PDA

View Full Version : Super Bowl XL (Steelers- Seahawks): Lamest Super Bowl in Years



MWM
01-22-2006, 07:24 PM
With apologies to Steel who will no doubt disagree with me in a big way, this year's Super Bowl is going to feature the weakest matchup since the Ravens-Giants, and if not for that game, would be the lamest matchup in the last 20 years. Neither team from the NFC is all that great and this year's Steelers is the one of the weakest teams to represent the AFC for quite some time, in my humble opinion. I'm not sure it's even worth watching.

I'm not suggesting they're not deserving, because they are by nature of their playoff wins.

savafan
01-22-2006, 07:28 PM
I want to agree with you MWM, I really do, but all of those blowouts I remember watching as a kid made for some pretty lame Super Bowls. It is also hard for me to say that the Steelers don't deserve to go after they beat the Bengals, Colts and Broncos.

deltachi8
01-22-2006, 07:45 PM
No one is forcing anyone to watch. Im sure there will be a movie of the week marathon on O or something....:D

MWM
01-22-2006, 07:45 PM
It's not a matter of deserving. Any team that wins their way to the game deserves to be there. That doesn't mean they're great teams and in my opinion, this year's matchup is going to be a stinker.

deltachi8
01-22-2006, 07:51 PM
Well, because its John Madden at the mic and its in a cold city, I will agree those parts stinks...

pedro
01-22-2006, 07:59 PM
The Super Bowl is the most overhyped event in the world. Seldom is the game even moderately exciting IMO.

WVRed
01-22-2006, 08:14 PM
With apologies to Steel who will no doubt disagree with me in a big way, this year's Super Bowl is going to feature the weakest matchup since the Ravens-Giants, and if not for that game, would be the lamest matchup in the last 20 years. Neither team from the NFC is all that great and this year's Steelers is the one of the weakest teams to represent the AFC for quite some time, in my humble opinion. I'm not sure it's even worth watching.

I'm not suggesting they're not deserving, because they are by nature of their playoff wins.

I'm sure the NFL front office agrees with you, since many in Pittsburgh would contend that the refs and the media did everything possible to keep it from happening.

Chip R
01-22-2006, 08:29 PM
With apologies to Steel who will no doubt disagree with me in a big way, this year's Super Bowl is going to feature the weakest matchup since the Ravens-Giants, and if not for that game, would be the lamest matchup in the last 20 years. Neither team from the NFC is all that great and this year's Steelers is the one of the weakest teams to represent the AFC for quite some time, in my humble opinion. I'm not sure it's even worth watching.

I'm not suggesting they're not deserving, because they are by nature of their playoff wins.

While I'm sure most people on here would have loved to have seen the Bengals in the SB, they certainly wouldn't have been a good representative either. Maybe Indy was the best team out of that bunch for matchup purposes and the Dungy storyline but that might have been it out of the AFC. Face it, there is no great team out there. That's one reason why a team like PIT got to the SB winning out on the road in 3 places you really don't want to play as a visiting team.

M2
01-22-2006, 08:39 PM
Admittedly I don't pay much attention to these things (and I totally agree with Pedro's comments), but I get the distinct impression the NFC is the sacrificial lamb these days. The Steelers, after years of near misses, just waded through the top three teams in the AFC on the road. It looks like this year they finally climb back on top of the heap.

I'm guessing the game would profile as more exciting if it could be played in the snow in front of maniac fans instead of an indoor/warm weather site in front of corporate executives. Then the Steelers' smashmouth charms would be more appealing.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2006, 08:39 PM
All I can say to the Steelers: good bleepin' luck against Seattle. You're gonna need it.

GAC
01-22-2006, 09:00 PM
All I can say to the Steelers: good bleepin' luck against Seattle. You're gonna need it.

Didn't you say the same against the Bengals and then Indy. ;)

I give the Steelers credit. They didn't just beat the top three seeds in the AFC - they annihilated them IMO. They have come prepared and were well coached. And people can knock Big Ben all they want, but this guy has had an excellent post-season and is the MVP so far in my book.

I'll still hang with Pitt to win the Super Bowl.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2006, 09:02 PM
You said that against the Bengals and then Indy. ;)

I give the Steelers credit. They didn't just beat the top three seeds in the AFC - they annihilated them IMO. They have come prepared and were well coached. And people can knock Big Ben all they want, but this guy has had an excellent post-season and is the MVP so far in my book.

I'll still hang with Pitt to win the Super Bowl.

Not against Indy I didn't. And from the word go I thought the Bengals/Steelers were an even money matchup.

MWM
01-22-2006, 09:06 PM
I don't think the Bengals would have been a better representative. It's just hard for me to get excited about the Seahawks-Steelers. I just don't think either team is anything special. Of course, the AFC didn't have asingle team this year that was anything special.

GAC
01-22-2006, 09:21 PM
I don't think the Bengals would have been a better representative. It's just hard for me to get excited about the Seahawks-Steelers. I just don't think either team is anything special. Of course, the AFC didn't have asingle team this year that was anything special.

Indy wasn't? I'll admit that I thought they were over-rated, even when everyone was on the Indy/Peyton Manning bandwagon.

I just think there is so much parity in the NFL anymore. But I am thoroughly impressed with the Steeler's play in the second half of the season and in this post-season. The last couple of years expectations were high for the Steelers. This year they were the underdogs, and I think that helped them.

MWM
01-22-2006, 09:25 PM
I don't think Indy was over-rated. I just think they played a bad game and really paid the price for being rusty. I'm not sure what happened to Denver, but they didn't show up today either. You got to give credit to the Steelers for taking advantage, but I still think both of those teams beat Pittsburgh most of the time. Maybe I just don't appreciate their style of play, but I don't think they're one of the weaker teams in the Super Bowl we've seen in a while. Of course, I wouldn't admit it, but the same could be said had the Bengals made it.

SteelSD
01-22-2006, 09:32 PM
Hmn.

Even if the matchup were Denver/Seattle, I'd want to watch that Super Bowl.

Seattle is an excellent football team right now. Solid in all phases of the game. Very balanced. Deep. Fast. Very fast. Yeah, they played in a crap division this season, but they're not a mediocre team in the least.

If the NFC Championship continues to go the way I think it will, we're going to be watching two offenses that can put up points and two defenses that do a great job of preventing them.

Is either team the best team in their conference from 2005? Well, Pittsburgh just made history to get there and beat the two best teams in the AFC on the road to do it. Seattle was the top seed in the NFC and is currently smashing a good Carolina squad.

And I think there are all sorts of good stories if Pitt and Seattle run into each other. Franchise QB. Bettis' last season. NFL MVP. Mike Holmgren. Bill Cowher. Etc., etc.

If that happens and Seattle wins, great story. If that happens and Pitt wins, great story. I don't see a downside to this one.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2006, 09:40 PM
I'm no more unenthusiastic about this Super Bowl than I am any other. It's probably good for the sport not to have NE in it again.

