For what it’s worth, the Pats looked extremely gassed right before overtime. If anything, that’s a worry during the Superbowl for them. I think the average age of the Rams entire team is just over 25. The Patriots average is 26.8. You might say, Skipper those are so close, no. They are at opposite ends of the average team ages this year. What that means is that more starters on the Pats are older, and thus, slower and sometimes with more nagging injuries.
If the Rams can break out to a fast pace, I think they will have an advantage, or I hope they will.
What I appreciated most about Tony Romo was when he called out the pick plays. He was leveling with us as fans. “This is kind of illegal but it’s hard for the refs to call it, and that’s why the guy was so open.”
Doesn’t it feel weird to anyone else to call a commentator as good? Have we become so used to terrible that good and insightful just doesn’t feel right?
For me the main thing about Romo is that he’s clearly having an absolute blast. He’s having so much fun, and that comes across and is completely infectious.
And then it turns out, he also knows some stuff, too.
I’d say most (80%) commentary is just ‘there’. It gets the basic job done of letting you know who/what with occasional glimpses into things you might not notice (o-line, defense schemes, etc). 15% is bad. Pointing out the wrong thing (wrong player for instance) and ignoring the obvious like never mentioning something obvious that made a difference and/or just simply being wrong about what happened. 5% is noticeably good. Regularly pointing out things that are easy to miss and enhancing why something may or may not have happened. Bringing a bit of life to the game.
I’d put Romo in the top 5% when he’s being allowed to be himself (Nance is just ‘there’). He might be it currently. Michaels/Collinsworth used to be there and Aikmen is close. Though all of them can be anyone’s kryptonite if they rub them the wrong way.
I thought Nantz was pretty brilliant at setting Romo up. Being the straight man in the booth with a character like Romo might be just as artful as being Romo.
So the Pats are in the Super Bowl again. At least it’s not like they usually win the thing 50-0. With the Pats, the Super Bowl usually turns out to be a pretty great game.
Even if a Super Bowl featuring the Patriots is only good if they lose, it significantly expands the definition of ‘good game’, nearly as much as if your favored team is playing. Consider:
With two neutral teams, a good game is one where it’s close throughout. With one neutral team and a favored or disfavored team, a good game is either one where it’s close throughout, or one where the favored/disfavored team is winning/losing in a blowout.
Yes. Romo is like a particularly awesome and enthusiastic puppy. Nantz is the guy who lets him run around and romp, and occasionally pulls him back. Both are necessary. :)
Four point games can be more exciting than those with a numerically closer score, because the team on the short-end has to try to score a TD, not just get into field gold position (which for the Rams is apparently anything outside their own goal line). Thus, the end of the Seahawks-Pats Super Bowl. And, yeah, the Pats won, but I wasn’t too upset, considering that meant that Pete Carroll lost.
There’s another bit of symmetry here too. 17 years ago the Pats got into the Superbowl on that controversial no-fumble tuck ruling. Had the call gone the other way the Raiders would have won that game. Now the Rams are in with the missed pass interference call. Had that been called the Saints almost certainly would have won.
