Whitlock

[Ace]

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.

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.

 

[hondo]

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.

 

[ballscribe]

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.

 

[outofplace]

The surprising thing to me about this thread is that Whitlock didn't start it.

He must have lost his internet connection.

i'll post the aol column later, after they slap it online. it's pretty funny with some great rips on salisbury and the pipemaker.

I swear, this line from JW reminded me completely of JDV.

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

 

[BTExpress]

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.

 

[Oz]

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.

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.

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.

 

[jason_whitlock]

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.

 

[BTExpress]

both coaches were afraid of their quarterbacks.

Indy threw the ball 38 times.

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

What the **** were you watching, Super Bowl VII?

 

[JayFarrar]

I fall asleep most every Super Bowl and last night was no different.
After Benson got hurt, I had a feeling it was done and then the Colts went up and I knew they wouldn't look back.
Was it the worst game ever? Nah, but coming after one of the better AFC title games in recent memory it made last night look worse.
I think the real thing to worry about is the NFC. At least two other AFC teams -- New England, San Diego -- would have also stomped Chicago. Maybe more, but my NFL memory is already becoming hazy.

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

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.

I'm still searching for the column...

In the interim, I found your column posted Jan. 22, aptly titled "Coaches make dream matchup."

Of note: "By perfecting his Cover 2 defensive scheme, Dungy turned the Bucs into winners, a team that constantly knocked at the Super Bowl’s door. While in Tampa, he also taught Lovie Smith and Herm Edwards the principles and philosophies that would one day make them fine NFL head coaches."

That's the pimp hand, for ya.

 

[BTExpress]

Was it the worst game ever? Nah, but coming after one of the better AFC title games in recent memory it made last night look worse.

That happend in the 90s with 49ers-Cowboys, too. Best game was conference championship.

But at least in the NFL we are spared from fans screaming for a rematch.

 

[jason_whitlock]

there's a difference between worst. super bowl. ever. and most boring. super bowl. ever.

trouser, pimpology 101: you gotta make 'em think you love 'em, too.

 

[jason_whitlock]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16624195.htm

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

there's a difference between worst. super bowl. ever. and most boring. super bowl. ever.

trouser, pimpology 101: you gotta make 'em think you love 'em, too.

Sorry, I tried taking pimpology 101 online with the University of Phoenix, but there weren't enough people signed up.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I must say, Jason, that although I think I understand the meaning of your last post, to me and I'd bet over 90 percent of all viewers, "most boring" and "worst" Super Bowl ARE synonymous.

 

[Chuck~Taylor]

Wasn't the Ravens/Giants game pretty boring?

 

[Gold]

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.

... in other words, like a lot of NFL regular-season games.

Super Bowl XLI was one of the more entertaining Super Bowls. I don't think a blowout means that one team was great; it often means that one team simply doesn't have a clue and gets overwhelmed in the excitement. The Colts showed a ridiculous amount of jitters early in the game, with two procedure penalties, and the Bears getting their hands on the ball the first five or six times Manning threw the ball.

Super Bowl five and seven were far worse than this game. Both teams played really poorly in Super Bowl five and the Dolphins didn't play a great game when they beat Washington two years later. And neither coach did a worse job than Jim Fassel in the 2001 Super Bowl or Don Shula in Super Bowl 3.

 

[jason_whitlock]

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/nfl/_a/medias-manning-mania-doesnt-add-up/20070205092809990001

junkie, i don't lie about my age. people know i didn't see the first 8 or 9 super bowls and only read about them. it's still my opinion.

 

[jason_whitlock]

I must say, Jason, that although I think I understand the meaning of your last post, to me and I'd bet over 90 percent of all viewers, "most boring" and "worst" Super Bowl ARE synonymous.

and that's why the column didn't stop after the first 4 words.

 

[suburbia]

I agree that this Super Bowl certainly doesn't belong in the top half, and it certainly paled in comparison to the second half of the AFC Championship Game. But until Grossman's pick-6, the Bears were one Rex Grossman deep ball (one of his few strengths) from taking the lead and possibly stealing the game. That in and of itself keeps it from being the worst ever.

The worst ever was the Colts' previous title, Super Bowl V. Cowboys-Broncos (XII) was pretty grim too.

I do agree with Whitlock, however, that worst ever is not the same as most boring, and that there is something to be said in blowouts for being impressed by a team's dominance. The '85 Bears and '89 49ers did this, amongst others. The Ravens defense did this, although it was also very obvious that they were half a team (why else would a Super Bowl winning QB get cut before the next season?).

Unfortunately, great Super Bowls with dramatic finishes (such as Giants-Bills, Pats-Panthers, Pats-Rams) are rare. All the more reason to cherish them when they do happen.