Heath
01-22-2006, 09:47 PM
Funny to see the stinking Steelers as a sixth seed beat the NFC's best.

IMO, of course.

Dom Heffner
01-22-2006, 09:58 PM
If the NFC Championship continues to go the way I think it will, we're going to be watching two offenses that can put up points and two defenses that do a great job of preventing them.


Just a few weeks ago you said the Steelers offense was vanilla, now they can put up some points.

A lot can change in a few weeks, eh? :)

MWM
01-22-2006, 10:00 PM
It's not a matter of stories. I said the same thing when Baltimore made it a few years ago. You might be right on Seattle. That's the difference between baseball and football, it'smuch more subjective and based on personal observation. I've watched Seattle play several times this year and saw nothing to lead me to believe they were anything special. They're good and do a lot of things right, but they would have been lucky to make the playoffs in the AFC, IMO.

There's just a lack of great teams in the NFL anymore. That's one of the downsides of the parity. Personally, I think the NFL has taken the parity thing too far and the result is too many good teams, and not enough GREAT teams. I think the Patriots of the last couple of years are an exception. Had they remained healthy this year, I don't think anyone would have touched them in the playoffs.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like back in te 80s and most of the 90s, there were teams that scared thehell out of you. You knew you were watching a GREAT team. The 49ers and Redskins of the 80s. The Cowboys and Bills (yes the Bills) and even the 93-95 49ers wereall great teams, IMO. Outside of the Pats the last couple of years, I think the NFL has been lacking in great teams. That's part of the reason I wanted to see Indy go this year. I really think they were a great team. In the middle of the season, they were playing as well as any team I can remember in recent history. I don't think anyone could have touched them. It's possible I overestimate how good they were, but what I saw was a special team. It's too bad they laid an egg last week. I think they were simply outcoached and I'm one who believes they really suffered from not playing a meaningful game in 6 weeks. I like seeing greatness in the Super Bowl and it's rare we see itmuch anymore. I just don't see it in this game. Itmight turn out to be an exciting game, but I still think it's the weakest set of teams outside the Ravens-Giants we've seen in a LONG time. Heck, even Steel hasn't been very impressed with the Steelers most of this year.

Dom Heffner
01-22-2006, 10:03 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like back in te 80s and most of the 90s, there were teams that scared thehell out of you. You knew you were watching a GREAT team.

Maybe they looked great because everyone else was so bad.

There are problems with parity, but I don't want to return to the days you speak of. I stopped watching football for years because of the 49ers, Cowboys, and Bills.

Indy was great this year, but they clinched too early and their coach's son died.

It's why I have zero interest in college basketball as well. Same teams every year: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina.

Yawn.

MWM
01-22-2006, 10:13 PM
I'd like to see it somewhere in the middle. That's why I've never supported an NFL style economic system for baseball. Even if they were teams I hated, I'd still like to see more dominant teams in the NFL. I like having rivalries over a period of several years. That's rare anymore. I've always hated the Coboys and the 49ers (thanks to Joe Montana), but I still looked forward to when they played each other every year in the earl and mid-90s. You knew you were watching too heavyweights go at it and you could count on it being a good game. There's too may pretty good teams and I don't think it's as exciting as it could be.

I also agree that lack of parity can go too far. I think Duke has made college basketball a lot less interesting. But the competitive dynamic is a little different because there's no draft. Coack K gets whoever he wants. It's become very boring.

SteelSD
01-22-2006, 10:19 PM
Just a few weeks ago you said the Steelers offense was vanilla, now they can put up some points.

A lot can change in a few weeks, eh? :)

Yep. A lot can. In the weeks prior to the Cinci game, Pittsburgh put 30 points on the board in a game twice (11 games). From the Cinci game on, they've done it five times in 8 games.

Krusty
01-22-2006, 10:21 PM
With apologies to Steel who will no doubt disagree with me in a big way, this year's Super Bowl is going to feature the weakest matchup since the Ravens-Giants, and if not for that game, would be the lamest matchup in the last 20 years. Neither team from the NFC is all that great and this year's Steelers is the one of the weakest teams to represent the AFC for quite some time, in my humble opinion. I'm not sure it's even worth watching.

I'm not suggesting they're not deserving, because they are by nature of their playoff wins.

Man, what are you smoking? Even though the Steelers got the final wildcard spot, they did have a 11-5 record and that isn't bad at all. And to go on the road and beat Cincinnati, Indianapolis and now Denver, just show me a team other than the Patriots who was able to do such a feat.

MWM
01-22-2006, 10:21 PM
My goodness, Carolina looks horrendous today.

Krusty
01-22-2006, 10:22 PM
It's not a matter of deserving. Any team that wins their way to the game deserves to be there. That doesn't mean they're great teams and in my opinion, this year's matchup is going to be a stinker.

And who would you like?

Krusty
01-22-2006, 10:24 PM
All I can say to the Steelers: good bleepin' luck against Seattle. You're gonna need it.

We have been hearing that the past two games.

RFS62
01-22-2006, 10:28 PM
My goodness, Carolina looks horrendous today.



It's my fault.

I haven't been able to reconnect with the Browns since their resurrection, so I started following the Panthers, since I live here.

It's my punishment for daring to like pro football again.

Krusty
01-22-2006, 10:36 PM
It's my fault.

I haven't been able to reconnect with the Browns since their resurrection, so I started following the Panthers, since I live here.

It's my punishment for daring to like pro football again.

What are you complaining about? At least you got to the Super Bowl two years ago.

RFS62
01-22-2006, 10:37 PM
What are you complaining about? At least you got to the Super Bowl two years ago.


I'm not complaining. They've been fun to watch. I'm just taking responsibility for them not winning then and their collapse tonight.

It seems like the right thing to do.

GIK
01-22-2006, 11:29 PM
I cannot wait to see the Seahawks play. I for one am totally jazzed about this game. :)

WMR
01-22-2006, 11:32 PM
I could not disagree more. I hate the Steelers: HATE. But I'm very intrigued to see how these two teams end up matching up against one another and I believe that it will be a very competitive game and we will get to see two teams who are currently playing a very high level of football.

I think Seattle's defense will give the Steelers ALOT of problems. They're very fast and also good against the run.

What was up with Denver's secondary today?? Whenever a Pittsbooger receiver caught the ball there was rarely a Denver defensive back within five yards. Denver's performance today was really pathetic.

cincinnati chili
01-22-2006, 11:49 PM
I haven't watched much football this year, but I believe the Steelers have only lost 3 games with Roethlisberger as quarterback:

New England
Indy
Cincinnati

(all Division winners)

So I'd say that the team, as currently constituted, was much better than the typical #6 seed. Now they've beaten seeds 1, 2, 3. Plus, their quarterback is still young enough to be learning new things every week.

Maybe the Steelers weren't such an underdog after all, and maybe they're just hitting their stride.

