BigCat71

ESPN NFL Countdown had a flashback on the '90 playoff game today with Bill Parcells providing his memories. I think what was most memorable about this game was when after Bahr hit the game-winning field goal, Pat Summerall said "There will be no three-peat." It was Roger Craig who after Super Bowl XXIV began the "three-peat" chant. And it was his fumble in this game that essentially destroyed the opportunity. One of the greatest exercises in hubris that I witnessed.

The other game to be played Sunday, Ravens-Patriots, has interesting parallels with the 1990 NFC title game. Ray Lewis and Tom Brady are viewed as the best players on their side of the ball in this century while L.T. and Montana were seen just the same in the '80s. Also, Bill Belichick was a Giants assistant at the 1990 NFC title game, a game broadcasted by CBS. On Sunday, you'll find Belichick and CBS (and yes, Phil Simms) in the Ravens-Patriots battle.

Tecmo Super Bowl as we all know is based on the 1990 NFL season. We may disagree as to who are the game's best teams on the AFC side as there appears to have been some deviation from what actually happened in that season (Oilers were AFC's 6th seed but may be 1st or 2nd AFC team in the game). But let there be no doubt as to who are the game's 2 best teams on the NFC side. They're the Giants and 49ers, the teams that squared off for the 1990 NFC championship. This Sunday, these franchises face against each other once again for the right to go to the Super Bowl. And these teams are about even with each other as they were back then. I don't know how it will exactly turn out, but I can sense an ending that is gut-wrenching like the past. Enjoy everyone.

I thought about posting a topic on this milestone a few months ago when the 2011 season began, but I guess it was best done on this page around the actual anniversary. My recollection was that it was released in November, so it looks I'm about just a month off. Greatest football video game ever, but that's just an opinion. Let's face it. Madden is loved. It's like back in the day when WCW was in existence. I was a fan of the WWF all the way, but I had friends who loved WCW and its lead character Ric Flair which had me puzzled and still so to this day. On Madden, having high scores like 90-75 throws me off and has me thinking is a basketball game being played? Even with the shortest amount of time used the games are too long. I like it short with a realistic score and right on to the next game. Even though it goes unrealistically west to east, but that's ok because it's nice to see receivers go for the ball with greater leaping ability than Michael Jordan.

No, it's someone else's work. I mentioned it due to the reference to Tecmo Super Bowl at the article's end, which I would not expect on an online blog for a major TV network affiliate.

I felt like this forum would be a great place to provide this link to an online opinion piece on whether the Bears should get McNabb. The writer is against the idea and makes a suggestion for another former Eagle that you would find interesting and has me tickled as a long-time Bears fan.

I began this topic, which became before the Saints-Colts Super Bowl. I meant to come back to this topic right after the game, but I forgot and several months passed by and at the time of this message we're about to approach Super Bowl XLV. I was impressed with what the Colts did back in '09. If you look back at my opening message for this topic, you could see that I put the '78 Cowboys as the best Super Bowl loser ever. I think I'll put the '09 Colts above them, given the tremendous determination they had week after week. You might ask what did the '09 Colts do that the '07 Patriots couldn't? I'll admit I have no stats to back it up, but it seemed like to me that '07 Patriots regressed down the stretch while the '09 Colts played the same way throughout the whole season.

Tecmo Super Bowl is based on what happened in the 1990 NFL season. Well it's the 20th anniversary of Super Bowl XXV, the only Super Bowl to be decided by 1 point thanks to Norwood's missed field goal. It was also the only Super Bowl to have no turnovers. In addition, the Giants set a record for time of possession in a Super Bowl game; for that reason, I disagree with the online opinions I've seen in commemoration of this game which say that this was the best Super Bowl ever. To me, best equals most exciting and there have been a number of those kind of games. But you know, people will use words like "best", "greatest", and "worst" when looking back at history. I'll never forget Whitney Houston's rendition of the national anthem; it became a single that sold as a CD. At the time, it was the most patriotic scene I ever witnessed. It's 20 years later, and we have troops fighting now. What happened after this game was interesting as well. The Bills went on to appear in the next 3 Super Bowls only to end up with the same result. The Giants went on sort of a decline, but did win another championship which also had a thrilling end. Share your thoughts on this game, especially if you watched it. One final thought I want to share. The difference between winning and losing a championship is also the difference between having offensive players like Phil Simms, Ottis Anderson, Dave Meggett, Mark Ingram, Mark Bavaro, and Stephen Baker treated with Pro Bowl talent in a video game and not having that kind of treatment.

