The Giants fan will add a third, but so far, there have been two very good games in the NFL postseason, Tebow time and the game that came thanks to (let me stop laughing) the New Orleans Saints being beat by a two win team (not at the time) (Rams) and another who shared first place with a win and then lost ten straight (Tampa). SF was a bit of a joke last year (in fact, their coach was one, him or some look alike doing a "crazy nut coach" routine on David Letterman), but no longer. The Giants still rather face them than the Saints at home, where they would have been without those two losses (the other against the Packers).
Last week had various baby QBs, two of whom won, though one against another newbie. This week, like when the 7-9 Seahawks came back to earth after beating the Saints (the road team because, yeah, the Seahawks won their division), the expectation was those two will lose to the big boys. A back-up newbie QB and a third stringer going against #1 and #2 teams, the latter favored to go to the Super Bowl by many accounts (I have no love for Baltimore, but like the Pats less -- at least the Red Sox has Bobby Valentine as manager now ... yeah, that's still strange to write) really shouldn't have a chance. Or, shall I say a prayer?
Before I even finished watching the ending of the first game and listening to the talking heads being amazed at the ending as much as most viewers must have been, the Pats were up 7-0. I only saw a few minutes of the game, enough to see them go up 14-0 after a mistake and a questionable call. Then, Denver showed some life, making it 14-7. But, a quick three and out, and then it was 21-7 (the next I checked). Phil Simms than said that Denver should just try to keep it there with less than three minutes to play. Well no. Not only did the Pats score once, they scored twice. That's a shame. Hopefully, Houston falls with a bit more respect.
Meanwhile Focus on the Family had a commercial with various kids quoting John 3:16. The organization had a mild ad last year that was not as blatantly religious, but this one was fine really. And, Tim Tebow's presence made it almost expected that something like that would be shown. The thing that annoyed people last year was that the network didn't want to show a pro-gay rights ad or some other "controversial" ad because of its ideological nature. Something of a double standard. The bad feeling from some quarters (and not only from non-believers in his God) of Tebow's style of profession of faith shows this sort of commercial is not without controversy. Let this in from an anti-abortion organization with a certain definition of "family values,"* let in other ideological ads.
I think the Giants/GB game should be a good one and somewhat surprisingly there is a certain sentiment that the Giants have a good shot at winning. They did lose against them at home by three points (not quite the same, but shades of losing close to the Pats a few years back ... a rematch would be a tad boring ... the other likely option a rematch for those who remember the Giants looking bad a decade or so ago) with some questionable officiating (hey, not me, more than one analyst said so). We shall see. I also hope Houston isn't embarrassed. They lost even with their real QB, so really tough game for them.
Anyway, I'm rooting for Tebow, since he seems to be a gamer and the league has only a few elite QBs, the others have on and off years. So, why not try it with him, who with some seasoning, good coaching and good support around him can do pretty well? Meanwhile, "Smash" from FNL, who popped up in a pretty good role in Pan Am (good episode last week, each young woman maturing a bit, though I didn't really like the Bridget subplot ... Dean is so blah) got some religious training of his own.
Smash's mom would be proud.
---
* On the radio today, a tidbit was referenced that some prostitutes in a legal brothel in Nevada is collecting money for Ron Paul. Why prostitutes should support someone against a woman's control of her body, equal rights for gays and the power of federal courts to stop states from passing religiously based laws that violate the First/Fourteenth Amendment? Someone who ridiculed Lawrence v. Texas, which upheld the basic liberty of sexual privacy from state intrusion is unclear. But, who knows these things, hearing about "libertarian" Paul? Basically, he is a lesser of evils. Great. I'll support the guy who is for equal rights for gays and sexual privacy. Republicans stuck with that bunch can vote for the lesser evil.
Last week had various baby QBs, two of whom won, though one against another newbie. This week, like when the 7-9 Seahawks came back to earth after beating the Saints (the road team because, yeah, the Seahawks won their division), the expectation was those two will lose to the big boys. A back-up newbie QB and a third stringer going against #1 and #2 teams, the latter favored to go to the Super Bowl by many accounts (I have no love for Baltimore, but like the Pats less -- at least the Red Sox has Bobby Valentine as manager now ... yeah, that's still strange to write) really shouldn't have a chance. Or, shall I say a prayer?
Before I even finished watching the ending of the first game and listening to the talking heads being amazed at the ending as much as most viewers must have been, the Pats were up 7-0. I only saw a few minutes of the game, enough to see them go up 14-0 after a mistake and a questionable call. Then, Denver showed some life, making it 14-7. But, a quick three and out, and then it was 21-7 (the next I checked). Phil Simms than said that Denver should just try to keep it there with less than three minutes to play. Well no. Not only did the Pats score once, they scored twice. That's a shame. Hopefully, Houston falls with a bit more respect.
Meanwhile Focus on the Family had a commercial with various kids quoting John 3:16. The organization had a mild ad last year that was not as blatantly religious, but this one was fine really. And, Tim Tebow's presence made it almost expected that something like that would be shown. The thing that annoyed people last year was that the network didn't want to show a pro-gay rights ad or some other "controversial" ad because of its ideological nature. Something of a double standard. The bad feeling from some quarters (and not only from non-believers in his God) of Tebow's style of profession of faith shows this sort of commercial is not without controversy. Let this in from an anti-abortion organization with a certain definition of "family values,"* let in other ideological ads.
I think the Giants/GB game should be a good one and somewhat surprisingly there is a certain sentiment that the Giants have a good shot at winning. They did lose against them at home by three points (not quite the same, but shades of losing close to the Pats a few years back ... a rematch would be a tad boring ... the other likely option a rematch for those who remember the Giants looking bad a decade or so ago) with some questionable officiating (hey, not me, more than one analyst said so). We shall see. I also hope Houston isn't embarrassed. They lost even with their real QB, so really tough game for them.
Anyway, I'm rooting for Tebow, since he seems to be a gamer and the league has only a few elite QBs, the others have on and off years. So, why not try it with him, who with some seasoning, good coaching and good support around him can do pretty well? Meanwhile, "Smash" from FNL, who popped up in a pretty good role in Pan Am (good episode last week, each young woman maturing a bit, though I didn't really like the Bridget subplot ... Dean is so blah) got some religious training of his own.
Smash's mom would be proud.
---
* On the radio today, a tidbit was referenced that some prostitutes in a legal brothel in Nevada is collecting money for Ron Paul. Why prostitutes should support someone against a woman's control of her body, equal rights for gays and the power of federal courts to stop states from passing religiously based laws that violate the First/Fourteenth Amendment? Someone who ridiculed Lawrence v. Texas, which upheld the basic liberty of sexual privacy from state intrusion is unclear. But, who knows these things, hearing about "libertarian" Paul? Basically, he is a lesser of evils. Great. I'll support the guy who is for equal rights for gays and sexual privacy. Republicans stuck with that bunch can vote for the lesser evil.