some final superbowl thoughts

i suppose that this was a good game judging by the score, but honestly, it was a game that never really grabbed you. luckily, it was the game that clinched the title of dynasty for the patriots, otherwise it would have gone down as one of the more forgettable super bowls in recent memory. anyways, here are my parting shots until the beginning of the next football season.

1) there is no denying that the new england patriots are good, and with winning 3 out of 4 super bowls, i suppose that they can stake a claim to the title of "dynasty". however, i think that we should put this talk into perspective. when i think of dynasty, i think of teams that you just knew out and out that they could not be beat. think of the niners of the eighties, and the cowboys of the nineties. they destroyed teams, and they really destroyed teams in the super bowl. with a few exceptions, there was never any doubt as to who would win those niners games from the time the matchup was announced to the time the game ended. with the cowboys of course, there was never any doubt. the patriots, categorically, are not in this class of all time great football teams. the average margin of victory for the niners in the superbowl is 18.4 and the cowboys beat their superbowl opponents by an average of 20.67. the patriots beat their opponents by an average of 3 points. i'll concede that the salary cap and parity in general have something to do with this, but i will not concede that the patriots were anywhere near as good as the niners or the cowboys were in their heydey. factor in the fact that the patriots just happened to have one of the best kickers of all time and this is not even a top 20 team of all time. i'll take any of the cowboys' super bowl teams, and about 4 of the niner's teams over the pats. i would also take both denver superbowl teams, and probably the rams' winner as well. maybe even farvre's packers...after all they really did have a kickass defense that year. anyways, that's why people play up the "team" thing so much with this bunch. they simply don't have the talent to compete with the truly elite teams of history.

2) as alfredo put it nicely yesterday, can we now put any comparisons of brady to montana to rest? brady played poorly yesterday. his turnovers were not only costly in terms of covering the spread (and thereby screwing what should have been a slam dunk), but the touch on his passes were noticeably absent in yesterday's game. he missed on almost all of his long passes and he missed by a lot. if he makes those throws, maybe the pats cover the goddammed spread and then, maybe we can lump him in with montana, aikman, and elway, but right now, he's got a really good defensive unit and a great coach to bail him out of a generally bad outing. one thing's for sure, joe cool never played poorly in the big one. hey, isn't that john candy?

3) terrell owens can hang his head high today. many, including myself, counted him out for the game. his final line, 9 catches, 122 yds, and basically the only real threat that the eagles had. he was right to be upset about criticism. he was quoted "if brett farvre was doing this, he'd be called a warrior." and he's right, there was no reason to criticize him. he didn't hurt his team and he was the only eagle worth a damn yesterday.

4) i'm completely surprised that the pats weren't more physical with T.O. maybe if they had, then they would've covered the goddammed spread.

5) courtesy of the most important blog...ever, here is the bbc's most entertaining coverage of the superbowl, that include ridiculous bon motts such as this:
The Eagles soar back into contention with a 30-yard bullet pass to Greg Lewis who connects superbly with the ball in the Patriots endzone.
and the british wonder why we think they're a bunch of pansies.

6) this really hasn't gotten anything to do with the superbowl, but whenever superbowl time comes around, people always talk about how the 85 bears were the greatest team of all time. they were great, and that defense was something else, but offenses today which are almost all entirely derivative of bill walsh's version of the west coast offense are way too sophistacated for the 46 to work. everyone says that the reason no one plays the 46 anymore is because no one has the personnel. i say that no one plays it because most offenses today would pick the 46 apart. both montana and aikman would have destroyed the bears by themselves. it may be true that the 85 bears were the most dominant team in comparison to the other teams in the league in the same year, but for the best team of all time, and yes i know i'm biased, give me the second cowboys super bowl team (94-95). everyone on that team was in their absolute prime, and they had the complete package in a way that we've never seen before or since, power running, precision passing, a defense that was both fast and physical, and the greatest, most charismatic coach of all time...which leads to...

7) michael irvin got jobbed by the hall of fame selection committee. i know that he'll get in eventually, but there's no reason why he shouldn't get in on the first ballot.

all right kids, that's it for the 2004 football season coverage here at the ragin' asian. the most important thing in the offseason will be where edgerrin james ends up. i guess that i need to start gearing up for baseball season now. pitchers and cathers report in about three weeks.


Anonymous said...

hey bob - a few observations:

the britons fucking suck.

the playmaker is just paying the price for being the playmaker.

brady's no montana, but it's hard to argue with his first four seasons. he's good.

new england is not as talented as any of the other dynasties, but their coaching staff would be more intimidating than any of the others.

the reason they don't blow anyone out is that they are a defense-oriented team, like the 80's giants. to beat them, you have to run the ball like a freight train and/or play no-huddle (hard to do now-qb's don't play call like they used to) and/or do plenty of wildass scrambling and sandlot improv. they remind me of orel hershiser in 1988. they don't overwhelm you; they make you hit their pitch, and before you know it, the game's over.

it's weird how they win. in the 80's and 90's a more talented team like san fran or dallas would have so much talent that even an above-average opponent had no shot in hell no matter what. now, it seems like a decent team going against new england just has to make fewer mistakes than them to win. of course, that's proven very difficult. i guess that's coaching.

i think it's worth pointing out that a stellar regular season record means less now than it used to. around a third of the schedule is based on the winning percentages from the previous year. good teams are supposed to play good teams, but with free agency, an opponent who was good last year is not always good this year. this creates some free rides for teams like philadelphia this year. it also underscores the importance of keeping a roster together.

what am i trying to say? give me the cowboys or 49ers.

Bob said...

eh ding, a more intimidating coaching staff huh?...gimme jimmy and his hair, wannstedt and his moustache, and norv turner and his pockmarks, over belichick and his grey sweatshirt and his fatass coordinators any day.