I mentioned Joe Montana on a previous post. It's interesting. As I go on different sports web sites, there's a great deal of attention to how the outcome of this Super Bowl would affect Peyton Manning's legacy. Many are saying that if the Colts win, then Peyton ought to be judged as the best quarterback ever. I don't believe that we can easily brush aside the accomplishments of other QB's and the mistakes Peyton made earlier in his career.

Rod, The '98 Falcons deserve consideration because of their body of work and their all-around talent. I know where you're coming from with you saying " '98 Vikings > '98 Falcons." You can apply that same reasoning to teams like the '83 Redskins and '97 Packers where if the 49ers were playing in those Super Bowls instead, the outcomes probably would've turned out differently to the AFC's detriment in some way. Heck, in 1990, the 49ers may have been better than the Bills! I happen to be a critic of the way the Super Bowl has been viewed. It has been so overpublicized. It is not necessarily the two best teams playing against each other. It's officially the game where the league's champion is crowned. Amazing how so many people gather to see a coronation. That makes the future crowning of the heir to Queen Elizabeth II look absolutely worthwhile to watch. The reason why my focus is on Super Bowl runner-ups is that such measure is a certainty. If it's about who was the 2nd best team, there's a lot of subjectivity involved. Besides, the label "Super Bowl runner-up" is one that stands out on its own. Teams who lose in the last meaningful game of the year are greatly remembered for their failures.

Bodom, The stats look nice for the '07 Patriots. But if you're going to talk about stats, you ought to put more weight into playoff performance. Again, I said before, the '84 Dolphins had to play the Super Bowl near San Francisco. ESPN Classic in Jan '06 had an Ultimate Super Bowl Tournament where football observers judged what champions would survive battles against each other. In the final round, they had the '84 49ers beating the '85 Bears. I didn't quite agree with that, but the point is that was a damn good 49er team with blood and guts. Back to the '84 Dolphins themselves. In contrast to the '07 Patriots where they really struggled in the passing game against the Chargers and Giants in the postseason, Marino was known for his quick release and his line was quite valuable as well. The stats aren't great for the '84 Dolphins defense, but they had the "Killer Bees", a phrase coined during the team's 1982 march to the Super Bowl. I'm convinced that the '83 Redskins would control the ball on the '07 Patriots. Joseph Addai and Willis McGahee had real good yardage against the Pats during the '07 regular season, and the Chargers and Giants had decent output against them in the '07 playoffs.

The Patriots go for it on 4th and 2 deep in their own territory late in the 4th quarter against the Colts. The Steelers go for the onside kick against the Packers with plenty of time left in the 4th quarter. This is the kind of stuff that happens in video games, but strangely, they're now happening in real life. Is the invincible feeling from game playing translating to the actual football field?

Joe Montana has said that he's pulling for the Saints, but he thinks the Colts will win. That's the same thing I said. I guess he got that from me.

I would like to expand on this controversy. What I find so odd is that it seems like most people say the Patriots are the team of the decade, but most people also say that they have been a bunch of cheaters. Haven't you noticed that or am I the only one? Is this a case of flip-flopping or can both positions co-exist?

How about adding another legacy rom or edition, but this one would consists of the greatest teams to lose in the Super Bowl? The following is my ranking of the 10 greatest Super Bowl losers: (1) '78 Cowboys (2) '84 Dolphins (3) '83 Redskins (4) '07 Patriots (5) '01 Rams (6) '90 Bills (7) '97 Packers ( '68 Colts (9) '98 Falcons (10) '88 Bengals Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Why do I have the '07 Patriots at number 4 (I'm sure many Bills fans are upset at their team's ranking as well)? Here's why. The '78 Cowboys were defending champions and came up just short in their title defense (against who?). Look at the playoff scores of the '84 Dolphins vs. the '07 Pats. Plus, those Dolphins had to play in the 49ers backyard. Finally, John Riggins and the '83 Redskins would keep that one-dimensional '07 Pats offense off the field. I'm iffy on my last two I have to admit. Part of me feels I should take out the '98 Falcons and have 2 of the following 3 teams fill the last 2 spots: the '99 Titans, the '88 Bengals as I just mentioned, and the '04 Eagles. I believe it's safe to say that the loser of Super Bowl XLIV will end up on anyone's list. If the Colts lose by 3, I might put them up at #1 given how well their defense has played and how sound their execution is at the running game when they need it. So who do you believe are the greatest Super Bowl losers ever, as awkward as that sounds? Can a game version come into fruition?

