TMQ had a good column on the Super Bowl this week. As to Seattle, he focused on three major issues: dropped passes, three key injuries (but still a pretty good defensive effort), and a vanilla game plan. This final problem repeatedly bites the Colts in the playoffs; Seattle was hurt by it as much as the attack of the zebras, including not properly responding to more creative game calling by Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, while the QB was bad (but had a few veteran moments that leads me to suggest saying he was terrible is a bit silly), the core theme for Pittsburgh is their defense. All through the playoffs it held high scoring teams to low scores, and I might add, allowed Pittsburgh to sit on leads (or small deficits).
As to the zebras, he was pretty sanguine about the whole thing. It was noted, as should be, that Seattle actually obtained two favorable calls, including one that kept the game alive late. Meanwhile, TMQ agreed with two of the calls that went against Seattle -- the TD (it got in ... he didn't think so at first, but the replay convinced) and a pass interference call that some at best called questionable, others rinky dinky. Still, he agreed the two calls related to the late interception -- which ruined what might have been an exciting finish -- were wrong. In particular, the "adding insult on to injury" penalty on the QB after the interception really didn't make sense. How the block was listed on the official game stats legally could not amount to the penalty that was called.
Anyway, he was not too overly distraught, perhaps because Pittsburgh was quite likely to win anyway, or TMQ is really a Steelers fan. OTOH, it bears noting that an earlier column tried to show how Bush v. Gore was no big deal, in part by some questionable legal reasoning. So, maybe his judgment on such matters leaves a bit to be desired. On that point, I saw his brother on C-SPAN over the weekend. Did not really catch the interview, but did see what he looked like. For some reason, I figured he was a bit older. He has one of those Bork beards.
Also, this week, TMQ's non-sports asides were rather interesting. First, a pining for the rhetorical skill of President Washington (short speech, long sentences) vs the latest State of the Union address, though a bit of commentary on the subject matter might have been appropriate too:
Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one, in which the measures of government receive their impression so immediately from the sense of the community, as in ours, it is proportionately essential. To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.
Second, he made a couple good points in respect to the Intelligent Design debate, though leaving out a key matter. TMQ, a science sort in a different life, notes that ID proponents tend to wrongly defame evolution as a "theory" about the origins of life. First off, "theory" is misused, but more importantly, it is not a "theory" about the origin of life at all! Darwin did not -- nor does anyone even today -- know how life originated, he discussed how life developed. On that point, the evidence is clear, akin to the laws of gravity.
[I stick to my thoughts here, but see here for some complaints as to his wording. TMQ does have a certain lazy way of going on these asides, but here I think he hit on a couple relevant points along the way.]
As to origins, since we do not know, a creator god is a totally appropriate hypothesis. But, I would add, not really one for science classes. Such is a major point: since, at least as usually described, you cannot prove God -- the attempts are a bit silly, and few really want to question God's existence anyway -- it is not "science." Anyway, the debate usually is over development. Evolutionary scientists are not all atheists. This throws certain sorts off, but that really does not make it untrue. As to there being no clear theory on how life begun ... I wonder ... I actually recall a discussion in the paper a long time ago that spelled out some studies on the matter. Or rather, the creation thereof.
Back to football. TMQ also questioned the hesitance of Seattle to go for it on Fourth Downs. This is an ongoing theme of the guy ... he wants teams to go for it on Fourth Downs, even in pretty unlikely situations. I find that he lays it on a bit thick, including in cases where subpar* teams are deep in their own territory, and it is a pretty long down. For instance, the Giants/Raiders game -- the Raiders was like on their own 15 and it was Fourth and a couple early in the game. The Raiders later could not score from the 1 in four tries! The Giants have a good defense and the Raiders no running game. I thought, "huh?"
As to Sunday, he might be right as to 4th and long late in the game (especially with the injuries making a defensive stop difficult), but less so about 4th and short on their own 25 early in the game. Maybe ... it was only the length of the football, but it was like the First Quarter. The game surely suggested that you cannot guarantee nothing would go wrong. Oh, why so little comments about the ads and pre-game/Half Time entertainment? I guess a couple extra cheerbabe photos was more worthy of the space. Both were pretty subpar anyway.
I'm ready for baseball, what about you? And, no, do not quite mean the World Classic, or whatever it's called. Any bets on what big name player will get hurt in that thing?
---
* "Subpar" is not picked up as a word on the spell checker. It means "below par" ... maybe, it is a neologism compound word, but darn it, I like it ... and will continue to use it.