Is it eavesdropping when it is broadcasted?
In the wake of Sunday’s great culmination to the Packers’ season, I find myself very interested in what others are saying. That is, what fans of other teams are saying about us.
Here is how the Pittsburgh Steelers official web site characterized the game. For a piece written immediately after the painful conclusion of the contest, it is commendably analytical and balanced. A very interesting and thoughtful review of the game.
In the course of their analysis, they make note of the several Steeler turnovers, each of which was obviously critical. After all, the Packers scored 21 points off of the three Pittsburgh turnovers, and in a game that your team lost by just 6, that has to be a bitter pill to swallow.
The write-up puts particular emphasis on the Mendenhall fumble, calling it “the turning point.”
I have heard that point of view from national media outlets, as well. The thesis is that, if Mendenhall hadn’t fumbled, Pittsburgh would have driven the rest of the way for a touchdown, take the lead, steal all momentum, and probably win the game. The ever-opinionated Skip Bayless is especially a proponent of this line of reasoning.
That kind of “if-ism” builds a pretty flimsy case, however. After all, such critical turnovers were the very hallmark of Green Bay’s playoff run. Think of the Philly and Chicago games, in particular (though our defense was also effectively greedy in Atlanta).
Why is it fair to assume that the Steeler offense would march successfully to the end zone but not fair to assume that the Packer defense would come up with the big play to stop them? The latter is precisely what happened in every Packer playoff game. The latter is precisely what happened in the Super Bowl. That kind of play by our defense was the rule, not the exception.
Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also offers what is, in my view, a very balanced and healthy view of the game. And, more than just the game, it is a wholesome view of the whole Steeler season. It is not a bitter reliving of the Steelers’ mistakes, a wistful “If only” lament, or a resentful sniping at the Packers. It is the kind of piece that I took some weeks to welcome after Green Bay lost to the Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII, but it was an important piece for a Steeler fan to write and a Steeler audience to read.
On the other hand, Chicago Bear talk radio is not nearly so whole-some in its outlook as these Pittsburgh writers are. Of course, that may be the nature of the genre. Still, they are showing much more resentment toward their rival to the north than the Steeler fans seem to be. Indeed, with regard to the Steeler fans, here is what one friend from Pittsburgh wrote to me about what happened in Texas:
Our local newscasters who were in Arlington for the game said that the Packers/Steelers crowd was a good natured group…and as people left the stadium, there was genuine admiration and positive thoughts from each side to the other; a "lovefest" he called it, with invitations from both sides to come and visit and see you next year!
Ah, but the Bears fans… there is no “lovefest” with them! I heard some Chicago sports talk radio hosts dreading aloud this coming summer, when Chicago residents would head up to Lake Geneva, the Dells, and Door County, and have to face the boasting Packer fans. The radio hosts were inviting Bears fans to call up with suggested retorts for when Green Bay fans flaunted their Super Bowl win.
The old saying, of course, is that the best revenge is living well. Or, in this case, it would be playing well. But Bears fans have to wait seven long months before they can begin to exact that sort of revenge.
Perhaps the President's tardiness in making the customary congratulatory phone call to the Super Bowl winners reflects yet another bitter Bears fan. Still, as Charles Woodson predicted, the team he didn’t come to see in the Super Bowl is going to come to see him in the White House!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment