Dunno that much about football, and I didn’t watch the game, but this Chicago Tribune columnist seems to think that (a) the Giants had no business being in the Super Bowl in the first place, and (b) that they totally caved on offense. Is he right? Or is it just sportswriters’ hyperbole? Objective answers only, please.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I thought the Super Bowl was supposed to be the best teams from each league. How would the Giants get to the Super Bowl if they were really that incompetent? And how can a professional football team just “not field” an offense? The columnist makes it sound like a Disney movie, where the one team of kids just gets totally stomped, or like those occasional high school league mismatches, where one team is all big farmer’s kids who are serious about football, and the other team is just regular guys who like to play.
I’m just a little startled to be told that at this exalted level of professional football, it was such a total walkover. So, was it really, or was there something else going on, that a non-football fan wouldn’t “get”? Or is is just that Rick Morrissey’s in the business of selling newspapers?
Also, is it true that Tiki Barber fell down on purpose rather than be tackled by Ray Lewis? And ditto for Kerry Collins–are you allowed to do that in professional football, just fall down in order to keep from being tackled?
First, yes you can fall down rather than take a hit or be tackled… quaterbacks do that all the time… although they usually slide which makes it illegal for the opposing team to hit them.
Objective opinion? No such thing. I root for SF and didn’t care who won the game. Although NY was outgunned by Baltimore they couldn’t get their game going (ie. play the game they wanted) and never were really in the game. Balitmore has a great defense (perhaps the best of all time, but that’s debatable) so once they shut down the Giants all they needed was enough offense to score 10 points and at that point the game was over. They did what they had to do.
Clearly it was a mismatch… should NY have been in the game? Well, they won the NFC playoffs so that means they earned the right to be there… it was just a mismatch and the skills they brought, even if they had executed them perfectly which they didn’t (lots of turnovers) weren’t enough to couterbalance Balimore’s defense… which was unbelievably good.
I think this was a bit of hyperbole. The Giants were a pretty good team, but they just played a bad offensive game against a great defensive team. I think others can debate the quality of any particular Super Bowl matchup.
As for falling down to avoid being tackled, it’s perfectly legal. It may make you look like a wimp, but it’s legal. Quarterbacks are explicitly allowed to slide feet first and be considered “down” without anyone touching them.
Depends how the question is phrased. Were they that bad? Yes. Are they that bad? No.
Superbowls in the past have tended to be blowouts. Tightfought exciting games have been the exception rather than the rule. The reason - most football games in general are not all that close. It’s just that with all the hype about the Superbowl, people come to expect that this-or-that much-hyped team will perform at a top level. But as said, in most football games, one or another team gets whipped.
The Giants are a good team, they ate not at the level of most past SuperBowl teams, but I blame that on parity and the salary cap. Also remember that it was only 10-0 at the half and if it were not for an late interception could have 10-7. In the 2nd half the Giants were forced to try to catch up and relied only on the passing game which led to turnovers and easy Baltimore points. Also I think that the AFC had the better teams this year and Baltimore vs Oakland probably had the best two teams playing.