Talk:Super Bowl XXV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simms' injury[edit]

I thought it was a broken foot, not leg. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

super bowl logo on the jersey[edit]

isnt this the first super bowl to display the super bowl logo on the jersey? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IMURDAD (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The regular practice of players wearing a Super Bowl patch on their jerseys began with Super Bowl XXXI, not Super Bowl XXXII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.236.195 (talk • contribs) 14 December 2012

Not done: Not sure if this is just a response to the above question or an actual request to edit the article. If it's the latter, please provide a reliable source. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[edit]

This page has been vandalized several times recently by Bills fans making it appear Buffalo won, and trying to give Thurman Thomas the MVP. (I would have voted for Thurman Thomas over Ottis Anderson).

I recommended there be some protection for this page.

WAVY 10 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Loves Raymond[edit]

Isn't this the superbowl that Ray taped over his wedding with on Everybody Loves Raymond? -- Suso 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Right foreshadowed?[edit]

Two questions:

1. Wasn't there a statement on this page that ABC had shown a graphic just before Scott Norwood's fateful miss that said Norwood had struggled when attempting field goals of more than 40 yards on grass?

2. Could this be considered foreshadowing and/or a fluke? WAVY 10 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: yes If youve been watching football long enough youll realize that computers generate stats all the time for announcers to read aloud that may have something, ANYTHING to do with whats going on in the game. That was a valid stat to put up, and the stats ALWAYS try to foreshadow what may or may not happen. Greenbay never won in Dallas...Saints have only won 6 out of 16 games they trailed in the 3rd quarter since 2007. They have to fill time and make the viewer not bored at home. Sometimes the stat means something, alot of times it means nothing and often it just shows how unlikely it is that something you want to happen will happen and makes you appreciate it more when it does. Greenbay at home at 5 degrees is unbeatab...whoops, Giants just won. 2. Foreshadowing? As in, Superbowl 25 and the 1990 Giants Season is the great American novel? If you say so, fine, I'd read it. F* just reading it, Id make it assigned reading in NYC Schoolsystem. MrMalax (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind[edit]

If you've ever seen the game it was the wind that picked up the field goal and sealed the Giant's victory. Do you think that should be mentioned?The K.O. King (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I dont see why not...but I havent heard that before...Can you link an article about that?MrMalax (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating[edit]

Not a Patriots fan, but we cant make our pages spam by throwing Bellichik cheats nonsence on these pages. Maybe on that patriots season. Now that spammer has me thinking...how the heck...did my Giants win..by conceding the run...damn.MrMalax (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC

Smallest margin of victory[edit]

I tweaked the final sentence in the first paragraph. It is highly redundant to say that a 1 pt score is the smallest margin of victory in superbowl history. Lolwikiments (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 January 2013[edit]

Dear Wiki:

I was just going to clear up some of the awkward English of my former notes added, concerning Bill Walsh's comment on the Giant chances, and the game the two teams played during the season. Not the finest English was used. [I would always get B's and C's (or worse) in it in school.] I might be back again to rectify the (very small) problem, if the site gets unlocked for me. 

          -  Yours,
             John G. Lewis

John G. Lewis (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. Feel free to propose new wording. You should provide a source for Bill Walsh's comments. By the way, this remains my favorite Super Bowl of all time, even though I was rooting for the Bills. Wide right should be wp:PRIMARYTOPIC for this game Wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, if you want this article unprotected, please contact Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected this article, and provide a good reason for unprotection. "I want to edit it" by itself is typically not accepted (though that is at the discretion of the individual administrators); you would need to provide some rationale that refutes the original reason for protection. Alternatively, as Wbm1058 suggested above, you can provide a specific request to edit the article here on the talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, this page is currently "semi-protected" from the excessive vandalism that it recently experienced. This means that unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not "autoconfirmed" (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia), cannot edit the page. Looking at your previous edits, you registered your account back in November 2012, but you apparently had only made 8 edits to Wikipedia before you tried to edit this article -- thus you were blocked today from this particular page. Now we cannot stop you from making a few more legitimate edits on other articles to become "autoconfirmed". But if you do and edit this Super Bowl XXV page again, please follow Wbm1058's request and add a source to Walsh's comment. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to revise the former edit I placed in, but I am having difficulty accessing the article. Can you help me with this? One of my favorite Super Bowls too, for obvious reasons, them being I am a Giant fan,... and it was a great game. And one of the first of the "great Super Bowls". (Most SB, until really SB 34, were blowouts.) The source for Walsh's comment is my own memory... I lived through that time, and watched the game live.

I think this is an important quote, and should be added to the article, as it provides context for the game, and for player motivation. Indeed, such is important to history itself: finding thoughts and motives at the time. [The Giants had just defeated the 49ers in the NFC playoffs, and in a tight game Yet the 49ers were, at that time, coached by Walsh's successor - Bill Walsh himself had just retired from the job.] Finding the first source, after 20+ years, would be very difficult (!) It may have come from the New York Times, as I was living in the area then, I may have seen him live commenting on the game, or it may have come from a sports show on television... But I have always remembered this statement, as it was reflective of the general consensus at the time, yet was slightly surprising, and in a way menacing, coming from him, as he was usually more discreet and reserved in his comments and actions. And the reflection of Bill W. not only lends an angle to the SB game itself, but also to the Giant/49er rivalry. Further, I did not place him under direct quotes, but paraphrased him. I believe "my memory" in this instance, as a Giant fan, and follower of the game of Football for 30 + years, and therefore at the time of the SB XXV, *is sufficient* in itself as a source; I disagree with you.

Therefore, If you could open the page again, I will submit my proposed changes, and then you can judge whether or not you would like to retain them. I believe.... "memory", as a general principle, coming from an individual, an adult at the time of a considered event, can indeed be a "source" in itself. It would be very difficult to construct any histories without an allowance of this nature.

- John G. Lewis (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [John G. Lewis][reply]
B.A., Lehigh University, 1990
New London, NH

Note: I am very new to computers, and use thereof, although if age is considered, I should duly be familiar with everything.... Anyway, I feel this is an important, though small, edit. I have placed other edits, of this nature, in other articles, if you note my history.

I'll try to meet you in the middle here. Below is the entire paragraph you edited, with your additions in bold:
The Bills were heavily favored to win Super Bowl XXV. Most experts expected that the Giants defense would not be able to contain the Bills' turbo-charged, no-huddle offense, which had scored 95 points in 2 playoff games. Many also questioned how effective the Giants' offense would be after failing to score a single touchdown in the NFC Championship Game. Indeed, former 49er Coach Bill Walsh, and present Hall of Fame member, was so negative about the Giants chances to win said that he would reserve comment out of respect for the Giant organization. However, and of note: in week 15 of the regular season the two teams did meet, at Giants Stadium, where the Bills defeated the Giants 17–13.
Please copy the above paragraph below my comment and make your edits. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri: "The Bills were heavily favored to win Super Bowl XXV. Most experts expected that the Giants defense would not be able to contain the Bills' turbo-charged, no-huddle offense, which had scored 95 points in 2 playoff games. Many also questioned how effective the Giants' offense would be after failing to score a single touchdown in the NFC Championship game. Indeed, even former 49er Head Coach, and later Hall of Fame member, Bill Walsh, seen as a sort of Dean of NFL coaches, was so negative about the Giants' chances of winning said that he was would reserve comment out of respect for the Giant organization. Nevertheless, in week 15 of the regular season the two teams did meet, at Giants stadium, where the Bills defeated the Giants 17 - 13." John G. Lewis (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri: Above is my finished edit to the paragraph. I hope this is satisfactory. I have remembered the statement for so long because it contributed to a slight aura of gloom, if you would, surrounding the Giants, a reasonably conservative team, and somewhat in contrast to the Bills. [The passing game was growing in importance in the NFL, but the Giants were lagging, slightly, in adopting new methods, new strategy.] John G. Lewis (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC) John G. Lewis (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including this statement – after some copy editing to remove editorializing – if it can be sourced. That entire paragraph is unsourced and I am not inclined to add more unsourced text, especially when quoting (or in this case paraphrasing) a real person. "I was there and know it to be true" is not good enough; it is not enough that content is true, it must also be verifiable.
I don't have time right this moment, but I'll see if the folks at WikiProject National Football League can help you out. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri: Thank you, I hope it can be sourced, as I think it would be an interesting addition. My memory is reasonably firm here, on this, *yet* I do not remember it coming from the lips of coach Walsh himself; there was some other party reporting this, you're accurate. And I have forgotten what that was... Well I am pleased I could possibly help with the history of SB 25, and Giant history. 65.96.185.47 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry.. I forgot to sign in. I'll check back in a month or so, to see what if anything was found. Impossible to go to coach Walsh now, as he has passed... Anyway, thanks for looking into this, and for the discussion! John G. Lewis (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri: I agree with your note against editorializing comments, and have so revised my addition (above). I hope this is acceptable. Walsh's comments were indicative of of the popular perception of improbability concerning the Giant chances, and as Walsh was then, and to a extent still is, considered a Dean of NFL coaches, his remark becomes all the more interesting. Notable, additionally, in the broader context of the Giant/49er rivalry for supremacy in the National Football Conference. If you are not aware, the Giants were one of the NFC's heralded, historic teams, with the Niners being relatively new, and certainly so in regards to being a power in the Conference. The Niners emerged in the early 1980's as a great team, even (as it would turn out) a dynasty (just as the Giants, the Packers, and the Bears were of old). The comment was so made during a rather tense time, even moment, in 49er/Giant history, as the 1990 Championship game was hotly contested, and to a degree controversial. However, all this being as it may, the observation (of Walsh) is notable merely as game analysis. John G. Lewis (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Season Changes for the Giants[edit]

      This has not been discussed much, but during the Giants 10-0 run in 1990, the offensive game plan of the Giants changed slightly, with a decreased emphasis on the running of Mr. Otis Anderson.  The 1990 Giants, despite the early perfect record, were not such the powerful team as compared with the 1986 squad, though still formidable.  During this undefeated run, Mr. Anderson was accumulating 100 yard rushing games and was on pace to set a personal distinction of some sort.  However, oddly this would change, and Otis ended up not being used as much.  Whether this was happenstance, or purposive, I am unsure, but I believe it to be the latter.  The Giants passing game at this time was having it's problems, as Phil Simms was aging.  The change, in mid to late season, would be to mix matters up more.  A courageous, even prima facie illogical, change, yet showing perspicuous insight.  The change was to emphasize, and attempt to improve, the passing slightly, at a time when it was weak, with the danger being that if there were no improvement to the passing game, the offense could stall after a time, as opponents adjusted.  Interestingly, during what would be the Giants final game of the season - Super Bowl XXV - I am speculating there may have been a tactical return to this early success.  Many people have congratulated Belichick for the XXV Defensive game plan, but I believe credit also rests with Bill Parcells and the Offensive Coaching staff, and players.  If you recall, the Giants offense held the ball for almost 2/3 of the game (40 minutes).

       The Giants did go on to lose a slew of games toward the end of that year - inevitable anyway.  Nevertheless, this 'mid-season adjustment' by the Giant coaching staff (as I suggest) which was to switch the burden more toward the Quarterback, mentally prepared the new QB Jeff Hostetler for the playoffs, and the team strategically, as a mixed offense would now be presented.  It is my opinion, that if this did not occur, the Giants would not have gone on to win SB XXV, but would have been stopped somewhere.  So then the final return to Mr Anderson for offense power, in XXV, was simply a return to the early Giant successes of the year, was perhaps an interesting tactical move.  Maybe it is simply how 25 turned out... but talk has concerned the remarkable Giants Defensive game plan for XXV; so it was; nonetheless, what was just as important, was the Offensive.  John G. Lewis (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Gatorade Bath" as a Football Baptism for an Important Win[edit]

I may have mentioned this other places, but if so to reiterate, I believe it was the 1990 N. Y. Giants that commenced the now standard 'Gatorade Bath' -- or however one is to term it -- of the Head Coach after an important win. The players had actually been doing this to Head Coach Bill Parcells throughout much of the Giants 1990 Championship season, even during the regular season. (The Giants began the year undefeated at 10 - 0.) I am not sure that it literally commenced with the 1990 Giants, or whether they got the idea from some other source, but remember that it was at least made famous by them. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I thought it was the 1986 Giants,[1] not the 1990 team, that popularized it. This is stated and cited in the Gatorade shower article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I stand corrected! I was in college during the 1986 season, and therefore missed most of the regular season games. This was not true for the 1990 season. But yes, I remember Harry Carson being an important figure as this developed. It may have been that the 1990 Giants made more of a practice of doing this... so then, of picking up in 1990 where they left off in 1986. But yes, Carson was the key figure, sometimes with others, who would often sneak up on Coach Parcells: the experience of which the latter really did not like (naturally enough), but went along with the joviality anyhow. The cameras would follow Mr. Carson prowling around, at the end of the game... (John G. Lewis (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, *you are right*... of course. I was summating the 1990 and 1986 Giants squads. Harry Carson retired before the 1990 Giants Championship team...! Sorry for the confusion; my mistake. The Gatorade shower article has it correct... After 30 yrs. I presume we all loose some accuracy in memory. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Bowl XXV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAi[edit]

Yie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:AC40:A5A:81D6:DBCB:F572:BF8B:5632 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

☓ 5.127.4.192 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl_XXV&oldid=1204872232"