1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!


Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by FCE, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    I dunno, there's a certain hardcore poetry to it ...
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I think it was the worst ever.

    In a blowout, you can at least admire one team for its greatness.

    This one never seemed to be on track. Neither team looked good.

    Never really any drama. Course if Rex could complete a pass over 10 yards, it mighta been different.
  3. Trouser_Buddah

    Trouser_Buddah Active Member

    I swear, this line from JW reminded me completely of JDV.
  4. Montezuma's Revenge

    Montezuma's Revenge Active Member

    I think anybody who calls this the worst ever has a severe lack of perspective.

    Lousy game, but not even in the ballpark with Colts-Cowboys or an the litany of Super Bowl routs over the year. This game at least had some exciting plays, and the Bears did have the ball in the fourth quarter down by only five points.
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    And then what happened? Rexie threw a pair of jump balls. That's worse than a blowout. It's like a JV game or something.
  6. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    I think the two worst Super Bowls ever were the two the Dolphins won. No finesse, no big plays, no memorable plays, other than Yepremian. Boooorrrinnnngggg.
    Right up there was the Steelers beating the Vikings 16-6. That was a snoozer.
  7. ballscribe

    ballscribe Active Member

    It wasn't well played, but both teams had interesting storylines coming in, especially the two quarterbacks and the two coaches.
    The weather pretty much assured it wouldn't be well-played.
    But it started with a bang, which was great. There was drama in those turnovers, which was also great.

    By great, I mean not boring. Can't even imagine it was the worst ever, but the standard, admittedly, isn't very high.
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Interesting that he's the one complimenting his own work, since none of us was doing it for him.
  9. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I don't buy the premise that turnovers = "bad Super Bowl."

    Turnovers often are caused by damn good defense and field conditions. Everybody loves a wet or snowy game, but when the wet or snow produce --- gasp! --- turnovers then the game suddenly becomes "bad"?

    Not to me.

    Everyone loves to pick on Supe V, but those were two of the hardest-hitting defenses of that era. Balls didn't just slip from people's arms . . . they were knocked out. It also had wacky plays (the Mackey TD, the strip of Eddie Hinton as he was heading toward a touchdown). As a 9-year-old kid, I found it entertaining as hell.

    And, in contrast to many Super Bowls, V was in doubt the whole way and was decided by --- of course --- a defensive play that caused an interception that led to a game-winning field goal with 5 seconds left.

    If that's bad . . . I'll take it over 55-10 any day.

    And to get this thread back on topic . . . as a football columnist, Whitlock is a joke, the epitome of what's wrong with much of the media today. Preconceived notions win out over objectively looking at the situation.
  10. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    It's basically the same thing that happened in Super Bowl XXX. Steelers trailed only 20-17 with the ball, midway through the fourth with a chance to tie or lead for the first time. O'Donnell hits Larry Brown for a second time, he returns the ball to the Steelers 6. Three plays later, Emmitt Smith scores a touchdown and it's 27-17 Dallas. Ball game.

    I don't see how last night's game is much different than Super Bowl XXX. Just a different lousy quarterback on a team with a great defense that didn't quite get it done. But I don't see anyone talking about that Super Bowl as one of the worst all-time.
  11. some people might want to read the column. this was a poorly coached super bowl. both coaches were afraid of their quarterbacks. field goals were treated like rare pieces of gold. the game was horrible.

    and ace nails it...a blowout victory at least you admire the greatness of the other team. or at least the ravens put an all-time great defense on the field. ray lewis had one of the finest games i'd ever seen.
  12. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Indy threw the ball 38 times.

    Chicago threw it 28 times . . . with only 22 minutes of possession.

    What the fuck were you watching, Super Bowl VII?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page