Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OttosBestFriend, post: 923767, member: 852"]
It "normally" sucks?  As in, this is a regular occurrence?

Hyperbole much?

Let's go back and review the previous TEN Super Bowls, shall we?

SB XLVII -- Ravens 34 - 49ers 31 (Didn't Suck one bit - Was fantastic game)

SB XLVI -- Giants 21 - Patriots 17 (Didn't Suck - In fact was borderline awesome. 4th Quarter drive by Manning was epic.)

SB XLV -- Packers 31 - Steelers 25 (Didn't Suck)

SB XLIV -- Saints 31 - Colts 17 (Wasn't Great, but didn't suck either)

SB XLIII -- Steelers 27 - Cardinals 23 (Santonio Holmes scored the game-winning touchdown catch with 35 seconds left)

SB XLII -- Giants 17 - Patriots 14 (Manning to David Tyree - 'Nuff Said)

SB XLI -- Colts 29 - Bears 17 (Was 22-17 going in to the 4th quarter and played in the rain. Certainly not the greatest SB, but a very good one indeed)

SB XL -- Steelers 21 - Seahawks 10 (Was 14-10 with 6:30 to go in the game)

SB XXXIX -- Patriots 24 - Eagles 21 (McNabb's big game, Was 14-14 going into the 4th)

SB XXXVIII -- Patriots 32 - Panthers 29 (a classic - no other way to describe it. Peter King calls it the "Greatest Super Bowl" ever.)

So basically, Sunday's game was the first Super Bowl that one could legitimately claim "sucked" in over a decade. And I didn't think the game sucked anyway. Thought it was incredibly compelling to see just how over-matched Denver's supposedly "superior" offense was.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?