Super Bowl 42
Roman numerals are stupid.
Well, maybe not. But they seem kinda pretentious when affixed to the end of the title of a sporting event.
Anyway, I just watched a recording of the Super Bowl. I was doing more important things at the time of the game; in fact, my first knowledge of the victory was when I got home late at night and my mom said "Well, it was a good outcome." I couldn't really believe me ears. So yeah, I was totally thrilled. And I'm just glad the Patriots made it as far as they did without a loss, because the taste of this defeat is almost infinitely sweeter because of it. Back to the recording: it was a good game. Obviously, "The Play" was pretty unbelievably cool. But just in general, the quality of play on the part of the Giants...yeah, there were some dropped balls, and a couple of blown coverages. But for the most part, the Giants played lights-out. I don't know what that means, but it's a common enough phrase. The Patriots, on the other hand, with the exception of Wes Welker and maybe the Patriots' secondary, were flat almost the entire game. Tom Brady had a particularly poor game; I know this was partly because of a lack of support from his offensive line (that is to say, total dominance on the part of the Giants' defensive front), but honestly, he missed waaaay too many passes - some of them easy - and did not look at all like "the best player in the game", and all of the other superlatives heaped upon him before and during the game.
The coverage of the game itself was reasonable, but frankly pretty boring. I was thankful that it wasn't too over-the-top, but honestly, why did it seem like the announcers didn't even realize how important the outcome of the game was, at least in the world that is the NFL? Still, underproduction is better than overproduction, and though very few insightful comments were made (my heart did, however, skip a beat when the analyst pointed out the delayed rush from Kawika Mitchell - in my opinion, the sweetest play of the game - with about 7:45 left in the first half), at least I didn't have to listen to a trillion references to how the Patriots were the best team ever in the history of the so-far-explored quadrant of our universe.
I'm sorry that last year's game wasn't better, though naturally its outcome was even more fun than this year. But I'm quite thorough in my dislike of the Patriots, and there really couldn't ever be a better "second-best" outcome to a Super Bowl.
Well, maybe not. But they seem kinda pretentious when affixed to the end of the title of a sporting event.
Anyway, I just watched a recording of the Super Bowl. I was doing more important things at the time of the game; in fact, my first knowledge of the victory was when I got home late at night and my mom said "Well, it was a good outcome." I couldn't really believe me ears. So yeah, I was totally thrilled. And I'm just glad the Patriots made it as far as they did without a loss, because the taste of this defeat is almost infinitely sweeter because of it. Back to the recording: it was a good game. Obviously, "The Play" was pretty unbelievably cool. But just in general, the quality of play on the part of the Giants...yeah, there were some dropped balls, and a couple of blown coverages. But for the most part, the Giants played lights-out. I don't know what that means, but it's a common enough phrase. The Patriots, on the other hand, with the exception of Wes Welker and maybe the Patriots' secondary, were flat almost the entire game. Tom Brady had a particularly poor game; I know this was partly because of a lack of support from his offensive line (that is to say, total dominance on the part of the Giants' defensive front), but honestly, he missed waaaay too many passes - some of them easy - and did not look at all like "the best player in the game", and all of the other superlatives heaped upon him before and during the game.
The coverage of the game itself was reasonable, but frankly pretty boring. I was thankful that it wasn't too over-the-top, but honestly, why did it seem like the announcers didn't even realize how important the outcome of the game was, at least in the world that is the NFL? Still, underproduction is better than overproduction, and though very few insightful comments were made (my heart did, however, skip a beat when the analyst pointed out the delayed rush from Kawika Mitchell - in my opinion, the sweetest play of the game - with about 7:45 left in the first half), at least I didn't have to listen to a trillion references to how the Patriots were the best team ever in the history of the so-far-explored quadrant of our universe.
I'm sorry that last year's game wasn't better, though naturally its outcome was even more fun than this year. But I'm quite thorough in my dislike of the Patriots, and there really couldn't ever be a better "second-best" outcome to a Super Bowl.
Labels: back-after-a-long-break, football, football-and-TV-but-not-necessarily-in-that-order, fun
posted by Arathon at 01:21
0 comments
links to this post
