Oh man, you're fun...its a shame to see you go!
Lets see, it was an obvious exaggeration to say half the teams consider dallas to be their "biggest rival", I'm glad you called me out on that horrendous lie, how DARE I get away with that?? However, due to their historical success, a lot of teams out there do consider Dallas to be a big rival - whereas outside of the NFC East, Dallas doesn't really concern themselves with any of them, not any more than the next team anyway. Your Steelers are a good example, since you seem to think I have some sort of bias against them due to me being a Cowboys fan, which I don't. Hate on though.
Tony Romo had 11 starts last year (including playoffs). Were they to win the Superbowl this year, that would give him 30 starts to win a Superbowl, assuming they have a first round bye. Roethlisberger, on the other hand, started 15 games his rookie season (took off the final game, Dallas could very well do that with Romo this year, which would make his starts 29), followed by 16 starts his second season. That, sir, is 31. Now I'm glad you don't expect accuracy from me, but I'm pretty sure 31 is greater than both 30 and 29. I'll have to ask my math teacher though. So 30 starts, 4 postseason for Romo, vs 31 starts, 6 postseason for Roethlisberger. Who would have more NFL experience by their first Superbowl win? Romo did sit the bench for a few years, and naturally this is all hypothetical, since Romo has not made it to, or won the Superbowl yet. Nice try on calling me out on my accuracy, though.
Oh good, you quoted it for a third time today! You didn't do the bold though, killed the emphasis you could have had.
Yes, many people (especially those in the Northwest) are wondering how the Steelers won that Superbowl. Good question, I don't have an answer for you either. For all intents and purposes, they deserved to lose. The Seahawks outplayed them in virtually every facet of the game. Two years later, I'm still just as confused as you are! Great question, perhaps with your 30+ years of masterful experience you can tell me! In the words of John Madden, "the team that scores the most points usually wins the game!" What he left out was "If Ben Roethlisberger plays a TERRIBLE game and the team still wins, don't put him in the same class as Tom Brady or Peyton Manning", but I'm sure it was implied.
In making my assessment of Roethlisberger (or roflberger as my esteemed collegue Phokus prefers), I took into account his horrendous Superbowl performance, his successful, but generally small, contributions during his first two seasons, and yes, his injury-riddled 2006 season. I have already admitted that this assessment appears to be wrong, which makes this argument all the more ridiculous - but while there were reasons to believe he WAS worthy of the hype, there were also reasons to believe he was NOT. You just don't want to accept that those reasons existed, I guess because in your 30+ years of watching football, you clearly know all. I, on the other hand, admit to not knowing all, I just put my opinion out there to cause discussion.
I really can only remember seeing one place predict Dallas to go to the Superbowl, I think Fox Sports, but I could be wrong there. I don't read the magazines, pretty much just Sports Illustrated + the various websites (espn, foxsports, sportsline, etc), so I don't really care what your "high profile mags" say. Sports Illustrated (who released their picks 3 weeks later than me, after the preseason, by the way) picked a Chargers-Saints Superbowl, with the Eagles winning the NFC East. Most analysts, as I recall, picked either Philly or New Orleans to represent the NFC. Almost everyone picked NE to win the Superbowl, and so did I....can you blame me? I guess that means I'm just regurgitating what I heard on Sportscenter, though. By the way, I also picked the 49ers to suck, and they were the media darlings this offseason.
ps thepd7, you broke my heart.