Was Manning a poor sport?

KSig RC · #1 02-09-2010, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

as boring as that game was (heheheh) it needed something to spice it up....

You thought it was that boring? I've read that other places and don't get it, maybe I'm just off here.

I thought this was one of the better Super Bowls in a while - not quite on par with Giants/42, but just below . . . I mean, just the 2nd-half change to a 3-3-5 nickel by the Saints was exceptionally interesting, not to mention the Colts mastery of blitz pickups (and still, the pick into single-coverage on an All Pro), meaningful plays going down to the wire, Brees going apeshit 28 for 30, Manning's unreal toss between 6 defenders to Clark, going for it on 4th down, the onside kick . . .

Even for the most casual fan it had something. If you're at all into football beyond the surface level, it was a fascinating game. Minus the Who.

epchick · #2 02-09-2010, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you're at all into football beyond the surface level, it was a fascinating game.

Not really. There were moments, but the overall game was pretty much a snooze.

KSig RC · #3 02-09-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epchick

Not really. There were moments, but the overall game was pretty much a snooze.

I think this is more a result of the horrendous cash-grab pacing by CBS (Kickoff? Whelp, time for more commercials! Time out? COMMERCIAL!) than the actual game . . . which featured above-average scoring and yards, plus the first-ever onside kick before the 4th Quarter, two compelling storylines, etc. (basically everything people find interesting).

In fact, that's the NFL's dirty little secret: if you eliminate the downtime, there's only about 20 min of actual play. "Boring" MLB games have . . . 30 min. CBS just pukes all over itself during Super Bowl coverage.

DaemonSeid · #4 02-09-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think this is more a result of the horrendous cash-grab pacing by CBS (Kickoff? Whelp, time for more commercials! Time out? COMMERCIAL!) than the actual game . . . which featured above-average scoring and yards, plus the first-ever onside kick before the 4th Quarter, two compelling storylines, etc. (basically everything people find interesting).

In fact, that's the NFL's dirty little secret: if you eliminate the downtime, there's only about 20 min of actual play. "Boring" MLB games have . . . 30 min. CBS just pukes all over itself during Super Bowl coverage.

So then let me ask...do you think Fox covers the Super Bowl better?

KSig RC · #5 02-09-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

So then let me ask...do you think Fox covers the Super Bowl better?

I'm not really sure there is a difference, to be honest. Either way, it's bad for enjoyment of the game - but since it was the highest-drawing ever, it won't change, unfortunately.

Lil' Hannah · #6 02-10-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

So then let me ask...do you think Fox covers the Super Bowl better?

I think Fox would have given me some of those sweet crowd shots of Eli and Archie and Kim Kardashian which would have won some people a few prop bets. Hrmph.

DaemonSeid · #7 02-10-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Hannah

I think Fox would have given me some of those sweet crowd shots of Eli and Archie and Kim Kardashian which would have won some people a few prop bets. Hrmph.

True and I think the commentating is better.

Lil' Hannah · #8 02-10-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

True and I think the commentating is better.

And they have Cleatus.

KSig RC · #9 02-10-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Hannah

I think Fox would have given me some of those sweet crowd shots of Eli and Archie and Kim Kardashian which would have won some people a few prop bets. Hrmph.

MysticCat · #10 02-09-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think this is more a result of the horrendous cash-grab pacing by CBS (Kickoff? Whelp, time for more commercials! Time out? COMMERCIAL!) than the actual game . . . which featured above-average scoring and yards, plus the first-ever onside kick before the 4th Quarter, two compelling storylines, etc. (basically everything people find interesting).

Completely agree! Great actual game encased in overproduced, underwhelming packaging.

And no, I didn't watch a second of the half-time show. Carrie Underwood's presentation of the National Anthem had already more than filled my quota for Super Bowl Dazzle.

KSigkid · #11 02-09-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You thought it was that boring? I've read that other places and don't get it, maybe I'm just off here.

I thought this was one of the better Super Bowls in a while - not quite on par with Giants/42, but just below . . . I mean, just the 2nd-half change to a 3-3-5 nickel by the Saints was exceptionally interesting, not to mention the Colts mastery of blitz pickups (and still, the pick into single-coverage on an All Pro), meaningful plays going down to the wire, Brees going apeshit 28 for 30, Manning's unreal toss between 6 defenders to Clark, going for it on 4th down, the onside kick . . .

Even for the most casual fan it had something. If you're at all into football beyond the surface level, it was a fascinating game. Minus the Who.

Agreed - if you're at all into football, it was a really interesting game and a good one. It's not Giants/Pats, but still an excellent and exciting game if you're a real football fan.

As to PFT: it was starting to become a TMZ-type site even before NBC bought it. While Florio started out breaking some interesting news, at some point he just starting throwing anything and everything up there, hoping a couple of stories would stick.

DaemonSeid · #12 02-09-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You thought it was that boring? I've read that other places and don't get it, maybe I'm just off here.

I thought this was one of the better Super Bowls in a while - not quite on par with Giants/42, but just below . . . I mean, just the 2nd-half change to a 3-3-5 nickel by the Saints was exceptionally interesting, not to mention the Colts mastery of blitz pickups (and still, the pick into single-coverage on an All Pro), meaningful plays going down to the wire, Brees going apeshit 28 for 30, Manning's unreal toss between 6 defenders to Clark, going for it on 4th down, the onside kick . . .

Even for the most casual fan it had something. If you're at all into football beyond the surface level, it was a fascinating game. Minus the Who.

Thus the "heheheheh" ...it was an exciting enough game but I just didn't feel that 'excitement' like some people felt for this game.

I will agree that the 2nd 1/2 was better than the first.

Ch2tf · #13 02-10-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Thus the "heheheheh" ...it was an exciting enough game but I just didn't feel that 'excitement' like some people felt for this game.

I will agree that the 2nd 1/2 was better than the first.

I feel the same way. I didn't have a ton of personal investment (financial or emotional) resting on the game so the overall impression was "bleh", especially in the first half.