Interesting question drawn from Nick Eatman's column today

[SA_Gunslinger]

"That takes us back to the Cowboys and their Saturday night affair in Atlanta. Since the Georgia Dome went up in 1992, the Cowboys are 2-2 against the Falcons. And of course, they did win another big game in the Dome to finish the 1993 season. Yeah, you remember James Washington getting robbed of the Super Bowl MVP? Nonetheless, the Cowboys have had success in the Georgia Dome. "



how the heck did washington NOT win mvp of super bowl 28? no disrespect to emmitt, of course, but could you have a more significant game on a bigger stage than he had?

everytime i watch that game i'm baffled how they picked emmitt over him.

 

[Aikbach]

When you watch just game highlights and the way NFL Films chose to edit them you would think hands down that James Washington was MVP but if you watched the game live and the sheer flow of the game you would see that the Dallas offense was Emmitt Smith and he grounded the clock, Washington'e plays appear more subtle live, a forced fumble in the interception recovered by another and an interception in garbage time. yes he scored a game tying touchdown but those other two plays looked more important in NFL Films' version of the events than they did to live spectators and television audiece members and apparently the judges as well.

 

[SA_Gunslinger]

When you watch just game highlights and the way NFL Films chose to edit them you would think hands down that James Washington was MVP but if you watched the game live and the sheer flow of the game you would see that the Dallas offense was Emmitt Smith and he grounded the clock, Washington'e plays appear more subtle live, a forced fumble in the interception recovered by another and an interception in garbage time. yes he scored a game tying touchdown but those other two plays looked more important in NFL Films' version of the events than they did to live spectators and television audiece members and apparently the judges as well.

that's just not true.

his fumble for a td COMPLETELY changed that game, and his interception came early in the 4th with dallas nursing a 7 point lead.

plus 11 tackles and a forced fumble.

he was robbed.

 

[jterrell]

Washington was the 9th best player AT BEST on that defense and Emmitt was widely considered the best player in the league.

It was simply anointing the better overall player.

 

[SA_Gunslinger]

Washington was the 9th best player AT BEST on that defense and Emmitt was widely considered the best player in the league.

It was simply anointing the better overall player.

now that i agree with, but it doesn't mean it was the right decision as far as who had the better game.

 

[Smith22]

Washington was the 9th best player AT BEST on that defense and Emmitt was widely considered the best player in the league.

It was simply anointing the better overall player.

and he knocks it out of the park. HOMERUN!

 

[tyke1doe]

I remember saying Washington should have won the MVP because his plays DID change the flow of that game.

But even Washington didn't complain because Emmitt received the award.

Remember, Emmitt handled the ball on consecutive plays (can't remember how man) when the Cowboys finally took the lead for good, including that run where he was hit in the backfield, shook off a Bills defender, swatted an arm tackle away from him and ran into the endzone.

Emmitt received that award for that drive and for his determination in lifting the Cowboys back into the Super Bowl - remember the separated shoulder game against the NY Giants.

That award was a culmination of everything Emmitt had done to get the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

 

[Aikbach]

that's just not true.

his fumble for a td COMPLETELY changed that game, and his interception came early in the 4th with dallas nursing a 7 point lead.

plus 11 tackles and a forced fumble.

he was robbed.

By your logic Ken Norton should have been the MVP of the 92 Super Bowl for stuffing Kenneth Davis on third and goal and spearheading the goalline stand that prevented Buffalo from tying it up. Yes Washington made big plays that helped the team but Emmitt scored a fouth and goal touchdown and Emmitt controled the clock in the second half.

 

[AdamJT13]

Emmitt rushed 19 times for 92 yards and two touchdowns IN THE SECOND HALF of that game. On the go-ahead drive, he carried the ball on all but one play and gained all but 3 yards. On the next TD drive, he got the ball on all but two plays (one of which was a sack). So on our two biggest drives of the game, Emmitt got the ball 14 out of 17 plays, gained 86 of our 103 yards and scored both touchdowns. I'd say when you can do that in a Super Bowl, you're worthy of being the MVP.

 

[burmafrd]

That game was one in which the RIGHT thing to do would have been to have an Offensive and Defensive MVP.

