fredrickson@learn.DEC (02/10/86)
It has now been two weeks since Super Bowl XX, and I am finally able to discuss the game. I don't know about other Patriots fans out there, but my friends and I have had no desire to even talk about the game. After any big event involving a local entry, win or lose, I'm usually eager to go back over the details, to listen to the talk shows, read the newspaper accounts, etc. That really wasn't the case this time. Aside from the game, I guess it's partially because we were hit with all the drug mess on Tuesday, then the shuttle tragedy the next day. All in all, that week was one of the most depressing in memory. As could be expected, there have been some folks around here dishing out what-ifs like Governor Dukakis hands out welfare checks. Their theory is, change a few plays here and there and the Pats could have won. I have never seen a game in any sport where the loser couldn't tick off a list of what-ifs. I remember how distasteful I found the reactions of many St. Louis fans after their game 7 loss to the Royals last fall. Their team had been blown off the field with the championship on the line, and they wanted to blame everyone from umpires to popcorn vendors instead of admitting that the opponent had risen to the occasion and earned a great victory. Although it is natural to pose what-ifs, I would like to apologize to all Bears fans on behalf of my fellow New Englanders. Your team's performance was, as SI's Paul Zimmerman wrote, historic. It should not be demeaned by petty suggestions and what-ifs. I will forever consider it a standard by which championship efforts are measured. The Bears were virtually perfect. Do not let anyone tell you that the magnitude of your victory should be tempered by the weakness of the opponent. No team, from Miami to the Raiders to the '29 Yankees, would have beaten Chicago on January 26. After the pain of the game and the subsequent drug stories wore off, I came away with nothing but admiration and respect for the Bears. I had thought that their brash words might hurt them, but like Ali in his prime and Reggie Jackson in his, you can say anything you want as long as you back it up. I personally thought Jim McMahon should have been the MVP. Here's why: The Bears' defense completely stiffed the Pats' offense; Dent, McMichael, Hampton, Singletary and Wilson were all phenomenal. But so what? We all expected that would happen, that whatever points the Pats could scrape up would come from turnovers or a freak bomb or something. When I predicted a 17-13 Pats win, it was based on finding ways to score that did not require driving 80 yards -- you know, crazy things like Walter Payton fumbling deep in his own territory. No one in his right mind could have expected the NE offense to consistently move the ball. The difference in the game was that many of us expected the NE defense to do an equally good job on the Chicago offense. That defense was the reason the Pats were in New Orleans, and since it seemed like much of Chicago's offense had come from its defense, in the form of turnovers and great field positon, we thought this expectation was realistic: Make McMahon start at his 20 instead of midfield and see what happens. The Patriots' hopes were not pinned on the ability of their offense to move the ball as much as on the ability of their defense to stop Chicago -- a far more likely scenario. But McMahon and Willie Gault tore them to ribbons. A defense that had allowed Miami 7 points plus a one-play drive off a turnover (14 total) was absolutely shredded by an offense many considered to be Chicago's Achilles' heel. McMahon was fabulous, scoring two TDs himself and -- in my mind, this was the game's single biggest play, if there is any such thing in a 46-10 game -- completing a bomb to Gault from his own end zone. And how tough is he? When he went ass over teakettle on a Ronnie Lippett hit in the first half, I thought his famous sore rump would really bother him. Never a clue that it did. But please forgive us if we dream out loud about how things might have been different. It is the nature of sports, and here's how it goes: If I could have four first-quarter plays back (what an absurd request), (1) after the early Payton fumble, Stanley Morgan catches the second-down pass so it's 7-0 instead of 3-0; (2) on the ensuing series, Don Blackmon intercepts the pass instead of knocking it down (now it's 14-0 instead of 3-3); and (3,4) later in the quarter, Eason and James hold onto the football (the fumbles, both at NE 11, were worth 10 Bear points). Instead of 13-3 Bears after one, it's 14-0 Patriots. Continuing down this surrealistic path, subtract 14 more Bears points on officiating mistakes: 3 for the FG at the end of the half which the officials admittedly blew, 7 for the feet-out-of-bounds TD, and 4 for the difference between a TD and a FG when the refs missed an obvious clip. OK, now we've got the Bears down from 46 to 19 and Pats up to 21 (the 14 from the first quarter and the TD they actually scored later). That's enough for a Patriots win, but for good measure let's say they hold onto a few of Grogan's passes they dropped and add another TD. 28-19 the final. Puh-lease. You could give the Patriots all those breaks and more and Chicago would probably have still won easily. Notice I said probably. The only glimpse of hope I cling to is the momentum factor. The Bears seem to gain so much from building an early lead. They just bury you when they get you down. A lot of us thought the Pats had a chance if the game stayed close, because they had won a lot of close games this year and the Bears simply hadn't been in any. If the game was tied in the third quarter, the Bears would have been in a situation they hadn't seen all year. We can say the Patriots would have reacted favorably to this situation because they had done so numerous times. How would the Bears have reacted? We don't know but my guess is that their greatness would have shown through more than ever and they would have won by two touchdowns. Just a hunch. Mark Fredrickson
kenf@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (02/12/86)
I remember how distasteful I found the reactions of many St. Louis fans
after their game 7 loss to the Royals last fall. Their team had been blown
off the field with the championship on the line, and they wanted to blame
everyone from umpires to popcorn vendors instead of admitting that the
opponent had risen to the occasion and earned a great victory.
But please forgive us if we dream out loud about how things might have been
different. It is the nature of sports, and here's how it goes:
Mark Fredrickson
No comment necessary.
ken fortenberry
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!kenf
ARPANET: kenf%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu
CSNET: kenf%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet