Originally posted by ckparrothead
Oh my god. I can't believe the article its some of the most one-sided pessimistic drivel I've ever seen. Its really quite ridiculous how ignorant the guy is being.
Lets put it this way. He goes ahead and says that you can win the super bowl without a great RB, but you can't win the super bowl without a great QB. Then in the same article cites the Baltimore running attack in their super bowl as being done with no-names (only the offensive rookie of the year Jamal Lewis who had like 1200 yards in 12 starts or something like that) and fails to even mention that the guy tossing the rock was TRENT DILFER.
Kerry Collins also played in that game mind you.
Tom Brady won the Super Bowl. Is he an exciting superstar QB? Hardly, he's efficient at best. Ok Kurt Warner's good. Elway was good. Brett Favre was good. Doug Williams? EH HEM. Mark Rypien? EH HEM.
This is not your father's NFL.
Also fails to mention how only 2 teams have ever won the super bowl without having a 1000 yard rusher. Eh hem.
Originally posted by finman006
whats a homer?
Originally posted by IceStorm
I see too many contridictions in this article to even call it an article. He said the last two SB champs won it without a big named RB.....is this guy the villiage idiot run amuck or what? I guess Marshall Faulk isn't a big named RB...yeah, I've always considered him second rate at best.
I'll just add this article to the list of the "I had nothing to write about so I made this up" articles.
While he's allowed to have his beliefs and comments, almost none of them make sense or the back doors himself on a comment.
This article is only opinion, a mis-informed one at that. So I'm just going to consider it a really bad attempt at humor.