 

[ZeroClub]

I thought James Washington was more deserving at the time. I still do. Emmitt Smith was a clear but close 2nd, IMO. Hard to argue much about him winning, though.

 

[ilovejerry]

I also agree I think Washington changed the tone for the game, Could care less who wins MVP, As long as we win the Superbowl!:starspin

 

[magic-sword]

that's just not true.

his fumble for a td COMPLETELY changed that game, and his interception came early in the 4th with dallas nursing a 7 point lead.

plus 11 tackles and a forced fumble.

he was robbed.

Washigton always got the ball back to the offense. He made the stops and turned the momentum of the game. Emmitt sealed the win. They should have split like Randy White and Harvey Martin! If it went too Washington I tend to think it would have been more correct!

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Washington did have a great game and deserved MVP

 

[BIGDen]

that's just not true.

his fumble for a td COMPLETELY changed that game, and his interception came early in the 4th with dallas nursing a 7 point lead.

plus 11 tackles and a forced fumble.

he was robbed.

You are 100% correct. Emmitt was a big name and offensive stars always have the edge when it comes to voting in those situations. Washington could not have done more than he did in that game and he had a real impact with his play. If you compared how outstanding his game was vs. how good Emmitt's was it's obvious they chose the name and not the true MVP of that game.

 

[dbair1967]

Emmitt rushed 19 times for 92 yards and two touchdowns IN THE SECOND HALF of that game. On the go-ahead drive, he carried the ball on all but one play and gained all but 3 yards. On the next TD drive, he got the ball on all but two plays (one of which was a sack). So on our two biggest drives of the game, Emmitt got the ball 14 out of 17 plays, gained 86 of our 103 yards and scored both touchdowns. I'd say when you can do that in a Super Bowl, you're worthy of being the MVP.

and he did all that with that severely seperated shoulder he suffered just a few weeks earlier

and we won the game with Troy Aikman coming back a week later (there wasnt a two week break) from a very severe concussion. Most QB's would have been out for weeks, maybe even more.

David

 

[BIGDen]

By your logic Ken Norton should have been the MVP of the 92 Super Bowl for stuffing Kenneth Davis on third and goal and spearheading the goalline stand that prevented Buffalo from tying it up. Yes Washington made big plays that helped the team but Emmitt scored a fouth and goal touchdown and Emmitt controled the clock in the second half.

No. Not true at all. Aikman's performance was phenomenal and Norton's was very good in SB 27. In SB 28 Washington's performance was phenomenal and Emmitt's was very good. It's a matter of comparing the candidates/performances in each game. Norton vs. Aikman is different than Washington vs. Emmitt. I understand your point, but you're not really comparing apples with apples in my opinion.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There was a very easy answer to this issue and it's what I thought should have been done at the time. CO-MVPs.

Manster and Martin were Co-MVPs in SB XII and after SB XXVIII I thought Emmit and Washington were both deserving. Emmitt was incredible in the 2nd half but Washington's defensive plays changed the entire momentum of the game.

Both deserved the award , imo.

 

[MONT17]

to me MVP means could they have won without that player being there!!! Washingtons fumble recovery was the key play that turned the tide... But I think several players on that D make that play!!! the Boys ran the same play over and over, pulling Nate who missed his block almost every time... the BILLS could not stop EMMITT!!!


But getting back to the Washington Fumble take a look at the BILL who comes flying by on a terrible miss tackle... the guy who is known for his tackle in SB 27, Mr. Don Beebe, who gets so much pub for his SB 27 tackle and his "never give up" play was the guy whos "never give up" attitude caused him to over run the play in SB 28 leading to his teams loss! the tackle in SB27 didnt change the outcome the miss tackle in 28 did and led to a player being considered the MVP by many!



So when fathers show the Leon Lett play and tell their kids how to play the game they should show the Washington play as "What not to do"!



So I guess Don Beebe and James Washington should be Co MVPs!!!

 

[SA_Gunslinger]

By your logic Ken Norton should have been the MVP of the 92 Super Bowl for stuffing Kenneth Davis on third and goal and spearheading the goalline stand that prevented Buffalo from tying it up. Yes Washington made big plays that helped the team but Emmitt scored a fouth and goal touchdown and Emmitt controled the clock in the second half.

no, i wouldn't agree with that at all.