Skip to main content

Tom Brady Does It Again

They came from 25 points down. No one had ever done that. No one had ever been to 7 Super Bowls, either. No one, in 51 years. Frankly, I saw it, and I'm still having trouble believing that it happened. The first Super Bowl to go to overtime was last night. I won't bore you with the recap. But it ended 34-28, in perhaps the greatest title game I've seen. I say "perhaps," because there have been some doozies. And a few involve the Patriots.

One thing I wanted to note, a thing many people might miss, was the time of possession. TOP is usually crucial in a football game. It's hard--and nearly impossible--to score points without the ball. TOP tracks how often a team's offensive unit has the ball.

I noticed that the Patriots were leading the TOP even in the first half, although they trailed 21-3. If they could somehow get back in this thing, that could pay off later. Tired defenses do two things: Jack, and Squat. Tom Brady is arguably the greatest player--let alone quarterback--in NFL history. In the fourth quarter, 19 points by the Patriots tells us all we need to know. Those Atlanta Falcons defenders were exhausted.

The greatest quarterback of all time has five Super Bowl rings as proof. Bear in mind that he lost narrowly in the two others. There is no doubt about who the best is now, in my opinion. 466 passing yards was another day at the office during the regular season for Hall of Famer Kurt Warner, and his Rams teammates, dubbed "The Greatest Show On Turf." But this is the Super Bowl; these types of things aren't done.

Unless you're Tom Brady, that is. Tom Brady, who led his Patriots to the 2001 Super Bowl victory as a rookie against those aforementioned Rams, stands as champion again, some 17 years later.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un