Unassisted
01-22-2006, 11:58 PM
For me, football season ended with the Rose Bowl. I usually avoid the Super Bowl and take advantage of the opportunity to go shopping in lightly-crowded stores and drive on nearly-empty streets. :D

This is not a dream matchup for the networks. Seattle is TV market #13 and PIT is #22. As a result, I bet this one will be near the bottom of the all-time SB ratings, so maybe the stores and streets won't be as empty as I'm hoping. ;)

I'm happy for Mike Holmgren, though. I always felt like he won the right way in Green Bay, but probably bit off more than he could chew taking on two jobs in Seattle.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 12:26 AM
This is not a dream matchup for the networks. Seattle is TV market #13 and PIT is #22. As a result, I bet this one will be near the bottom of the all-time SB ratings, so maybe the stores and streets won't be as empty as I'm hoping. ;)

I think you're dramatically underestimating the national appeal of the Steelers. They're one of those very rare franchises that transcends their actual market.

The ratings may not equal the 1996 Dallas/Pittsburgh Super Bowl, but it should easily outpace the 2002 New England/Rams contest. And it'd suspect by a wide margain.

Caveat Emperor
01-23-2006, 12:26 AM
It's not a matter of stories. I said the same thing when Baltimore made it a few years ago. You might be right on Seattle. That's the difference between baseball and football, it'smuch more subjective and based on personal observation. I've watched Seattle play several times this year and saw nothing to lead me to believe they were anything special. They're good and do a lot of things right, but they would have been lucky to make the playoffs in the AFC, IMO.

There's just a lack of great teams in the NFL anymore. That's one of the downsides of the parity. Personally, I think the NFL has taken the parity thing too far and the result is too many good teams, and not enough GREAT teams. I think the Patriots of the last couple of years are an exception. Had they remained healthy this year, I don't think anyone would have touched them in the playoffs.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like back in te 80s and most of the 90s, there were teams that scared thehell out of you. You knew you were watching a GREAT team. The 49ers and Redskins of the 80s. The Cowboys and Bills (yes the Bills) and even the 93-95 49ers wereall great teams, IMO. Outside of the Pats the last couple of years, I think the NFL has been lacking in great teams. That's part of the reason I wanted to see Indy go this year. I really think they were a great team. In the middle of the season, they were playing as well as any team I can remember in recent history. I don't think anyone could have touched them. It's possible I overestimate how good they were, but what I saw was a special team. It's too bad they laid an egg last week. I think they were simply outcoached and I'm one who believes they really suffered from not playing a meaningful game in 6 weeks. I like seeing greatness in the Super Bowl and it's rare we see itmuch anymore. I just don't see it in this game. Itmight turn out to be an exciting game, but I still think it's the weakest set of teams outside the Ravens-Giants we've seen in a LONG time. Heck, even Steel hasn't been very impressed with the Steelers most of this year.

In defense of "parity," I quite enjoy the aspect of the NFL that allows the fates and fortunes of teams to quickly rise and fall. I think people place too much emphasis on the economic systems in the NFL as being responsible for "parity" however -- the difference, in my opinion, between the NFL today and the NFL of years gone by is that the game is bigger, faster, and more athletic than it used to be. With the exception perhaps of the quarterback position, the difference between the "superstar" players and the "good" players is of fewer degrees than it used to be. Teams are better at conditioning their players, better at using technology to locate and target players that otherwise would've slipped under the radar in years gone by (case in point: Willie Parker, a player who has physical tools but has only now gotten the opportunity to showcase them after being coached up by the Steelers).

Also, I don't see why people buy into this need for "dynasty" teams and stratified levels of performance in the league. Watching football in the early/mid 90s growing up was absolutely miserable: the Bucs were bad and teams I couldn't care less about (Dallas, San Francisco) were always good. I don't get excited about seeing a couple of teams pound competition into the turf and having the ending of the season completely scripted out as to who would be involved -- when I want that, I just go watch college football (where you know which 10 teams will be in the national title hunt before teams even going into fall practice). I like the fact that, in this upcoming Super Bowl, we'll be seeing teams who haven't been factors in recent Super Bowls (the Steelers not in a decade, the Seahawks never). Are they the "best" teams in the NFL? Perhaps not, but they stayed healthy (another huge factor in parity as a result of today's game being so much more physical -- injuries can take a team from one kick away from the AFC title game [NYJ] to a 3-13 wonder), and won the games that mattered. Other teams may be special -- but a special team wins football games instead of choking them away (see: Colts, Indianapolis)

And, honestly...who cares how good the game is -- people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials anyway.

macro
01-23-2006, 01:23 AM
At this point, I wish the 2005 NFL season had never been played. I'd rather see the Bengals return to being Bungles and go 4-12 than to see Pittsburgh win the Super Bowl, and that's what's going to happen. Go Seahawks?

MWM
01-23-2006, 01:24 AM
I care how the good the game is. And it's a matter of personal preference as to dynasties. For me, it adds to the intrigue of the NFL. In theory, I like different teams every year, but it turns out I haven't enjoyed it all that much. I loathe the Cowboys, but their dominance in the 90s added a level of entertainment for me in following the NFL. For them, every loss was a big deal because of who they were.

KronoRed
01-23-2006, 02:01 AM
I'm glad to see a team in it who has never been before.

Falls City Beer
01-23-2006, 09:14 AM
In defense of "parity," I quite enjoy the aspect of the NFL that allows the fates and fortunes of teams to quickly rise and fall. I think people place too much emphasis on the economic systems in the NFL as being responsible for "parity" however -- the difference, in my opinion, between the NFL today and the NFL of years gone by is that the game is bigger, faster, and more athletic than it used to be. With the exception perhaps of the quarterback position, the difference between the "superstar" players and the "good" players is of fewer degrees than it used to be. Teams are better at conditioning their players, better at using technology to locate and target players that otherwise would've slipped under the radar in years gone by (case in point: Willie Parker, a player who has physical tools but has only now gotten the opportunity to showcase them after being coached up by the Steelers).

Also, I don't see why people buy into this need for "dynasty" teams and stratified levels of performance in the league. Watching football in the early/mid 90s growing up was absolutely miserable: the Bucs were bad and teams I couldn't care less about (Dallas, San Francisco) were always good. I don't get excited about seeing a couple of teams pound competition into the turf and having the ending of the season completely scripted out as to who would be involved -- when I want that, I just go watch college football (where you know which 10 teams will be in the national title hunt before teams even going into fall practice). I like the fact that, in this upcoming Super Bowl, we'll be seeing teams who haven't been factors in recent Super Bowls (the Steelers not in a decade, the Seahawks never). Are they the "best" teams in the NFL? Perhaps not, but they stayed healthy (another huge factor in parity as a result of today's game being so much more physical -- injuries can take a team from one kick away from the AFC title game [NYJ] to a 3-13 wonder), and won the games that mattered. Other teams may be special -- but a special team wins football games instead of choking them away (see: Colts, Indianapolis)

And, honestly...who cares how good the game is -- people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials anyway.

