In which the Blob parses the difference between "bad" and "boring."
This comes up because of the multitudes (including the Blob!) who complained about the Patriots' sleep-inducing 13-3 victory over the Los Angeles Rams, in which the teams combined for 14 punts and one visit to the red zone. This made it, according to some, the worst Super Bowl in history.
The Blob begs to differ.
What it was, was perhaps the most boring Super Bowl in history. But it was not the worst.
This is because both teams functioned at a very high level on the defensive side of the football -- in particular the Patriots, of course. There were only two turnovers; Tom Brady and Jared Goff each threw an interception. It was, therefore, an exceptionally well-played game.
Unfortunately, it was exceptionally well-played on the side of the football guaranteed to make the sort of audience drawn to a Super Bowl -- i.e., people who rarely watch football -- think it was awful. It wasn't. It was just boring, except to that tiny sliver of defensive football aficionados who think forcing a three-and-out is the most exciting play in the game.
Look, Martha! Here comes the punter again! Is this the greatest thing you've ever seen, or what?
That sort of deal.
Anyway ... there is boring, and there is bad. This wasn't bad, because the defenses were impeccable and the outcome was in doubt until deep in the fourth quarter. So it was hardly the worst Super Bowl in history.
For the Blob's money, you need to explore the Chargers-49ers Super Bowl, the Broncos-49ers Super Bowl or the first Cowboys-Bills Super Bowl -- dreary blowouts that were over practically before they started -- if you want to find truly awful examples of the genre.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment