Your first read on the Super Bowl

[Mr. X]

Who was, or will be, your first read on the Super Bowl and why?

For me, it will be whoever catches my eye first in The New York Times. I am a delivery subscriber and am not interested enough to look for anyone else online before reading the paper at breakfast. Will look later to see if anyone wrote about a Giants player who went to high school in our coverage area.

 

[Scouter]

Just read Dan Wetzel, and he killed it on Brady in the locker room and post-game. Great column.

 

[matt_garth]

Agreed. Wetzel was solid.

Then there's this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/wilbur/2012/02/not_so_safety_c.html

 

[flexmaster33]

Agreed. Wetzel was solid.

Then there's this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/wilbur/2012/02/not_so_safety_c.html

yikes...that's a piece of crud...but looks like it's just some lame blog. Anyone know more about this site? Makes me wonder how much money he dropped on the Patriots before the game.

After taking a closer look...it seems like this is a Globe staffer...that can't be. Can it?

 

[DanOregon]

Crap like that makes me glad the Patriots lost. I'm kind of hoping we've seen the end of the Hub of the Sports Universe thing as well. The Celtics are old, the Pats seem mortal, the Red Sox seem to have melted down...

And is this guy serious about Mallett? He's not even the SECOND-String qb, Brian Hoyer is. He was in-active for every game. The guy that got cut on Super Bowl eve contributed more to the team this year.

Glad I read the Wetzel column second. Brilliant work. As good as the Colt McCoy BCS game column. The greatness of the piece though is that it is so detailed, yet carefully observed from a distance. Knowing who the various people were, keeping track of the clock. But how the hell did he get the bus seat numbers?

 

[Versatile]

Agreed. Wetzel was solid.

Then there's this:

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/wilbur/2012/02/not_so_safety_c.html

yikes...that's a piece of crud...but looks like it's just some lame blog. Anyone know more about this site? Makes me wonder how much money he dropped on the Patriots before the game.

After taking a closer look...it seems like this is a Globe staffer...that can't be. Can it?

It can and is ... sort of. It's definitely not just some lame blog. Boston.com is branching off from the Globe, which is why he's listed as a Boston.com staff writer, but it's still the place most Globe readers would go to for their news. BostonGlobe.com has a paywall, but it also has many of the Globe's best writers.

As far as first read on the Super Bowl? I read enough at work tonight. Tomorrow, I plan on reading Joe Posnanski, Dan Wetzel, Bruce Arthur and a few of the Boston and New York writers. The first three all came as recommendations from trusted sources on Twitter, and they also happen to be three of my favorite columnists.

 

[MileHigh]

Wetzel was nails -- as usual. Great stuff. Great detail.

 

[Matt1735]

Great writing. And here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aj5nemKQbqkUeR1fLEQdwUE5nYcB?slug=dw-wetzel_tom_brady_super_bowl_gisele_bundchen_defeat_020512

 

[Golazo21]

Thanks for the link, Matt. That Wetzel piece is superb. I may have to go out of my way to start reading more of his stuff.

 

[Double Down]

That Wetzel piece deserves its own thread, to be honest. It's a text book example of show, don't tell. Instead of bloviating, Wetzel REPORTS. He gives you scene, time and time again, the stuff you can't get sitting on your couch.

 

[flexmaster33]

fantastic piece

 

[Azrael]

Simple premise: the story is in the losing locker room. Write down what you see and hear.

 

[MileHigh]

Les Carpenter took a similar approach -- for Wes Welker.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AvCEP6Z9Hv26Vn1Wt0_gD51DubYF?slug=lc-carpenter_wes_welker_drop_patriots_super_bowl_020512

 

[Dick Whitman]

Wetzel is the best working right now, I think.

I remember a few years ago I received an out-of-the-blue email from him that he liked a column or columns I wrote. We didn't really know each other - had crossed paths at a game or two, but he probably didn't remember me.

Anyway, I still think back to that and say, "Well, if that guy - who is the absolute best - liked my columns, then maybe in another time, another place, under other circumstances, I might have had a shot in this business."

Point being that he is the best - and also seemingly a good guy, too.

 

[SF_Express]

Wetzel is indeed a very good guy, on top of everything else.

 

[bigbadeagle]

Actual detail, context, command of the scene and of vocabulary ...
Rare commodities indeed in this day and age. Rare.

 

[Alma]

Great writing. And here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aj5nemKQbqkUeR1fLEQdwUE5nYcB?slug=dw-wetzel_tom_brady_super_bowl_gisele_bundchen_defeat_020512

Great writing?


<i>"The defense had proven resilient. Brady had shaken off early mistakes to put together a brilliant 16-for-16 and two-touchdown passing stretch. All they needed to make was one more play. On offense. On defense. Somewhere. Anywhere.

It never happened. Instead they marched off Lucas Oil Field with Giants confetti falling above them, another Super Bowl dashed by the New Yorkers.

How? Why? There’s no simple answer.

Not now. Maybe not ever. The last Super Bowl loss haunted them, hung over them, motivated them to get back. They know that pain too well to think this will be any different. The first night is always the longest. They don’t get much shorter though." </i>

Decent writing. Not great. To call it great would be to miss the point of what Wetzel does so well.

Wetzel knows where his story is, he has the freedom to ignore the Giants actually winning the game - and good for Yahoo to allow it - and so he just stuck there with Brady for an hour. And then he is clearly confident enough to stick with <i>his</i> reality of the story all the way through. That fidelity - however the writing plays out - is really commendable. It's what makes a great columnist, and not just a great writer. Great writers, in fact, can't often do what Wetzel did.

 

[Azrael]

Rare.

That would depend entirely upon what and whom you read.

 

[SF_Express]

Great writing. And here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aj5nemKQbqkUeR1fLEQdwUE5nYcB?slug=dw-wetzel_tom_brady_super_bowl_gisele_bundchen_defeat_020512

Great writing?


<i>"The defense had proven resilient. Brady had shaken off early mistakes to put together a brilliant 16-for-16 and two-touchdown passing stretch. All they needed to make was one more play. On offense. On defense. Somewhere. Anywhere.

It never happened. Instead they marched off Lucas Oil Field with Giants confetti falling above them, another Super Bowl dashed by the New Yorkers.

How? Why? There’s no simple answer.

Not now. Maybe not ever. The last Super Bowl loss haunted them, hung over them, motivated them to get back. They know that pain too well to think this will be any different. The first night is always the longest. They don’t get much shorter though." </i>

Decent writing. Not great. To call it great would be to miss the point of what Wetzel does so well.

Wetzel knows where his story is, he has the freedom to ignore the Giants actually winning the game - and good for Yahoo to allow it - and so he just stuck there with Brady for an hour. And then he is clearly confident enough to stick with <i>his</i> reality of the story all the way through. That fidelity - however the writing plays out - is really commendable. It's what makes a great columnist, and not just a great writer. Great writers, in fact, can't often do what Wetzel did.

Seriously, I guess it gets into a whole discussion of what "writing" is, doesn't it?

Is it simply the use of words, or is it all of the things that go into the final thing that you read.

Was Heinz, for example, a "great writer" in terms of putting together stunning prose? Not really. His beauty was in his simplicity, and his remarkable eye for detail.

 

[Azrael]

Heinz was a very great writer.

He was a minimalist who modeled his prose after Hemingway's. Other "great" magazine writers - say Wolfe or Thompson - might be thought of as maximalists. One style is easier to point out than the other.

But the attribute of greatness transcends style.