Well said. As much as I dislike the NFL for too many reasons to list, I can say that I think the current model of the NFL beats the pants off the snoozefest postseasons of yore--that's a good expression vis. past football postseasons: "scripted." Everything did feel totally foregone back when. It's part of the reason I don't follow the sport closely: at my formative age, it was nothing but Steelers and Dallas every year. Dull.

Krusty
01-23-2006, 09:19 AM
At this point, I wish the 2005 NFL season had never been played. I'd rather see the Bengals return to being Bungles and go 4-12 than to see Pittsburgh win the Super Bowl, and that's what's going to happen. Go Seahawks?

They have medicine for the depression you're experiencing.

Roy Tucker
01-23-2006, 09:42 AM
At least there isn't a clear-cut favorite for this game and, on paper, the teams seem evenly matched. I only watch the Super Bowl for commercials anyhow.

I realize it has a zero chance of happening, but I'd prefer the Super Bowl to be played a.) the weekend after the NFC/AFC championship games, and b.) at one of the team's stadiums. It would seem like real football then.

The Super Bowl is such an overhyped, overblown, ridiculous Roman spectacle and takes away any flow from the season and partisan fan interest. How much are Super Bowl tickets and how many go to regular fans any more?

Heck, we've gotten better games out of the BCS national championship games (which is going to a Super Bowl-esque format starting next year).

traderumor
01-23-2006, 09:59 AM
At least there isn't a clear-cut favorite for this game and, on paper, the teams seem evenly matched. I only watch the Super Bowl for commercials anyhow.

I realize it has a zero chance of happening, but I'd prefer the Super Bowl to be played a.) the weekend after the NFC/AFC championship games, and b.) at one of the team's stadiums. It would seem like real football then.

The Super Bowl is such an overhyped, overblown, ridiculous Roman spectacle and takes away any flow from the season and partisan fan interest. How much are Super Bowl tickets and how many go to regular fans any more?

Heck, we've gotten better games out of the BCS national championship games (which is going to a Super Bowl-esque format starting next year).

I would certainly agree with a home field for the Super Bowl considering the playoffs are not played on neutral fields. I'm sure the argument is not giving a team home field advantage in a championship game, but they do through out the playoffs. Totally illogical and obviously a money grab.

I'm not sure what you mean by the BCS going to a SB format. It basically is now, well except for having Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts announce like they're watching a parade.

Caveat Emperor
01-23-2006, 10:56 AM
The Super Bowl is such an overhyped, overblown, ridiculous Roman spectacle and takes away any flow from the season and partisan fan interest. How much are Super Bowl tickets and how many go to regular fans any more?

http://tickets.search.ebay.com/super-bowl-tickets_Tickets_W0QQsacatZ1305

:eek:

I wish I had some tickets -- not only would I like to go to the game, but with all the Steelers fans in close proximity to Detroit, there is going to be a MASSIVE secondary market for these tickets. Steelers fans travel like nobody else in the pro ranks -- they're like the Notre Dame of the pros.

And, incidentally, to answer your question -- I think the way things work with Super Bowl tickets is that the two "participating" teams get something like 18% of the tickets apiece (which are divied up amongst the season tickets and luxury box holders in a lottery, usually), the host team gets like 5% to do whatever they want with (when I was in New Orleans, I had some friends who interned for the team and had to field calls from angry seasons ticket holders that the team didn't make ANY Super Bowl tickets available to any fans other than the luxury box owners at the Dome, or something), the other NFL teams each get 1% or 2% of the tickets, and then the NFL retains the remaining 25%.

So...regular fans = not so much.

Puffy
01-23-2006, 11:01 AM
I've watched Seattle play several times this year and saw nothing to lead me to believe they were anything special.

Sorry Mike - don't mean to pick on you. But aren't you the same guy who stated repeatedly last year that the only reason Brady was anything was because he always had "all day" to throw the football and any NFL QB could put up similar numbers if he had the time Brady did? This year Brady didn't have nearly the same line and what happened to his numbers? They got better.

Aren't you also the one who stated about Vince Young earlier this year that you watched him "and there was a case where heisman hype clouds what kind of player he is" and how you were completely unimpressed with him?

Seattle is solid. They were clearly the second best football team out there all year. Good defense. Great running game. Excellent QB.

Pittsburgh is solid. If not for the Maddox games this team was 12-4, coming off a season where they went 15-1 with basically the same personnel. Even with the Maddox debacle they are 30-7 over the past two seasons. I'd say that was rather special.

This is gonna be a good game and I, for one, can't wait to watch it.

Roy Tucker
01-23-2006, 11:13 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by the BCS going to a SB format. It basically is now, well except for having Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts announce like they're watching a parade.
Next year through 2010 starts a separate National Championship Game apart from the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar Bowls. On a rotating basis, each big bowl will host their own bowl and then a nat'l championship game a week later.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=structure

Johnny Footstool
01-23-2006, 11:41 AM
The biggest problem with the Super Bowl is the halftime "extravaganza" that usually consists of overhyped performers lip-synching a two-minute medley of middle-of-the-road "hits" while accompanied by a dozen or so ridiculous off-broadway quality dancers and surrounded by a hundred paid "fans" to make the show look authentic.

That's why we saw Janet Jackson's boobie a few years ago -- someone finally got fed up with all the mediocrity and tried to shake things up. Unfortunately, it was very misguided and ended up turning future halftime shows into bigger crapstravaganzas.

This year it's the Rolling Stones. There should be a rule that if you're not allowed to play the Super Bowl halftime show if you've been a band longer than the Super Bowl has existed.

CrackerJack
01-23-2006, 11:54 AM
At least musicians are doing the halftime show this year - I'll actually watch since it's the Stones, instead of some country musician with his butt crack hanging out or a lip synching, talentless pop star. :)

The conference games yesterday were perhaps the lamest championship games i've seen in a long time - total snoozers.

Hopefully the SB is a much better game...hopefully.

traderumor
01-23-2006, 12:09 PM
Next year through 2010 starts a separate National Championship Game apart from the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar Bowls. On a rotating basis, each big bowl will host their own bowl and then a nat'l championship game a week later.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=structureOther than the week time lag, isnt that what they're doing now?

Ok, after visiting your link, I understand, but a bowl city hosting two bowls in the space of a week? I didn't even imagine that is what you meant. Yet, they don't want to stretch out the season for playoffs :rolleyes: I'm not much of a salesman, but if anyone actually believes the tripe that college presidents don't want a playoff system for college football because of academic concerns, I do have some waterfront real estate that might interest you ;)

traderumor
01-23-2006, 12:15 PM
The biggest problem with the Super Bowl is the halftime "extravaganza" that usually consists of overhyped performers lip-synching a two-minute medley of middle-of-the-road "hits" while accompanied by a dozen or so ridiculous off-broadway quality dancers and surrounded by a hundred paid "fans" to make the show look authentic.

That's why we saw Janet Jackson's boobie a few years ago -- someone finally got fed up with all the mediocrity and tried to shake things up. Unfortunately, it was very misguided and ended up turning future halftime shows into bigger crapstravaganzas.