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I felt the urge to do it. Hype is building up for this game. The teams are led by prolific offenses, which casual fans love. I get the feeling the game will not live up to the hype considering that the last 2 ones have been so dramatic. Who are you picking to win and who are you pulling for? I'm going for the Saints because if the Colts win, as a Bears fan I don't want to hear anyone say that the 2009 Colts are the best of all time or could have gone undefeated. But I get the feeling the Colts will win. I also have this prediction that if the Colts win by 7 or 10 points as opposed to 3 points, then many will say that the Colts are the team of the decade instead of the Patriots. Do you think that's fair? Say, on the 2009 TSB rom, are the Saints and Colts the most popular teams? Don't tell me the Cowboys or the Patriots are instead the most popular. Enjoy the time with your loved ones and the game.

TomTupa, Congratulations. You're the first one to figure out my username, even though I gave a clue. I use this username on other websites.

I remember when Brent Musberger made his first appearance on ESPN. It was Week 1 of the 1990 season on NFL Gameday. If you recall, Musberger came to ABC after being ousted by CBS. Chris Berman asked for Musberger's Super Bowl prediction. He refused to be on the 49ers' bandwagon. Instead, he had the Giants beating the Bengals. He got it right, except for the AFC representative.

Hindsight is 20/20. This version of SI is well known for being just about the only one with Barry Sanders on the cover. I did take a look at this preview when it came out. At the time, I felt the prediction was solid. The 49ers basically peaked. The Rams were quite talented on both sides of the ball. There was talk that former Rams safety Jerry Gray ('80s-'90s) would be the next Redskins head coach but that went to Shanahan. 1989 was an awful year for the AFC. The Broncos were the only team to win 10 or more games. Being destroyed by the Niners, no way would they come back next year. The Bills would be the AFC's representative for 1990, but that came as a surprise to many because after 1989 they were known as the Bickering Bills. Despite going 8-7-1 in 1989 overall, the Chiefs made a great run at the end of that season.

I have to admit at how surprised I am of how popular Tecmo Super Bowl on the NES became. That's because some of the most popular teams in the sport were mediocre in this game, these teams in particular: Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, and Broncos. (It was so odd to realize how guys could be so cheerful about the Oilers, Chiefs, and Giants.) Except for the Broncos, these teams had a significant improvement in the SNES version. Which team(s) did you like to use? I'm a fan of Da Bears and they were a downgrade in this game, so my favorite was San Diego.

My observation is that NY, SF, and CHI are the toughest, which I felt was a bit odd given that the performances of all these teams are based on what they actually did during the 1987 season. That season ended with Washington vs. Denver in Super Bowl 22.

Trust me, I'm no fan of the Cowboys. But you have to admit how disappointing Michael Irvin's average or below speed rating is in SNES TSB. How can that be when the Cowboys are the best team in the game Consider the NYG wr's in NES TSB. They're fast. The Giants are the best team in that game, but those receivers were certainly not close to being Pro Bowl caliber. No disrespect Giant fans but whenever I hear the question asked of who's the most boring Super Bowl champion ever, I always hear this answer: the 1990 New York Giants.

bitburgslim, You have to realize that player ratings in that game are based on 1992 performances. I recall the game coming out around Thanksgiving of 1993. The 1993 season was still in progress. But this topic is interesting. I notice that the Raider receivers are quite fast. Kind of reminds you of Bo in the NES games. Anyway, you can't really rely on them because their ratings for receptions are low. Even in the Super NES version, Oilers receivers are still tops.