While on respite at my folks house last weekend, I got a chance to watch Super Bowl XIII- the last Super Bowl played before I was born. It was a little surreal, to watch a football game that took place before Jason Parks was a part of Earth. But aside from the grainy footage, woefully outdated graphics, and boring commentary- it was basically a football game. The kind you would turn on your television to watch in 2011.
After the first quarter, I found myself trying to recall the Most Valuable Player of that game (I'm no Schwab stumper, but I have a decent handle on NFL history, especially Super Bowls). I knew that Terry Bradshaw had captured a couple of Super Bowl MVP awards during the Steelers 4 1970's championships. The reason my curiosity was piqued was that Bradshaw had a very rough first quarter I think he threw an interception and lost a couple fumbles. Overall he had 4 touchdown passes and over 300 yards, but a low completion percentage and the aforementioned turnovers. Sure enough, though, Bradshaw was named the Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl XIII. It got me thinking about the whole process of selecting an MVP for the big game. Often times, it seems to be more about popularity than value.
So what I plan to do over the next Whenever (note: I know I talk all the time about this series and that series- but when it comes to football, I'm gold, man. So you know that I spit truth, yo) is go through the list of Super Bowl MVPs, and rate them on a five point scale to determine their worthiness. I'll also try to determine why the player was chosen that was chosen and discuss any other viable candidates. If I'm feeling particularly ballsy, I will anoint a new Super Bowl MVP for that particular game.
Since I basically pulled the five point scale out of a hat, I should probably lay the groundwork now for that five point scale. Here's what I'm thinking...
5- Hands down the best player in Super Bowl (X). No way anyone else wins this award.
4- Played an exceptional game, but there were a couple other worthy candidates.
3- Played a good game, but so did many/zero others
2- Played okay, probably should have been a different MVP
1- Do the voters even watch football?
Now I know that the champion of the Super Bowl is the real deal- but MVP is still significant. They get a luxury car and a trip to Disney World. Those are high stakes, man!
Unlike the mental block placed on voters, I will not be bound by the narrow view that the MVP must come from the winning team- because MVP performances can happen on both sides of the ball. Also unlike actual voters, I won't be conducting this series immediately after viewing the performance in question. This may be a hindrance or a blessing. Obviously much of what I'm going to be researching is cold hard statistics and game synopses, which do not always tell the absolute truth. For example, Bradshaw threw for over 300 yards and 4 touchdowns in Super Bowl XIII. Great stats. What the numbers don't tell you, though, is that there were big chunks of yardage gained on short throw-and-runs by his receivers. Lynn Swann made a couple of fantastic plays on short passes. Maybe Swann should have been the MVP. I don't know- I'll get to that in segment 3 of this series.
Of course, sometimes we make more rash judgments when we're put on the spot immediately after witnessing something. We don't really have time to process it- so we make a gut reaction. And with a game like football, sometimes it's tough to see past certain players or positions to make a more objective decision.
I am not normally one to make grandiose statements or exaggerated promises. But trust me when I promise you via statement that By this weekend, I will posted my analysis of the Super Bowl MVPs from Super Bowls I through V.
Word is bond. Yo.
No comments:
Post a Comment