This year it's the Rolling Stones. There should be a rule that if you're not allowed to play the Super Bowl halftime show if you've been a band longer than the Super Bowl has existed.The only thing that might be uglier than watching Jerome Bettis do his little post 3 yd run prances is Mick Jagger in tight leather pants.

macro
01-23-2006, 12:26 PM
They have medicine for the depression you're experiencing.

Seeing Cowher, Ben, and Hines crying into their yellow towels would go a long way toward making me feel better.

Johnny Footstool
01-23-2006, 01:15 PM
At least musicians are doing the halftime show this year - I'll actually watch since it's the Stones, instead of some country musician with his butt crack hanging out or a lip synching, talentless pop star.

Even when real musicians perform the show, they're often faking it to pre-recorded music. They usually sing the vocals themselves, but the instruments are pre-recorded and aren't plugged in. Aerosmith and No Doubt did it. It's not the bands' choice -- they're forced to do it by the network in the interest of putting out a "quality entertainment product."

Puffy
01-23-2006, 01:20 PM
I wish they'd do away with the halftime show altogether. Don't they realize that no one is attending the game for the halftime show and only about 3% of the people watching are watching for the halftime show? Its all about football. Why don't they understand this.

KronoRed
01-23-2006, 01:21 PM
If they ran a solid 40 mins of commercials at half time they should get better ratings

savafan
01-23-2006, 01:23 PM
I miss the days when I could flip over to MTV and watch the Beavis and Butthead halftime show. Now that was quality halftime entertainment.

Puffy
01-23-2006, 01:25 PM
I miss the days when I could flip over to MTV and watch the Beavis and Butthead halftime show. Now that was quality halftime entertainment.

I miss the In Living Color years (who, I believe, were the first ones to use this alternative to halftime bit). Men on Football was brilliant.

Roy Tucker
01-23-2006, 01:28 PM
The Super Bowl is the only football game in the year that my wife "watches", i.e. wants to be called into the room when the commercials and the halftime show are on but doesn't give a rat's behind about that darn pesky football part.

RFS62
01-23-2006, 02:15 PM
I wish they'd put a killer marching band on as the halftime show.

People have forgotten what that looks like.

deltachi8
01-23-2006, 02:24 PM
I miss the days when I could flip over to MTV and watch the Beavis and Butthead halftime show. Now that was quality halftime entertainment.

Werd.

MWM
01-23-2006, 06:45 PM
Sorry Mike - don't mean to pick on you. But aren't you the same guy who stated repeatedly last year that the only reason Brady was anything was because he always had "all day" to throw the football and any NFL QB could put up similar numbers if he had the time Brady did? This year Brady didn't have nearly the same line and what happened to his numbers? They got better.

All I said about Brady is that he had all day to throw and I got a little tired of all the "best ever" hyperbole surrounding the guy. I just believed that the Pats success had as much to do with their defense and Bellicheck as Brady. Still do. And his numbers got better but the team wasn't as strong. Actually, this year I've commented to several people that I'm completely sold on him after watching him this year. I admit, he's much better than I gave him credit for, but not as good as some of the "analysts" at ESPN make him out to be.


Aren't you also the one who stated about Vince Young earlier this year that you watched him "and there was a case where heisman hype clouds what kind of player he is" and how you were completely unimpressed with him?

Did I say unimpressed? Maybe I did. I was basing it mostly on the Ohio State game. After the first two drives, he was effectively shut down the rest of the game. There's a pattern emerging here. It's usually the hype that gets to me. Usually the players who get over-hyped are still good players. And yes, Young had a great game against USC, but I still don't think he's as good as he's made out to be. I'm sure that will draw laughs, but I have nothing against Texas or Vince. We'll see if he proves me wrong in the NFL. Maybe he will.

Hey, I like to make predictions and offer opinions. You win some you lose some. I'm not an expert, just a fan.


Seattle is solid.

Pittsburgh is solid.

Agree completely. They're both solid. Never said they weren't. And I'm a big fan of Shaun Alexander and Mike Holmgren. And I'm a HUGE fan of Roethlisberger and I've stated that many times on here. But it's a preference thing. I liked the old days better when you had the behemoths of the NFL going at it. Clearly, most people like it better this way.

Tony Cloninger
01-23-2006, 06:50 PM
So they will have a Rolling Stones concert and a Super Bowl game will break out?


The pre-game shows that go on longer than a Pippy Longstocking marathon....along with more pre-game introductions than an Earth, Wind and Fire concert........

If the ratings for football are soooo good during the year.... why do they have to make it into such a production during the SB?

Puffy
01-23-2006, 06:52 PM
All I said about Brady is that he had all day to throw and I got a little tired of all the "best ever" hyperbole surrounding the guy. I just believed that the Pats success had as much to do with their defense and Bellicheck as Brady. Still do. And his numbers got better but the team wasn't as strong. Actually, this year I've commented to several people that I'm completely sold on him after watching him this year. I admit, he's much better than I gave him credit for, but not as good as some of the "analysts" at ESPN make him out to be.



Did I say unimpressed? Maybe I did. I was basing it mostly on the Ohio State game. After the first two drives, he was effectively shut down the rest of the game. There's a pattern emerging here. It's usually the hype that gets to me. Usually the players who get over-hyped are still good players. And yes, Young had a great game against USC, but I still don't think he's as good as he's made out to be. I'm sure that will draw laughs, but I have nothing against Texas or Vince. We'll see if he proves me wrong in the NFL. Maybe he will.

Hey, I like to make predictions and offer opinions. You win some you lose some. I'm not an expert, just a fan.



Agree completely. They're both solid. Never said they weren't. And I'm a big fan of Shaun Alexander and Mike Holmgren. And I'm a HUGE fan of Roethlisberger and I've stated that many times on here. But it's a preference thing. I liked the old days better when you had the behemoths of the NFL going at it. Clearly, most people like it better this way.

Yeah, I didn't mean that to sound like I was calling you out - and I apologize if it seemed that way - but it is about preference. And that was really my point.

I think that this has the potential to be an awesome SB - evenly matched teams, good storylines, lots of offense, star power, good coaches. I'm excited for this SB and don't think its lame at all.

But, again, I apologize if I seemed like I was calling you out or anything like that.

MWM
01-23-2006, 07:02 PM
No offense was taken. I do admit that I develop personal biases against certain players and it clouds my judgement and makes me look dumb sometimes. It's all part of the emotion of sports. And the culprit almost every time is incessant hype from the sports media. It usually has nothing to do with the player and everything to do with the coverage surrounding said player. Brady is probably a good example. I got so sick of hearing about him and the comparisons to the all-time greats that I developed a bias against him. Ironically, the year he took over for Bledsoe I was a big fan and was pulling for the Pats all the way. I dind't realize it until I was watching this year. I have a close friend here at school from Boston who I used to go rounds with over him and I admitted to him after watching how he performed this year and some of the quick decisions he'd make that he's much better than I every gave him credit for. I still don't think he yet belongs in the conversation with Montana, Elway, or Marino, but he's certainly the second best in the game right now, IMO.

bucksfan
01-23-2006, 07:14 PM
I wish they'd put a killer marching band on as the halftime show.

