Second -- congratulations to the officials -- no obvious and major screw ups. Nice to see it can be done still.
Third -- The Game was over, with the half time show, and the extra commercials, by 10:06 -- that is 3:37 minutes. NOW -- can the NFL do that when there ISN'T enormous pressure from Fox to get Glee on during sweeps? Don't believe me -- watch how quick they get out of the postgame crap that no one really cares about (I am writing immediately following the game).
Four -- The Weis Guy posted this as his status at the game's end -- and I think he has it EXACTLY right -- Did Green Bay win? Or did Pittsburgh lose? I think a STRONG case can be made that it was the latter. They did nothing to force Green Bay to even pretend to run the ball, and even though the run was working, they got away from it way too quickly to force Green Bay. In a game in which they could and should have dictated, they appeared not to be prepared. The "experience factor"? I think it made Pittsburgh overconfident. Doesn't matter how many guys with microphones and vested interests say it was a great game -- only by the low standard set by previous Roman Numeral Fests could that even been claimed with a straight face....
Five -- To help prove my point above -- who deserved to be the MVP of this game? For my money, Hines Ward may have been the best performer on the field. Jimmy Johnson just called Aaron Rodgers "outstanding." What game was he watching? 300 + yards passing means NOTHING in a game where your offense rushes only 10 times! Of course Rodgers will win it (again, writing BEFORE the announcement!) -- just not sure it is deserved. And, is he REALLY a better QB tonight than he was this afternoon?! 24-39, 304 yards, 3 TDs? Sure, that equates to a decent passer rating, but mostly because the equation grossly overvalues a high TD to INT ratio. 62% completion percentage? Nice, not spectacular (and only 2 of those "drops" had to be caught!). Less than 8 yards per attempt? Nice, not spectacular. 12.5 yds per completion? Nice, NOT spectacular. In other words -- he played well -- NOT great!
Six -- How many HUGE plays did Green Bay get off of the ridiculous overload blitz that Capers drew up? It was clear that Green Bay had that one solved the first time, yet I saw it backfire at least twice more. In critical moments. Again -- won or lost? Again -- QBs' doing? Or lack of preparation and overconfidence?
Seven -- turnovers, turnovers, turnovers. Pittsburgh made them, 2 of them EXTREMELY poorly -- and what a coincidence, but BOTH led to Green Bay touchdowns. Green Bay did not. Roethlisberger did not acquit himself well, and lost (anyone else bracing for the "disclosure" of how badly he was hurt in this game?). Is he a worse QB tonight than he was this afternoon? And does something that has little to do with the offense at all make Rodgers a better leader or quarterback? Sure, he led them to the scores to convert those TOs into points, but where would they have been without the TOs???
Eighth -- I KNOW football is a contact sport. It IS physical. These ARE two physical teams. BUT -- why did it seem like there were too many injuries occurring because of contact with -- the turf? There were more such injuries in this game -- on the golden field, with the roof closed, than in that ill-fated outdoor game in Minnesota!
Ninth -- Can the NFL now avoid the disaster of a lock-out or strike? And please, oh please, oh please, can we fix the officiating for next season? See my pre-game rant about the axiomatic truth of the value of a running game. Not completely disproven here -- mostly for Pittsburgh's failures on both sides of the ball to make this a game about the run. But still, dealt a serious blow -- and I believe the rules are to blame.
Tenth -- I NEVER want to hear ANY other fans -- especially Ravens' fans -- EVER complain again that Pittsburgh ALWAYS gets the calls when they need them. Period!
Post-script #1 -- I agree with LP -- musically, I was unimpressed with the Black Eyed Peas. I knew I would be -- theirs is not my music, and my younger friends tell me they are terrible live. But for entertainment value? Wow -- Sir Paul rocked us, and saved the NFL's keister for running after "Nipple-Gate". But NO ONE has ever used the massiveness of the stage at half time better than what I saw tonight. I have NO idea what show everyone on Facebook was watching that hated it....
Post-script #2 -- Likewise, I was generally impressed with the commercials... the excellence and cleverness, and actually some intelligent advertising essentials far outweighed the poor efforts -- been a while since that was true.
And the last two words -- Brett who???
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Thoughts in Advance of the Super Bowl (tm) XLV (really!?)
1. I just hope it is a good game. Too often they are not. And, for all my griping about the impotence and incapability of officials, and the stupid over-officiousness of the NFL in particular, I hope the game is won, or lost, on the field, by the players. Not by some arcane and ridiculous interpretation of a rule, a missed call, or, as last year, the callous exploitation of the uncertainty and chaos of a pile-on for a loose ball.
2. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- as Rick Reilly so eloquently pointed out, in most fundamental ways, there is little distinguishing these two teams from each other. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- in a league that prides itself on parity, almost to the point of parody, what does the winner of this game really prove, beyond that they won the 3 or 4 games needed to get to that point. By any reasonable measurement of the regular season, neither of these teams was the best in their conference -- and adding 2 more games to the regular season will NOT make the football season any more relevant in determining its ultimate champion!
3. Can we PLEASE get some common sense into the discussion about the importance of this game for the two quarterbacks? In truth, there are TWO things NFL quarterbacks are counted on to provide. One, of course, is throwing the ball and leading the offense. The OTHER is providing leadership. It is this latter one, to me, which is a bit squirrelly.
