zman03865 01/25/2007
Another great performance by Tom Brady puting any more doubters to bed one of the great QB/Coach duo's to be in the NFL. 3 SB in 4 years amazing. hats off to them and the Eagles for playing a really good game and staying in it till that 4th quarter where they had problems
Helpful
Funny
Agree
Disagree
Wavebacker 02/15/2006
This was a pretty good game. It was tied going into the fourth quarter. The Eagles had a good gameplan yet could not capitalize on it effectively. The Patriots did what they needed to do to win. In the end, the Eagles poor clock management blew a chance to make a final drive. As far as Super Bowls go, this was pretty good. It was what you'd want and expect from a Super Bowl.
zuchinibut 02/07/2006
This wasn't one of my favorite games, especially since these are two teams I quite dislike. However this rating should not be so low. I wonder what the hatred for the the most recent Super Bowls is.
sykadelik 01/08/2006
Wow...I realize the sample size is tiny and I hate the Patriots with the burning passion of a thousand suns but to have THIS be the lowest-rated of all 39 Super Bowls? Come on, guys. That having been said, I find it completely sickening that the Pats have a legit chance of three-peating and winning an ungodly 4 titles in 5 years, and I just wonder how long it takes before all fans of NFL teams not named the Patriots get as sick of seeing them win every time as I am.
Philkid3 09/09/2005
How is this so low?
PzKpfw VI E 08/04/2005
If the first half was like the second, this Super Bowl would get a rating of 2 or less. That first half was so boring, and simply ugly. The second half, although dominated by what happened at the half time show, was actually quite entertaining. That second half alone was better then entire Super Bowl games in recent memory. Although, as someone said, the game was not as close as the score shows. The Pats led 24-14 after the 2 minute warning, and the Eagles' last drive didn't get past the 50 yard mark because of McNabbs' poor performance in the no-huddle, something he blaimed on 'complete exhaustion'. He should've had his campbells soup then! Its the Super Bowl. If you are too exhausted to play in the Super Bowl, you don't deserve it. And, in Roman numerials, 39 is not XXXVIIII, its XXXIX. No letter is used more then three times in concestion with Roman numerials. 3- III 4- IV 8- VIII 9- IX 30- XXX 40- LX 80- LXXX 90- XC
callitdownthel ine75 02/19/2005
The score of Super Bowl XXXIX is misleading. Though it confirmed that the New England Patriots are the newest NFL dynasty, it also wasn't one of the better played Super Bowls. In truth, this year's game was a penalty-laden affair by the two excellent teams known for their effective defenses. It also confirmed that Tom Brady was no Joe Montana. Nevertheless, it was better than other Super Bowls of the past.
irishgit 02/06/2005
I thought it was a decent, if not particularly thrilling game. Far closer than I expected, as neither team seemed to bring their A game.
magellan 02/06/2005
I thought it was a pretty good football game. The Eagles squandered some chances early in the game, but still managed to keep the game's outcome in doubt until the final seconds. Already I'm seeing the articles that McNabb was shaky and didn't step up. I guess that I would agree, but he was certainly far less shaky than league MVP Peyton Manning or phenom Ben Roethlisberger. The point, i guess, is that the Pats make quarterbacks - even the best quarterbacks - shaky. McNabb did not play his best game, but let's give credit to the Pats - they are just a superb football team and worthy of the dynasty label. We could be looking at a repeat of this match up next year...
9 reviews! « Previous | Page of 1 | Next »
Sort by Newest Oldest Most helpful Least helpful Highest rated Lowest rated