People have forgotten what that looks like.

I agree. The only halftime shows I have ever heard anyone care about (that was not "post facto caring" due to nudity) are shows with good band performances. Maybe I don't know "representative population" to sample such an opinion from, but I don't know anyone who gives a crap about the halftime shows that we get nowadays. But I love watching TBDITL at the Shoe after that second quarter expires!!!

GAC
01-23-2006, 08:55 PM
I don't think Indy was over-rated. I just think they played a bad game and really paid the price for being rusty. I'm not sure what happened to Denver, but they didn't show up today either. You got to give credit to the Steelers for taking advantage

Was it taking advantage or simply being better coached? I gotta give credit to entire Steler coaching staff during this post-seaon.


Maybe I just don't appreciate their style of play, but I don't think they're one of the weaker teams in the Super Bowl we've seen in a while.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there (being one of the weaker ones). They fought through some injury in the early part of the year and came back strong to play some solid football. And as far as their style of play, I don't think they are a dirty football team, but one that plays hard. Yeah, some of their players have big mouths and like to trash talk, but no more them any other team in thte NFL. That has become the norm any more IMO.

It's gonna be interesting to see how the Pitt "D" does against Alexander. That is gonna be the key IMO. But I think it's gonna be a good game. And I was glad to see Seattle get in. One of the few teams to never make a SB.

But you may be right Mike, as far as great teams/dynasties being hard to build any more due to parity and salary cap rules/financial structures of teams.

GAC
01-23-2006, 09:01 PM
Yep. A lot can. In the weeks prior to the Cinci game, Pittsburgh put 30 points on the board in a game twice (11 games). From the Cinci game on, they've done it five times in 8 games.

It's called "clicking on all cylinders" IMO. ;)

And the Steelers are defintely doing that. To make the run they just did through the best of the AFC, and on the road deserves recognition IMO. I was impressed.

GAC
01-23-2006, 09:04 PM
At this point, I wish the 2005 NFL season had never been played. I'd rather see the Bengals return to being Bungles and go 4-12 than to see Pittsburgh win the Super Bowl

Wow macro. That is a heck of a sacrifice! :lol:

That is like OSU fans saying they rather see their team go 1-10 as long as that one win is over Michigan. :D

pedro
01-23-2006, 10:41 PM
At this point, I wish the 2005 NFL season had never been played. I'd rather see the Bengals return to being Bungles and go 4-12 than to see Pittsburgh win the Super Bowl, and that's what's going to happen. Go Seahawks?

That's pretty extreme. Don't go all "edskin" on us now.

gonelong
01-23-2006, 10:55 PM
Wow macro. That is a heck of a sacrifice! :lol:

That is like OSU fans saying they rather see their team go 1-10 as long as that one win is over Michigan. :D

Thats not sacrafice, thats just common sense!

Go Bucks!

GL

remdog
01-23-2006, 11:11 PM
Does anyone really care about the game? It's really about the parties! :evil:

Rem

remdog
01-23-2006, 11:15 PM
Speaking of parties, if I were paying big bucks to attend the game as well as the festivities I'd be a lot ticked off that I had to go to Detroit to do it! Give me LA, Miami, pre-disaster NOLA or some other warm weather location with killer restaurants and nightlife. Then, if the game's a yawner, I can live with it. But really, Detroit in the middle of winter! Bengals have already done that. I'll pass. :p:

Rem

Heath
01-23-2006, 11:16 PM
I actually watch the game. I go to no parties.

Its the last football game of the year. No more football for 8 months.

As much as I enjoy baseball - the baseball off-season seems smaller than football does. Even when your team sucks, there is a threat the "Spring brings hope Eternal".

But it is last football game. And it makes me sad.

But it also means in less than two-weeks Pitchers and Catchers report.

RFS62
01-23-2006, 11:39 PM
I'm happy when football season is finally over.

I like super bowl parties.

'Cause pitchers and catchers report is just around the corner.

pedro
01-24-2006, 12:08 AM
I don't really like super bowl parties. Too hard to watch the game, which is usually irrelevant by half time anyway.

GAC
01-24-2006, 09:26 AM
I don't go to Super Bowl parties, and I don't get to see all of the game due to working 3rd shift..

My life simply looks forward to the annual Redszone Gatherings (is that pitiful or what?) :mooner:

Roy Tucker
01-24-2006, 10:24 AM
I wish they'd put a killer marching band on as the halftime show.

People have forgotten what that looks like.
I couldn't agree with you more RFS. I 1000% agree.

They actually showed both the USC and Texas bands at halftime of the BCS NC game. I was shocked.

There are tons of enormously talented and gifted high school and college bands around that would blow the doors off any fossil classic rock band around (and I'm a Stones fan from waaaay back).

My son just completed 4 years of HS marching band and the amount of time and effort that goes into their great shows is just unbelievable. If you ever want to see the future of America, go watch one of these HS marching band competitions. Great kids, great programs, and great performances.

We went to the Bands of America Grand Nationals at the RCA Dome last fall and you would not believe the absolutely fabulous shows that got put on by the final 12 bands. Just phenomenal.

Caveat Emperor
01-24-2006, 07:38 PM
Speaking of parties, if I were paying big bucks to attend the game as well as the festivities I'd be a lot ticked off that I had to go to Detroit to do it! Give me LA, Miami, pre-disaster NOLA or some other warm weather location with killer restaurants and nightlife. Then, if the game's a yawner, I can live with it. But really, Detroit in the middle of winter! Bengals have already done that. I'll pass. :p:

Rem

Think of this...

Detroit is already well known for it's high crime rate and large criminal element.

Now, they're going to infuse the city with TONS of Super Bowl tourists who are all going to be carrying (among other things) tickets that are worth thousands of dollars.

Further, there are going to be hundreds (possibly thousands) more who are coming to the city without tickets, but carrying the requisite thousands of dollars IN CASH (or not carrying, but with quick access to that cash) in order to buy scalped tickets in order to see their beloved Seahawks/Steelers play in the big game.

If you're a mugger in Detroit, this must be like the Christmas to end all Christmases.

MWM
01-24-2006, 08:34 PM
I've come full circle. I take back everything I said about this Super Bowl. I turned on the tube this afternoon and Woody Paige was talking about the Super Bowl saying the same thing I said about it. I now realize I must have been wrong. I refuse to share an opinion with the dumbest sports personality (outside of Buster Olney) in the media.