Sure, the quarterback starts every play with the ball. He must read the defense and make sure the called play will work. He gets the ball where it needs to be. But that, apparently, is not what the media means or looks at in this discussion of leadership. Winning championships is. Even though winning a game requires three squads -- offense, defense, and special teams -- to perform well enough; even though, as number 2 above makes clear, most close games come down to the outcome of a handful of plays at most, making the previous truth even more significant (and most games that AREN'T close can be chalked up to a failure of preparedness, or lack of overall talent) -- apparently only winning a Super Bowl authenticates great quarterbacks???
If that notion isn't stupid enough on its own weight, let me try this. If Pittsburgh wins today (more on that in a minute), then Ben Roethlisberger has won three Super Bowl (tm) rings. He will be haled by these talking heads as one of the great quarterbacks of all time. All for being fortunate to be surrounded by outstanding players, very good coaches, and an outstandingly solid organization, and plays for a team built around running and defense!? Really?
Instead of looking at the other allegedly greatest of all-time quarterbacks with whom he will be lumped with 3 rings (Aikman? Bradshaw? yes he has 4), let's try this comparison. Let's compare Big Ben and his three rings (circus?) to the following list: Marino, Favre, Elway, and P. Manning. BETWEEN those 4 are exactly 3 rings. Is anyone who doesn't already bleed black and gold seriously going to rate Roethlisberger anywhere but 5th on that list (and only THAT high because there aren't more choices)?
Or look at it from the other side -- if Green Bay wins, does this ONE victory authenticate everything he did in leading his team on the improbably journey that got them there in the first place? Five must wins just to REACH the game? I think THAT is a far greater demonstration of his ability to lead a team than the outcome of one grossly overhyped game played under circumstances totally foreign to the running of a football game would be! Yet no one is saying that getting here validates him. Only that he needs the SB win to become a great QB. Really? Marino isn't one of the best of all time without ever having won one? Seriously?
4. And while I am picking on the talking head hype-meisters, the vast majority of whom picked Green Bay to win, what happened to the axiomatic truth that the ability to run and to stop the opponent from running is what wins the big game? Assuming it is still true, why are we not being told to expect a Pittsburgh victory? If it is no longer true, when and why did it cease to be true? Is it a result of the same rules committee tinkering that has otherwise destroyed the game by micromanaging making it almost impossible for even the best defenses to adequately defend the pass anymore? If so, what does it say about the powers that be in this game?
When do pitchers and catchers report? :)
2. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- as Rick Reilly so eloquently pointed out, in most fundamental ways, there is little distinguishing these two teams from each other. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- in a league that prides itself on parity, almost to the point of parody, what does the winner of this game really prove, beyond that they won the 3 or 4 games needed to get to that point. By any reasonable measurement of the regular season, neither of these teams was the best in their conference -- and adding 2 more games to the regular season will NOT make the football season any more relevant in determining its ultimate champion!
3. Can we PLEASE get some common sense into the discussion about the importance of this game for the two quarterbacks? In truth, there are TWO things NFL quarterbacks are counted on to provide. One, of course, is throwing the ball and leading the offense. The OTHER is providing leadership. It is this latter one, to me, which is a bit squirrelly.
Sure, the quarterback starts every play with the ball. He must read the defense and make sure the called play will work. He gets the ball where it needs to be. But that, apparently, is not what the media means or looks at in this discussion of leadership. Winning championships is. Even though winning a game requires three squads -- offense, defense, and special teams -- to perform well enough; even though, as number 2 above makes clear, most close games come down to the outcome of a handful of plays at most, making the previous truth even more significant (and most games that AREN'T close can be chalked up to a failure of preparedness, or lack of overall talent) -- apparently only winning a Super Bowl authenticates great quarterbacks???
If that notion isn't stupid enough on its own weight, let me try this. If Pittsburgh wins today (more on that in a minute), then Ben Roethlisberger has won three Super Bowl (tm) rings. He will be haled by these talking heads as one of the great quarterbacks of all time. All for being fortunate to be surrounded by outstanding players, very good coaches, and an outstandingly solid organization, and plays for a team built around running and defense!? Really?
Instead of looking at the other allegedly greatest of all-time quarterbacks with whom he will be lumped with 3 rings (Aikman? Bradshaw? yes he has 4), let's try this comparison. Let's compare Big Ben and his three rings (circus?) to the following list: Marino, Favre, Elway, and P. Manning. BETWEEN those 4 are exactly 3 rings. Is anyone who doesn't already bleed black and gold seriously going to rate Roethlisberger anywhere but 5th on that list (and only THAT high because there aren't more choices)?
Or look at it from the other side -- if Green Bay wins, does this ONE victory authenticate everything he did in leading his team on the improbably journey that got them there in the first place? Five must wins just to REACH the game? I think THAT is a far greater demonstration of his ability to lead a team than the outcome of one grossly overhyped game played under circumstances totally foreign to the running of a football game would be! Yet no one is saying that getting here validates him. Only that he needs the SB win to become a great QB. Really? Marino isn't one of the best of all time without ever having won one? Seriously?
4. And while I am picking on the talking head hype-meisters, the vast majority of whom picked Green Bay to win, what happened to the axiomatic truth that the ability to run and to stop the opponent from running is what wins the big game? Assuming it is still true, why are we not being told to expect a Pittsburgh victory? If it is no longer true, when and why did it cease to be true? Is it a result of the same rules committee tinkering that has otherwise destroyed the game by micromanaging making it almost impossible for even the best defenses to adequately defend the pass anymore? If so, what does it say about the powers that be in this game?
When do pitchers and catchers report? :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)