There are lots of important and real Patriots topics right now. How they handle the rest of free agency, the upcoming draft, the results of the bullshit DeflateGate controversy, how the NFL handles the Jets' tampering and possible extensions for guys like Hightower, are among the many issues to be considered.
Here's one not serious topic. Given the 6 month gap between now and when games start counting again, I think there's some room for a little mirth along the way.
Would you change the ending of Super Bowl XLIX if you could waive a magic wand? Let's assume that, unlike the movie "It's a Wonderul Life," there are no adverse, unintended consequences of changing the ending.
Now I know that some or maybe most will say "of course not, it was perfect, no-brainer, etc." I get it. Fair. To each his own. And truth be told, I probably end up there myself. Someone wrote on SoSH that it was like going from Aaron Boone to the 0-3 Comeback in one second rather than 12 months, and that's of course true. Swapping that out for anything is tough stuff.
But just for the hell of it, let's consider the question and the following hypothetical choices, and pros and cons.
Here goes:
1. Alternative Ending: Butler picks off Wilson on the play that was the Kearse Tyree Catch. Instead of going deep, Wilson throws a pass to the outside that Bulter takes to the house, making the score 35-24, and effectively ending the game. Assume, further, that Seattle does not somehow find a way to win the game in the remaining time and the game ends at 35-24. [Edit: to be clear, I am positing that the Pick 6 happens on the very same play that the Kearse Tyree Catch occurred. But instead of Wilson thowing down to the 5 and Kearse catching the ball with his Tyree, Wilson throws a 10 yard laser to the sideline, and Butler steps in front of it and takes it to the house. Pandemonium ensues. No Tebucky like flag. Game effectively over. Gatordade everywhere].
Pros:
- Emphatic, dominant statement to end the game.
- We get an extended sportsgasm as the clock winds down, with full on celebration along the sideline.
- Eliminates entirely the silly "Seattle Lost the Game, NE Didn't Win it" argument that some opposing fans and mediots like to spout.
Cons:
- Deprives us of the unbelievable, once in a lifetime Butler ending, and going from a less than 1% win probability to a virtual walk off SB win.
- Deprives us of seeing Poodle Pete get skewered by anyone and everyone (unless, of course, you like Poodle Pete)
2. The Butler Ending
The pros and cons are essentially the inverse.
A few things.
This occurs to me because (a) I'm warped and (b) living in the NY area, I probably hear the Seattle Lost canard more than those in NE. Not that the argument resonates with me in any way. It is what it is, the Pats got the Lombardi and we all know that the last two SBs could easily have gone the other way. But the mantra did make me consider whether I would have preferred an ending that did not involve an arguably bad decision by the opposing coach.
So there you have it.
Thoughts welcomed.
Here's one not serious topic. Given the 6 month gap between now and when games start counting again, I think there's some room for a little mirth along the way.
Would you change the ending of Super Bowl XLIX if you could waive a magic wand? Let's assume that, unlike the movie "It's a Wonderul Life," there are no adverse, unintended consequences of changing the ending.
Now I know that some or maybe most will say "of course not, it was perfect, no-brainer, etc." I get it. Fair. To each his own. And truth be told, I probably end up there myself. Someone wrote on SoSH that it was like going from Aaron Boone to the 0-3 Comeback in one second rather than 12 months, and that's of course true. Swapping that out for anything is tough stuff.
But just for the hell of it, let's consider the question and the following hypothetical choices, and pros and cons.
Here goes:
1. Alternative Ending: Butler picks off Wilson on the play that was the Kearse Tyree Catch. Instead of going deep, Wilson throws a pass to the outside that Bulter takes to the house, making the score 35-24, and effectively ending the game. Assume, further, that Seattle does not somehow find a way to win the game in the remaining time and the game ends at 35-24. [Edit: to be clear, I am positing that the Pick 6 happens on the very same play that the Kearse Tyree Catch occurred. But instead of Wilson thowing down to the 5 and Kearse catching the ball with his Tyree, Wilson throws a 10 yard laser to the sideline, and Butler steps in front of it and takes it to the house. Pandemonium ensues. No Tebucky like flag. Game effectively over. Gatordade everywhere].
Pros:
- Emphatic, dominant statement to end the game.
- We get an extended sportsgasm as the clock winds down, with full on celebration along the sideline.
- Eliminates entirely the silly "Seattle Lost the Game, NE Didn't Win it" argument that some opposing fans and mediots like to spout.
Cons:
- Deprives us of the unbelievable, once in a lifetime Butler ending, and going from a less than 1% win probability to a virtual walk off SB win.
- Deprives us of seeing Poodle Pete get skewered by anyone and everyone (unless, of course, you like Poodle Pete)
2. The Butler Ending
The pros and cons are essentially the inverse.
A few things.
This occurs to me because (a) I'm warped and (b) living in the NY area, I probably hear the Seattle Lost canard more than those in NE. Not that the argument resonates with me in any way. It is what it is, the Pats got the Lombardi and we all know that the last two SBs could easily have gone the other way. But the mantra did make me consider whether I would have preferred an ending that did not involve an arguably bad decision by the opposing coach.
So there you have it.
Thoughts welcomed.
I was offline basically the whole day after the game and was surprised to see the burgeoning mantra of the Patriots didn't win it, the Seahawks blew it. But this is not new terrain, but just another chapter in people not being able to understand how the Patriots have had so much success.