GAC
01-25-2006, 09:14 AM
I've come full circle. I take back everything I said about this Super Bowl. I turned on the tube this afternoon and Woody Paige was talking about the Super Bowl saying the same thing I said about it. I now realize I must have been wrong. I refuse to share an opinion with the dumbest sports personality (outside of Buster Olney) in the media.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783226926.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

:lol:

CrackerJack
01-25-2006, 01:17 PM
I miss the old days where the Superbowl was literally broadcast just as it was starting (have the 81 SB on tape) and halftime was just a normal break like the regular season games...everything was about the teams, the cities, and the game. You knew you were watching history unfold.

Now, 30-40 SB's later - they all run together and I can hardly remember who won the year before, been that way for some time.

I actually like this year's match-up - not really understanding why people think the Steelers are so weak - they are absolutely the best AFC Team this year and if not for injury setbacks during the season - would've fared better in the record dept.

There are some truly great players on the Steelers - Bettis, Ward (HOF'ers) Big Ben, Polamalu, Hampton, Porter et al..., - those are legit "great" all-time NFL players, and a very young QB who could be around a long time and do great things.

The Seahawks have some great ones as well - not as many - but are a well put together team with one of the best RB's in a long time. Their problem is they haven't faced many good teams and the Steelers are tough as nails and hardened due to their competition and the tests they've endured.

I HATE the Steelers and many of their obnoxious fans - but I respect them.

Should at least be a good game - unlike the championship games - which were God awful.

StillFunkyB
01-30-2006, 07:32 PM
The lamest SB to me was that SD-SF matchup back in 94? I forget what year, but yeah....I remember not even watching that one.

Ever since I moved out of the parents house, the SB has been more about the party then the game itself.

RFS62
02-05-2006, 11:09 AM
Seattle over Steelers

31 - 14

Seattle going to whip the Steelers like they stole something.

savafan
02-05-2006, 11:15 AM
I'm going 34-20 Seattle.

I can't wait for the end of the game shots of Jerome Bettis crying on the sideline.

RedsBaron
02-05-2006, 11:30 AM
Pittsburgh 30, Seattle 24.

redsfan30
02-05-2006, 11:31 AM
I'm really torn on this one. For the past 13 days I've said the Steelers will win but the more I see of Seattle the more I like thier chances. They've got the best offensive line in football. They've got a great running back in Alexander. Hassleback can make the plays. And the thing that nobody gives them credit for is their defense.

I think that Seattle matches up pretty well with Pittsburgh after looking at things more closely.

I still give the slight edge to Pittsburgh though but believe you me I'll be rooting like heck for Seattle.

Pittsburgh 23 (2 touchdowns and 3 field goals)
Seattle 19 (1 touchdown but the Steeler D will hold them to 4 field goals)

I think the game will hang in the balance on the final drive with Pittsburgh's defense bending but not breaking on the drive.

Krusty
02-05-2006, 12:00 PM
Let's be real here.

1. Look at Seattle's schedule. It was weak and they played in the NFC West.

2. Which looks more impressive......winning at home against a limited-offensive team like the Redskins and a beat-up Carolina Panthers team? Or winning on the road against Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Denver?

3. Final score will be: Pittsburgh 34
Seattle 14

westofyou
02-05-2006, 12:16 PM
Super Bowl prediction thread

Who cares about the game? I'm having deep dish pizza brought up from Oakland from Zacharys!!

But I hope Seahawks win and the PNW gets its first title in anything pro since 1979.

Reds Fanatic
02-05-2006, 12:24 PM
I'm rooting for the Seahawks but I think Pittsburgh wins 27-21.

Dom Heffner
02-05-2006, 12:38 PM
It all boils down to Alexander- if he can run the ball, the Steelers are done.

Unfortunately, I don't think he'll be able to do that. I can't see Seattle winning with a 60 yard day from Alexander, which is what I'm predicting.

I think it's a blow out, personally, which doesn't seem possible with Pittsburgh's joke of an offense, but they've been getting it done lately.

World champion Pittsburgh Steelers. That sounds terrible. C'mon September 2006.

creek14
02-05-2006, 12:54 PM
I hope Ben has a really, really good game, cause I like Ben, the Ohio boy. But not good enough to win.

Points? Don't know. Sadly I'll probably fall asleep in my recliner sometime during the 3rd quarter.

SandyD
02-05-2006, 01:36 PM
Kelley cartoon from today's Times-Picayune:

http://www.nola.com/news/kelley/images/2006/02052006_toon.jpg

I had to ask someone just this morning ... it's the Steelers and who? The Seahawks, right? I wasn't sure. I really have no interest in this game.

I got coerced into attending a Super Bowl party at friends of my parents. They ask me a lot, and I always back out, but I really like these people, so I guess I'll have fun going back and forth between the guys watching the game and the women in the other room talking about other stuff. My usual pattern. My usual pattern for Super Bowl parties with this bunch.

paintmered
02-05-2006, 01:59 PM
I predict we will be shown Bettis's parents at least 6 times during the game.

KronoRed
02-05-2006, 02:02 PM
Game? try per quarter ;)

24-20 Steelers win.

ochre
02-05-2006, 02:02 PM
I predict we will be shown Bettis's parents at least 6 times during the game.
I'll take the 'over'.

max venable
02-05-2006, 02:02 PM
I predict we will be shown Bettis's parents at least 6 times during the game.
Now there's something worth predicting.

So the under/over is at 6 huh?

I'll take the over.

marcshoe
02-05-2006, 02:21 PM
Steelers 27, Seahawks 13.

RedsManRick
02-05-2006, 02:27 PM
Seahawks 27, Steelers 24

paintmered
02-05-2006, 02:28 PM
Now there's something worth predicting.

So the under/over is at 6 huh?

I'll take the over.


Hmm, too many people are taking the over. I'm setting the line at 9 now.

deltachi8
02-05-2006, 03:02 PM
Seattle 19-17

alex trevino
02-05-2006, 04:27 PM
I predict we will be shown Bettis's parents at least 6 times during the game.

Detroit is his home town you know?

Seahawks 23-21

paintmered
02-05-2006, 04:29 PM
Detroit is his home twn you know?

Really? I hadn't heard that one. I wonder why the media isn't reporting it. Sounds like a worthy story to me.

:mooner:


BTW: Puppy Bowl II is on Amimal Planet right now. :laugh:

RFS62
02-05-2006, 04:31 PM
I predict we will be shown Bettis's parents at least 6 times during the game.


They'll have a camera dedicated to nothing but reaction shots on his family.

If his dad picks his nose, we'll get a telestrater analysis of his form.

Falls City Beer
02-05-2006, 06:58 PM
This one is too close to call.

OnBaseMachine
02-05-2006, 10:34 PM
Looks like the refs are on the Steelers payroll. Nice holding call on the Stephens catch at the 1. Not! This is the reason I hate the NFL. The refs are horrible and you can tell which team the league wants to win.

Falls City Beer
02-05-2006, 10:42 PM
Looks like the refs are on the Steelers payroll. Nice holding call on the Stephens catch at the 1. Not! This is the reason I hate the NFL. The refs are horrible and you can tell which team the league wants to win.

Yeah, football blows corn.

paintmered
02-05-2006, 10:45 PM
And it's just one crap call against Seattle after another.....

