I realize that you, dear reader, can hardly believe that the Super Bowl is over until you hear about it from me. So, here we go. I'll say something about the game today -- I may say a few words about the ads that played during its run, later this week. The only point I want to make is: yes that was an awful game. The Chiefs never even seemed to show up until near the end when the cause was lost. That long pass into the end zone near the end of the fourth quarter, and then the two-point conversion to make it an 8 point touchdown -- THAT was a bit of derring do that made the final score seem less lopsided and less ugly. But it also raised the question: since the Chiefs are capable of such explosive play as that, WHERE HAD THOSE CHIEFS BEEN? There were no omens of disaster in the very early going. The Eagles received the opening kickoff routinely, so that the first play from scrimmage took place at the 30 yard line. That first play got them four yards. If those fac...
Posts
It was a fascinating nail-biter of a football game. I was hoping for a Patriots win, out of boring old predictable regional loyalty. But I can't be all that unhappy. The game was hard fought on both sides, and the Eagles eked it out the old-fashioned way, by winning the war in the trenches. Until very near the end of the game neither quarterback had been sacked. I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure that is rare, for football games generally or Super Bowl games in particular, for there only to be one sack and for that to come as the decisive end-of-game event. When one refers in football terms to "the trenches" one refers to the front lines of offense and defense, where soldiers of each team stand literally shoulder to shoulder. In this game the offensive lines held up bravely against everything their opponents could throw at them, giving their QBs time to do their thing. Thus the significance of the absence of sacks, and of that one final exce...