ESPN to '06 Colts - You Suck!
When you think of the 2006 Indianapolis Colts - do you think of them as overrated?
ESPN's Sal Paolantonio does! Good ol' Sal has labeled the Super Bowl XLI champs as the"most overrated Super Bowl winner." Really?!?
I'll give you that the game was not the most thrilling since it was the first Super Bowl played in the rain. But I think I've seen some worse Super Bowls (XX, XXIV and XXXIII come quickly to mind). Super Bowl XLI may have been the "sloppiest" and not just because of the rain.
There were plenty of mistakes made on both sides. Dungy choosing to kick-off to Devin Hester, which was run back for a touchdown. Rex Grossman doing his Chris Berman impression on a third quarter series - back, back, back. Peyton's lone TD pass to a wide-open Reggie Wayne because his defender was playing man while the rest of his team was in a zone. Rex's limp-wristed lob to Mushin Muhammad that Kevin Heyden intercepted and returned for the game-sealing TD.
I'll also give Sal that Peyton Manning did not deserve the MVP trophy. Dominic Rhodes (113 yds, 1TD) and Joseph Addai (77 yds) should have shared the MVP or if you had to pick just one, then Dom would have been my choice. The Colts put up 191 yards on the ground against the Bears who were 6th against the run, only giving up 99.4 yds/game during the season. Manning won the MVP because he finally won the "big" game. Most overrated MVP? Yes, you could probably give that to Manning.
Beyond that, I think that Sal is off his rocker. The Colts' much maligned defense allowed only one TD and one FG. Their run defense ranked the worst in the NFL giving up 173 yds/game. They held the Bears to 112 yards and no touchdowns. They harassed Rex all night and he really hasn't been the same since, really.
The Bears defense ranked fifth in the league. So that fact that Manning struggled in the rain should not have been too big of a surprise. It was a miracle that our running game worked as well as it did and that is why they should have be given the MVP.
And Sal, your title says the "most overrated winner", but you spend almost the entire article trying to prove it as the "worst" Super Bowl ever. Those are two drastically different categories. The Colts were the #3 seed in 2006, even while finishing 12-4. So they had two win three games to get to the Super Bowl. This was not the 2007 Patriots that are definitely the most overrated loser ever. The Colts had to beat their nemesis, the Patriots, in the AFC Championship. (A much better game.) The line was 6 1/2 points, which the Colts covered. Going into the playoffs, I do not remember hearing the pundits saying the Colts had the easiest road to make it to the Super Bowl or even a majority thinking the Colts would even make it to the Super Bowl. Overrated? I don't think so.
Sal never really gets into why he thinks the Colts were the most overrated team. I would have preferred to see Sal give his worst three, four or five Bowls and his reasoning why they are the worst. I would be slightly more understanding if I could see his comparisons against other "bad" winners.
Obviously, I am more than a little biased since I am a Colts fan. If this game had been between Seattle and Cleveland, then I might be inclined to agree that it was one of the worst Super Bowls. However, as I mentioned before, I can name a few other Super Bowls that were blowouts that I personally thought were worse or just plain boring. Frankly, Sal, I have to rate your article as one of the worst on Super Bowls.
ESPN's Sal Paolantonio does! Good ol' Sal has labeled the Super Bowl XLI champs as the"most overrated Super Bowl winner." Really?!?
I'll give you that the game was not the most thrilling since it was the first Super Bowl played in the rain. But I think I've seen some worse Super Bowls (XX, XXIV and XXXIII come quickly to mind). Super Bowl XLI may have been the "sloppiest" and not just because of the rain.
There were plenty of mistakes made on both sides. Dungy choosing to kick-off to Devin Hester, which was run back for a touchdown. Rex Grossman doing his Chris Berman impression on a third quarter series - back, back, back. Peyton's lone TD pass to a wide-open Reggie Wayne because his defender was playing man while the rest of his team was in a zone. Rex's limp-wristed lob to Mushin Muhammad that Kevin Heyden intercepted and returned for the game-sealing TD.
I'll also give Sal that Peyton Manning did not deserve the MVP trophy. Dominic Rhodes (113 yds, 1TD) and Joseph Addai (77 yds) should have shared the MVP or if you had to pick just one, then Dom would have been my choice. The Colts put up 191 yards on the ground against the Bears who were 6th against the run, only giving up 99.4 yds/game during the season. Manning won the MVP because he finally won the "big" game. Most overrated MVP? Yes, you could probably give that to Manning.
Beyond that, I think that Sal is off his rocker. The Colts' much maligned defense allowed only one TD and one FG. Their run defense ranked the worst in the NFL giving up 173 yds/game. They held the Bears to 112 yards and no touchdowns. They harassed Rex all night and he really hasn't been the same since, really.
The Bears defense ranked fifth in the league. So that fact that Manning struggled in the rain should not have been too big of a surprise. It was a miracle that our running game worked as well as it did and that is why they should have be given the MVP.
And Sal, your title says the "most overrated winner", but you spend almost the entire article trying to prove it as the "worst" Super Bowl ever. Those are two drastically different categories. The Colts were the #3 seed in 2006, even while finishing 12-4. So they had two win three games to get to the Super Bowl. This was not the 2007 Patriots that are definitely the most overrated loser ever. The Colts had to beat their nemesis, the Patriots, in the AFC Championship. (A much better game.) The line was 6 1/2 points, which the Colts covered. Going into the playoffs, I do not remember hearing the pundits saying the Colts had the easiest road to make it to the Super Bowl or even a majority thinking the Colts would even make it to the Super Bowl. Overrated? I don't think so.
Sal never really gets into why he thinks the Colts were the most overrated team. I would have preferred to see Sal give his worst three, four or five Bowls and his reasoning why they are the worst. I would be slightly more understanding if I could see his comparisons against other "bad" winners.
Obviously, I am more than a little biased since I am a Colts fan. If this game had been between Seattle and Cleveland, then I might be inclined to agree that it was one of the worst Super Bowls. However, as I mentioned before, I can name a few other Super Bowls that were blowouts that I personally thought were worse or just plain boring. Frankly, Sal, I have to rate your article as one of the worst on Super Bowls.
Labels: ESPN, Indianapolis Colts, Peyton Manning, Sal Paolantonio, Super Bowl XLIII
posted by Zinglebert Bembledack at
2:17 PM
1 Comments:
A Seattle/Cleveland Super Bowl? Really? I think the best thing to happen in that game would be for the stadium to be hit by a blimp! Or just implode!
The only thing I could think of that would be better would be a Cleveland/Miami Super Bowl. Yeah, I know it couldn't happen, but that implosion idea would be OUTSTANDING for that one!!!! Eh Slut?
And haven't we seen since we've been doing this that the media don't really have to back up what they say, they just have to spew their limited sports knowledge and create entertaining fodder for us?!?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home