The personal blog of author Kelly Sedinger, chronicling the adventures of one overalls-clad wanderer.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Random Wednesday Conversation Starter
For football fans! What kind of game do you prefer: a tense and dramatic low-scoring affair featuring great defenses and a final score like 10-7? or an offensive shoot-out with great catches and runs and a final score like 44-37?
12 comments:
Thee Earl of Obvious
said...
Low score with one break out run and or a 40 to 50 yd catch for a 1st and goal. Provided of course its the Browns making the offensive highlight.
High scoring games are really perverse in nature. Loved by those who don't understand the true nature of the game and its history.
I debated about this for a minute, until I thought about the most fun I ever had watching a game -- even in a loss -- was last year's "slugfest" on Monday night between the Eagles and Cowboys, the good guys falling short 37-41. I watched it in a bar with a bunch of Cowboys fans (yes) and we were just going back and forth with the ribbing and "ohhh!!"s all game. It was entertainment at its best, which is why the NFL exists, regardless of the nature of the game or history.
Game link (http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280915006)
Aside, I don't consider tension and drama to be an exclusive property of a low-scoring game. The question is do you prefer to watch a defense-dominated or offense-dominated game? In short, let's beat up the moderator; it's the sensible thing to do.
I usually don't answer my own questions on these Wednesday threads, but what the heck. And since it's my question, I'm going to take the middle road: I enjoy either kind of game, as long as they're good teams. Last year's Eagles-Cowboys game is a good example; also the AFC title game from three years ago (Colts 34, Patriots 31). Two good teams lighting up the scoreboard is thrilling. But so is two good teams pounding each other without scoring much -- one of the most exciting games I've ever seen came in 1990, when the Giants visited the 49ers. Both teams were 10-1, and the final score was 49ers 7, Giants 3. That game was electrifying too.
But bad teams? Ick. I remember a 6-3 laugher years ago (when the Colts sucked, pre-Manning), and also a lunatic game between the Bengals and (I think) the Browns that ended up something like 52-48 or something crazy like that. That game blew chunks in a massive way as well.
In response to his majesty's grotesque, mealymouthed pandering avowal of sensationalized entertainment; yuck
Football is about your team, your town. Your team is your team regardless of where you live or what you do. You know every person in every position two deep, three deep for receivers. You are nauseated by the super bowls your team is not playing in, while considering draft day a holiday.
I watch only "...if they're two good teams"?!!! I can only imagine a sorority girl has hacked into your computer.
The "Earl of Obvious" I doth suspect is what we call a football snob -- a person who not only states their preferences, but dictates that any alternative is unacceptable and subject to lashings or one good whack with a fish. I like that. Carry on.
You misjudge me Matthew. If someone wants to watch sports with the equivalent acumen of a sit com actress who is in the stands to get their picture taken as a publicity campaign for the upcoming season of "vampire pole dancer" then be my guest. If one wants to just watch with glossed over eyes praying for other people to clap so they can shout "goodie" that is fine. If one wants to applaud as football uniforms look like race car driver outfits covered with advertising so that they can afford to eat sushi in a luxury box that has better amenities than some apartment, go right ahead.
You see I am quite tolerant of the shallow trendy jet set.
Earl Obvious, you have described three types whom I should not so much tolerate as wish to hang by their entrails. I really don't see why we can't focus our disdain on such persons and leave the high-and-low scoring preferences out of it. Frankly, the kind of scoring I most enjoy is the 42-0 variety. Beaten, humiliated, suicidal.
I shall, Sir Matthew, with grace and respect, accept your treaty. Here in obvious we are perhaps opinionated but we are also fair. It is not the idea of high scoring game I loath. Rather it is the notion that a winning team could ever,ever,ever take viewing precedence over one's team. This is akin to surrendering birthright for a handsome silken garment. I was somewhat appalled by his majesty giving credence to such notion. It is my belief now that I misunderstood.
