Let's get right to the facts: Super Bowl XLII was outstanding. Though a low-scoring affair, you can't help but think that this game had many elements that will place it up near the top of all Super Bowls so far played. Like John Elway getting spun as he dove for the endzone in his Super Bowl triumph over the Packers in 1997, the Eli Manning somehow not being sacked then heaving the ball down the field to a waiting David Tyree who caught it with one hand and a helmet while being viciously covered by Rodney Harrison has already been burned into the memory banks of those who saw the game. It was then that you just thought "The Giants got the mojo edge." And so they claimed the crown, 17-14, over the previously undefeated New England Patriots, led by approved man-crush target Tom Brady.
And it wasn't so much that the Patriots stunk up the joint. The Giants defense was relentless, knocking down or sacking Brady on 50% of his first 20 passes. And yet the Pats had the lead with 2:31 to go in the game, on a nice drive capped with an easy slant touchdown to Randy Moss, who was unguarded after his defender slipped and fell on an inside move.
I watched the game in a decidedly Pro-Patriots house, filled with New England refugees. True enough, though I recall cheering for the Giants in the 1986 Super Bowl, I was hoping for the Pats to be kings, finishing their season (as you may have heard) undefeated at 19-0. But in all truth, I remain a Packers fan and though the Pack gave the Giants everything and more, it was obvious to me since sometime in the second quarter of the NFC Championship Game that the Giants defense was going to be the X-Factor. I didn't get why most of the "experts" on ESPN and FoxSports were, if picking the Patriots, making them prohibitive favorites, winning by at least 20. Those who picked the Giants (and Mike Ditka is one of them) made it a close contest, the clearest indication that there was way too much confidence in the Patriots overcoming a defense that was playing lights out since week 17.
The media in this day and age can force feed whatever angle it wants, and it seems that nobody notices until the "upset" happens and then everybody quickly eats a piece of crow and then run the highlights and never return to their bad prediction. It wasn't that long ago that ESPN was running a piece on the USC football team being "the best ever" and then they had to go and lose to Texas in the BCS Championship Game. So much for that (and I'm still angry that nobody ever mentions that USC's linebacker corps was decimated for that game and that had even one of their starters remained, I don't think that Vince Young makes that run to win. But Texas won, and that's the fact.). And now, since like October, we've been hearing about the Patriots being the best team ever. It's a ridiculous exercise. How can you compare the Steelers of the late 1970s with teams today that are bigger, faster, stronger, more technologically attuned to the demands and schemes? The real thing was the idea that the Patriots were going undefeated, which would put them in the rarefied air of the undefeated 1972 Dolphins (who apparently beat only 4 teams who finished the season over .500 in going 17-0). So everyone took the bait and believed that the Patriots were perfect and unmatchable. But, like in anything where you get only 1 shot, the upset happens far too frequently. Just ask the USC Trojans of 2005, or the 1996 ucla Bruins (who were upset by Princeton 43-41 in the NCAA Tournament a year after they won the crown), or the Pats beating the Rams, or the Marlins beating the Yankees in 2003, or the Red Sox reverse sweeping the Yanks in 2004. The point is, upsets are a large part of what makes sports great. If the favorite always won, it'd get boring quick. And that the underdog has to rely on the hand and helmet (and possibly a missed holding call) to make it a reality is why you know you'll be hearing about this game for years to come.
Am I sad the Patriots lost? In a way. Mainly because I wanted to see the historical 19-0 team finish in high fashion. But the history revealed might prove to be, as we look back in the months and years to come, just a little greater.
And with that, let's start talking baseball.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
