Let's talk Super Bowl...

I'll say it: I shut off the game midway though the 3rd quarter.

Say what you want. Don't care.

I got up Monday morning prepared to wear my Patriots shirt when I went out and about. Simply to show my support. (Which is a true sign of a fan. At work, I've seen people walk around in their Brady jerseys during the Playoffs and I'd laugh. Where the hell were they after the Pats lost to Seattle in Week 10?) Then, just for punishment, I watched the highlights over coffee.

Wait...WHAT?

Holy, Good God, DAMN!

Needless to say, I've spent a lot of time watching reaction and commentary videos on YouTube all week. And one of the biggest topics online is this...

 ...is he? Or isn't he?

First of all, prior to this game Brady had won 3 Super Bowl MVP awards, and I've never believed he should have gotten any of them. He didn't win those Super Bowls. 

Secondly, prior to Superbowl 51, every Patriots Super Bowl win was by less than 5 points.

Then came this game.

Looking at his performance, under such circumstances, there is NO doubt that he absolutely deserved the Super Bowl 51 MVP award. There's also no doubt that he is the best clutch quarterback to have ever played the game.

But GOAT? I would say yes, but with an asterisk.

Hang on and hear me out...

Rich Eisen made a very good point on his 2/6/17 broadcast of The Rich Eisen Show, which I will paraphrase:

Tom Brady is the Greatest Quarterback in the history of the NFL, but not necessarily the Greatest FOOTBALL Player of all time. 

Eisen went on to say that Jerry Rice is the Greatest Wide Receiver in football history and Jim Brown is the Greatest Running Back in football history. Since Eisen knows a hell of a lot more about football (and sports in general) than I ever will, I bow to his wisdom. 

But that got me thinking about what GOAT really means.

Can there truly be a GOAT in all of sports? Is Brady a better athlete than Serena Williams? Lebron James? Muhammad Ali? Yeah, Brady has five rings, but he's never won Olympic Gold. 

I think Eisen's point goes beyond football. Every sport has it's own expectations from those athletes who choose to pursue that sport, and a person who is great (or even good for that matter) in one sport doesn't automatically mean that s/he would excel in a different one. 

Can you see him throwing a baseball? Boxing? Swimming? Ice Skating? 'Cause I sure an hell can't.

So what is he? Tom Brady is THE GREATEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME. 

You can call him the GOAT Quarterbacks, or the GQBOAT, or the GOATQB. Take your pick, but there is no debate.

So. Logan (2017)...

Here are my thoughts - 

1) The "bad guys" are Reavers.

No. Not those Reavers.

Those Reavers.

I know, but stay with me here...

2) 

That actress, Dafne Keen, is indeed X-23.

I know this is all common knowledge. But again, stay with me.

3) It's been made clear in the trailers that this film takes place in Texas...

...as opposed to the Australian Outback. Which would have been cooler.

4) 

Stewart's Xavier appearance tells me this is taking place before Days of Future Past.

Which means one of two things:

5a) The movie ends with this timeline being wiped out of existence, making it moot, and a new timeline begins with a new, younger Logan (played by a new, younger actor) growing up.

OR...

5b) The movie ends with this timeline being wiped out of existence, making it moot, and a new timeline begins with a new, younger X-Men team watching "The Incident" in New York on television.

Damn right.

Either way, we're gonna see a LOT more X-23 on the screen.

But you know what will most likely happen?

The film will end with some lame-ass tie-in with Legion.

'Cause desperate times...