|
Interesting perspective I saw from Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com.
Whenever teams with opposing dominent sides (a dominent offense vs. a dominent defense) play in the Super Bowl, the two tend to cancel each other out and the weaker sides for each team determine the game.
For example, last year the Giants had the defense and Patriots had the offense, but the game came down to the Giants offense vs. the Patriots defense.
So this year could come down to a Pittsburgh offense that has stuggled through parts of the season and post-season (as TMQ mentions, offenses based around your QB scrambling to create big plays have a low chance of success) vs. an Arizona defense that has given up 40-plus points on several occasions (and 56 to the Jets).
I think if that ends up being the way the game plays out, Pittsburgh wins by two scores. However, if they cover Larry Fitzgerald the way the NFC teams did (maybe I should put cover in quotes...), and they really don't have anyone who can cover him one-on-one, I think the Cardinals win in a shootout with Roethlisberger making a critical mistake near the end.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
|