I'm not going to blog about the Super Bowl. For terrific analysis, I'd recommend Greg Easterbrook (i.e., TMQ) at ESPN's Page 2 or Michael Lombardi at the National Football Post. (Bill Simmons's running diary is also pretty good.) I will say that it turned into a terrifically entertaining game, but let's hold off on the "greatest Super Bowl ever" talk ... at least until a FEW days have gone by, hey pundits?  The first half was entertaining enough, though the Cardinals' decision to defer after winning the toss, followed by their insistence on "establishing a running game" rather than simply airing it out of the no-huddle, frustrated me to no end. Dance with the one that brung ye, as TMQ is fond of reminding us.

The third quarter, however, was deadly from an entertainment standpoint, and Pittsburgh blew several opportunities to put the game away for good. (See Bill Simmons for more insight on this.) That the Steelers did not put the game away paved the way for the marvelous fourth quarter, which is all that most people will remember (plus the James Harrison runback). Which is fine. But a great fourth quarter alone does not an all-time great Super Bowl make. Especially not when one of the participants had been roundly ridiculed as "The Worst Super Bowl Team Ever" in the days and weeks leading up to the game. Can a Best Super Bowl Ever feature a Worst Super Bowl Team Ever?

Continue reading "2009 Super Bowl: Great Game, but Hardly Greatest Ever"