12 comments:
Low score with one break out run and or a 40 to 50 yd catch for a 1st and goal. Provided of course its the Browns making the offensive highlight.
High scoring games are really perverse in nature. Loved by those who don't understand the true nature of the game and its history.
I don't think I like those people
well, it depends on the rhythm of the game. I loved that Bills' comeback vs. the Oilers last season. That said, I'm in the middle, 21-17.
Definitely an offensive shoot-out, with both teams (although perhaps not so much the defense) going for broke.
And I am pleased to be one of "those people."
Rooting for the bandwagon not the team I see.
Hey this wasn't about politics
I debated about this for a minute, until I thought about the most fun I ever had watching a game -- even in a loss -- was last year's "slugfest" on Monday night between the Eagles and Cowboys, the good guys falling short 37-41. I watched it in a bar with a bunch of Cowboys fans (yes) and we were just going back and forth with the ribbing and "ohhh!!"s all game. It was entertainment at its best, which is why the NFL exists, regardless of the nature of the game or history.
Game link (http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280915006)
Aside, I don't consider tension and drama to be an exclusive property of a low-scoring game. The question is do you prefer to watch a defense-dominated or offense-dominated game? In short, let's beat up the moderator; it's the sensible thing to do.
I usually don't answer my own questions on these Wednesday threads, but what the heck. And since it's my question, I'm going to take the middle road: I enjoy either kind of game, as long as they're good teams. Last year's Eagles-Cowboys game is a good example; also the AFC title game from three years ago (Colts 34, Patriots 31). Two good teams lighting up the scoreboard is thrilling. But so is two good teams pounding each other without scoring much -- one of the most exciting games I've ever seen came in 1990, when the Giants visited the 49ers. Both teams were 10-1, and the final score was 49ers 7, Giants 3. That game was electrifying too.
But bad teams? Ick. I remember a 6-3 laugher years ago (when the Colts sucked, pre-Manning), and also a lunatic game between the Bengals and (I think) the Browns that ended up something like 52-48 or something crazy like that. That game blew chunks in a massive way as well.
In response to his majesty's grotesque, mealymouthed pandering avowal of sensationalized entertainment; yuck
Football is about your team, your town. Your team is your team regardless of where you live or what you do. You know every person in every position two deep, three deep for receivers. You are nauseated by the super bowls your team is not playing in, while considering draft day a holiday.
I watch only "...if they're two good teams"?!!! I can only imagine a sorority girl has hacked into your computer.
Offensive shoot-out. I honestly don't know a lot about the game but I love to watch those dramatic throws and catches.
The "Earl of Obvious" I doth suspect is what we call a football snob -- a person who not only states their preferences, but dictates that any alternative is unacceptable and subject to lashings or one good whack with a fish. I like that. Carry on.
You misjudge me Matthew. If someone wants to watch sports with the equivalent acumen of a sit com actress who is in the stands to get their picture taken as a publicity campaign for the upcoming season of "vampire pole dancer" then be my guest. If one wants to just watch with glossed over eyes praying for other people to clap so they can shout "goodie" that is fine. If one wants to applaud as football uniforms look like race car driver outfits covered with advertising so that they can afford to eat sushi in a luxury box that has better amenities than some apartment, go right ahead.
You see I am quite tolerant of the shallow trendy jet set.
Earl Obvious, you have described three types whom I should not so much tolerate as wish to hang by their entrails. I really don't see why we can't focus our disdain on such persons and leave the high-and-low scoring preferences out of it. Frankly, the kind of scoring I most enjoy is the 42-0 variety. Beaten, humiliated, suicidal.
I shall, Sir Matthew, with grace and respect, accept your treaty. Here in obvious we are perhaps opinionated but we are also fair. It is not the idea of high scoring game I loath. Rather it is the notion that a winning team could ever,ever,ever take viewing precedence over one's team. This is akin to surrendering birthright for a handsome silken garment. I was somewhat appalled by his majesty giving credence to such notion. It is my belief now that I misunderstood.
Post a Comment