I think it was horrible. The Bears should've played way better than they did!
2007-02-13 14:41:05 · 19 answers · asked by GeoVante W 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I don't like watching a game that was dictated by the weather. I would have preferred to see a game where the field was dry and both teams could just play their game and not try to adapt to the weather. Both teams got to the Super Bowl in mostly dry weather and they should have been allowed to play their game in weather that was favorable to their type of football. Oh well, graduations to the Colts - they were the best team in the slop-bowl.
2007-02-13 14:52:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I agree. I think the Bears were tired. The defense was out there for so long because Grossman and the offense couldn't have crapped the ball down the field.
But they are still a strong team, and if things stay close to as they are now, they'll be right back in it next year.
And with a full year under his belt, I think Grossman could really improve.
2007-02-13 22:45:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It turned out as expected.
How do you figure the Bears should have played way better? At what point of the season did they have a prolific offense against a good defense?
They had a lame playbook with a not so good qb at it showed in the Super Bowl.
2007-02-13 23:50:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was better than last year's Superbowl between the Seahawks and Steelers. At least the officiating was on the level this year. The Steelers didn't win last years game, the Referees did it for them. The NFL should have done further investigation into the numerous bad calls.
2007-02-13 22:53:32 · answer #4 · answered by P K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bears did play terrible but the Super Bowl was good not a blowout.Good but not great,were so used to seeing last second field goals now a days.
2007-02-13 22:46:58 · answer #5 · answered by red4tribe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i thought it was interesting. the best teams learn to adapt to weather changes. the colts did just that. the best team beats the loser. well, ok...the colts manhandled the bears. bears got beat on offense and defense. like i said in mid season, bears are overrated in that weak division and conference. the super bowl was much better then last years! at least the game wasnt fixed this year. congrats to the colts. have a nice hibernation bears...
2007-02-14 01:54:14 · answer #6 · answered by The Claymaker- Go Pack! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you, the Bears just rolled over and played dead the 2nd half, plus when Grossman was MVP for the Colts that didn't help. Hopefully, they will cut rex and play Griese or Orton or anybody else besides split-personality Grossman.
2007-02-13 22:47:42 · answer #7 · answered by boeckers2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in my personal opinion, colts did not win the super bowl, because it is only a 2-man team, p. manning is over-rated and his left wide receiver always gets the ball. what about the rest of the team? after all... its supposed to be a team sport. let the team work together rather than going to the "go to" guy. run the ball more.
2007-02-13 22:55:20 · answer #8 · answered by carissa w 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would tell you what I thought about it but CBS spent all of its money just to have to game and they could not afford to wipe the lens on any cameras....it had its moments but nothing special unless your a Colts fan.
2007-02-13 22:55:38 · answer #9 · answered by David 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
one of the best in a long time.
sloppy as hell, but fun to watch.
no way the bears should have made it there though. i'd have loved to see a dallas/indy rematch for the big show.
2007-02-13 22:45:40 · answer #10 · answered by ghandi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