Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Sports: Super zzzzzzz Bowl zzzzzzz zzzzzzzz...
Holy crap, I just remembered that we're five days from the Super Bowl.
*yawn*
Headed into Championship Weekend, I was hoping that the lowly Atlanta Falcons would claw their way to the Lombardi Trophy. They were the only team of the four participants that wouldn't make my Cowboys look bad by winning the Super Bowl.
Think about it: a Pittsburgh championship meant that the Steelers would have tied Dallas and San Francisco as the only teams with five world titles. Now Dallas is light years ahead of the Niners in terms of trying to start a second hand's worth of rings, but they would still trail Pittsburgh in their proximity to number six, and by a lot. Thankfully the Steelers proved to be the fluff daddies I thought they were.
But that still leaves Philly and New England. The Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, though they've worked Dallas like no other team has during the past few seasons. Watching those bastards celebrate a world title would make my blood boil. Likewise, a Pats victory means that Dallas' feat of three Super Bowls in four years would now have an equal, and what Cowboys fan wants that?
Quick aside: I hear rumblings from Cowboy-haters that New England's run has been more impressive that Dallas', because it came during the Salary Cap era. That's asinine. The 'Boys won Super Bowls despite a steady stream of attrition from 92-95. They just managed to keep reloading. Also remember that Dallas came within a game of making that streak four in a row. New England, on the other hand, missed the playoffs entirely a year after claiming their first Super Bowl. Oh yeah, and the Pats haven't won anything yet this season, so all talk of this New England "dynasty" should be tabled for at least a few days.
Anyway, silver star envy aside, this Super Bowl just doesn't get the juices flowing. I'm a firm believer that for a championship game to register historically, it needs one of the following teams to participate: Dallas, San Francisco, Green Bay, Washington, New York Giants, Denver, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Buffalo or Miami. These teams have all attained Super Bowl glory in multiple eras, dominated specific eras or at least managed to contend for so long that it seems like they did the latter two. These are the teams you think of when you're watching NFL Films productions at 2 a.m. I hear that classic DUM DA-DA DUM DA-DA DUM DA-DA DUM DUM theme music and I immediately envision Marcus Allen sprinting in slo-mo past the Redskins' defenders, or Montana hitting Rice in the back of the endzone against the Bengals. This year's lightweight participants aren't even in the same mold as the giants of yesteryear.
New England? They were an NFL laughingstock until a few years back, and stop with the "this is their fifth Super Bowl trip and they're 14-2" because unless you eat chowdah by Bay in Beantown, you probably don't even realize that. The Patsies' first two appearances were forgettable flukes that saw them get stomped. No one even gave them a chance to win the game until their fourth try last year. That's not a dynasty; it's lightning in a very big bottle.
Philly? Their one shining moment in the early 80's preceded almost two decades of silence. Just getting to the Bowl this year seems like an accomplishment because they've been the poster boys for the Heimlich Maneuver for the past three years. Sure it's a far cry from the Rich Kotite days, but does anyone look at this team and see them in the same light as a Dallas or San Fran?
Now sometimes teams do come along (the 99 Rams and 86 Bears are classic examples) that are so intriguing, by virtue of a prolific offense or exciting players, that history takes a backseat to the here and now. But who cares about these squads? Except for pretty boy Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb, there are no marquee names in this game. The most colorful guy (Terrell Owens) probably won't even play.
Simply put, this year's game features two boring teams in an even more boring city. Ho Hum. Forget the beer, chips and dip -- pass the No-Doze.
|
*yawn*
Headed into Championship Weekend, I was hoping that the lowly Atlanta Falcons would claw their way to the Lombardi Trophy. They were the only team of the four participants that wouldn't make my Cowboys look bad by winning the Super Bowl.
Think about it: a Pittsburgh championship meant that the Steelers would have tied Dallas and San Francisco as the only teams with five world titles. Now Dallas is light years ahead of the Niners in terms of trying to start a second hand's worth of rings, but they would still trail Pittsburgh in their proximity to number six, and by a lot. Thankfully the Steelers proved to be the fluff daddies I thought they were.
But that still leaves Philly and New England. The Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, though they've worked Dallas like no other team has during the past few seasons. Watching those bastards celebrate a world title would make my blood boil. Likewise, a Pats victory means that Dallas' feat of three Super Bowls in four years would now have an equal, and what Cowboys fan wants that?
Quick aside: I hear rumblings from Cowboy-haters that New England's run has been more impressive that Dallas', because it came during the Salary Cap era. That's asinine. The 'Boys won Super Bowls despite a steady stream of attrition from 92-95. They just managed to keep reloading. Also remember that Dallas came within a game of making that streak four in a row. New England, on the other hand, missed the playoffs entirely a year after claiming their first Super Bowl. Oh yeah, and the Pats haven't won anything yet this season, so all talk of this New England "dynasty" should be tabled for at least a few days.
Anyway, silver star envy aside, this Super Bowl just doesn't get the juices flowing. I'm a firm believer that for a championship game to register historically, it needs one of the following teams to participate: Dallas, San Francisco, Green Bay, Washington, New York Giants, Denver, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Buffalo or Miami. These teams have all attained Super Bowl glory in multiple eras, dominated specific eras or at least managed to contend for so long that it seems like they did the latter two. These are the teams you think of when you're watching NFL Films productions at 2 a.m. I hear that classic DUM DA-DA DUM DA-DA DUM DA-DA DUM DUM theme music and I immediately envision Marcus Allen sprinting in slo-mo past the Redskins' defenders, or Montana hitting Rice in the back of the endzone against the Bengals. This year's lightweight participants aren't even in the same mold as the giants of yesteryear.
New England? They were an NFL laughingstock until a few years back, and stop with the "this is their fifth Super Bowl trip and they're 14-2" because unless you eat chowdah by Bay in Beantown, you probably don't even realize that. The Patsies' first two appearances were forgettable flukes that saw them get stomped. No one even gave them a chance to win the game until their fourth try last year. That's not a dynasty; it's lightning in a very big bottle.
Philly? Their one shining moment in the early 80's preceded almost two decades of silence. Just getting to the Bowl this year seems like an accomplishment because they've been the poster boys for the Heimlich Maneuver for the past three years. Sure it's a far cry from the Rich Kotite days, but does anyone look at this team and see them in the same light as a Dallas or San Fran?
Now sometimes teams do come along (the 99 Rams and 86 Bears are classic examples) that are so intriguing, by virtue of a prolific offense or exciting players, that history takes a backseat to the here and now. But who cares about these squads? Except for pretty boy Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb, there are no marquee names in this game. The most colorful guy (Terrell Owens) probably won't even play.
Simply put, this year's game features two boring teams in an even more boring city. Ho Hum. Forget the beer, chips and dip -- pass the No-Doze.
Longhorn Sites
Astros Sites