:thumbdown

Joseph
02-05-2006, 11:02 PM
Talk about a team not deserving something. Seattle handed that to them with the help of the officials bad calls.

deltachi8
02-05-2006, 11:06 PM
Thanks for stopping by. See you in 2006.

KronoRed
02-05-2006, 11:37 PM
Didn't even feel like a super bowl, felt like a week 7 game.

M2
02-05-2006, 11:47 PM
At this moment in time, having to beat the NFC champion is just a formality.

macro
08-07-2010, 11:35 AM
RENTON, Wash. -- NFL referee Bill Leavy acknowleded he made mistakes in the Seattle Seahawks' 2006 Super Bowl loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Leavy says he "kicked two calls in the fourth quarter" and "impacted the game, and as an official you never want to do that."

The veteran official of 15 NFL seasons says the game "left me with a lot of sleepless nights" and that "I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better."

Full Story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5444048

The two "kicked" calls in the fourth quarter weren't the only two awful calls made that day, but I guess this is a start.

Sea Ray
08-07-2010, 11:51 AM
The two "kicked" calls in the fourth quarter weren't the only two awful calls made that day, but I guess this is a start.

Nice find, Macro.

I'm glad to see the Ref is admitting to his mistakes but I find it disturbing that the NFL isn't.

This statement is absurd:


"The league felt, actually, that the Super Bowl was well officiated"

redsfandan
08-07-2010, 12:15 PM
That was 4 years ago. How many games don't have some blown calls?

Revering4Blue
08-07-2010, 12:27 PM
That was 4 years ago. How many games don't have some blown calls?

Exactly.

Two missed field goals.

Willie Parker's 75 yard TD.

Under-utilization of Shawn Alexander.

Failure to stop an end around Antwann Randle-El pass that everyone KNEW was coming.

The Seahawks didn't need any extra help to lose the game.

Screwball
08-07-2010, 12:37 PM
That was 4 years ago. How many games don't have some blown calls?

That was the biggest game on the biggest stage and there were numerous appalling gaffes, the vast majority of which benefited the Steelers. The calls clearly hold greater significance than some Sunday afternoon game on Week 5, though admittedly those are important too.

And this is being talked about 4 years later because it took the official 4 years to admit his mistakes.

redsfandan
08-07-2010, 12:54 PM
That was the biggest game on the biggest stage and there were numerous appalling gaffes, the vast majority of which benefited the Steelers. The calls clearly hold greater significance than some Sunday afternoon game on Week 5, though admittedly those are important too.

And this is being talked about 4 years later because it took the official 4 years to admit his mistakes.
Teams have to recognize that calls may not go their way and make sure that they do what they have to do to win anyway. Seattle simply didn't do that.

And was this specific responsible for all the missed calls? I'll be surprised if any of the other refs do the same thing.

MWM
08-07-2010, 12:56 PM
Yep, that was 4 years ago and I still don't think I've seen many games where the officiating factored in the outcome as much as that game. That game was an anomaly. It will always be remembered as the game blown by the officials.

Sea Ray
08-09-2010, 12:55 PM
That was 4 years ago. How many games don't have some blown calls?

There are blown calls and there are blown calls. It's a matter of degree and these were game changers. IMO they determined the outcome of the game and that's a shame

Sea Ray
08-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Exactly.

Two missed field goals.

Willie Parker's 75 yard TD.

Under-utilization of Shawn Alexander.

Failure to stop an end around Antwann Randle-El pass that everyone KNEW was coming.

The Seahawks didn't need any extra help to lose the game.

I don't understand your point...that the Seahawks made mistakes? I could counter that Big Ben played one of his worst games ever and the only way his team would have won was if the refs gave it to them. By the way, I was at that game and had excellent 45 yd line seats

Kingspoint
08-10-2010, 02:49 AM
You usually can't say that officiating determined the outcome of a game, but as clearly as the guilt felt by the official of the game, it did in this case. (Only a blind Steeler fan could think otherwise and completely ignore the obvious and then the subsequent statements made by the official of the game.)

And, I'm not even going to go into the "non-calls" in the Steelers/Bengals game that changed the momentum in that game, too.

Dom Heffner
08-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Teams have to recognize that calls may not go their way and make sure that they do what they have to do to win anyway. Seattle simply didn't do that.

And was this specific responsible for all the missed calls? I'll be surprised if any of the other refs do the same thing.

This argument has never made any sense.

See, the team is doing everything they need to win, and then the official blows that effort to smithereens.

You don't need to put forth two efforts- a normal one, and then another one to make up for some person that can't do their job.

The reason they lost the game was because of these calls. It's really that simple.

To put the blame on the losing team for something that was the offical's fault is just hogwash that comes from the "No excuses for losing" camp that never sees that yes, an official can cost you a game and there's not a gosh darned thing you can do about it.

Caveat Emperor
08-11-2010, 12:25 PM
The Steelers are too hated by their opponents and too loved by their admirers to ever get a fair shake in a debate like this.

Dom Heffner
08-12-2010, 09:09 AM
The Steelers are too hated by their opponents and too loved by their admirers to ever get a fair shake in a debate like this.

I might be a tad biased.

bucksfan2
08-12-2010, 09:21 AM
The Steelers are too hated by their opponents and too loved by their admirers to ever get a fair shake in a debate like this.

Spoken for truth. But, I don't think there is anyone who watched that game that thought the officiating was even ok. Every super bowl has its defining moments. Just off the top of my head last year's moment was the pick 6 Manning threw. You had the catch on the top of the helmet from the Giants super bowl. You have Elway helicoptering down to the goal line, Veniteri making a clutch FG, and a St. Louis WR being tackled just shy of the goal line. The Steelers/Seahawks game will forever be remembered as an awfully officiated game.

Dom Heffner
08-12-2010, 10:52 AM
Spoken for truth. But, I don't think there is anyone who watched that game that thought the officiating was even ok. Every super bowl has its defining moments. Just off the top of my head last year's moment was the pick 6 Manning threw. You had the catch on the top of the helmet from the Giants super bowl. You have Elway helicoptering down to the goal line, Veniteri making a clutch FG, and a St. Louis WR being tackled just shy of the goal line. The Steelers/Seahawks game will forever be remembered as an awfully officiated game.

And thing we can all remember about the Steelers going forward is that they will get rid of you on the third accusation of rape.

redsfandan
08-13-2010, 12:37 AM
Spoken for truth. But, I don't think there is anyone who watched that game that thought the officiating was even ok. Every super bowl has its defining moments. Just off the top of my head last year's moment was the pick 6 Manning threw. You had the catch on the top of the helmet from the Giants super bowl. You have Elway helicoptering down to the goal line, Veniteri making a clutch FG, and a St. Louis WR being tackled just shy of the goal line. The Steelers/Seahawks game will forever be remembered as an awfully officiated game.
I can agree with that. I just don't agree with this:


To put the blame on the losing team for something that was the offical's fault is just hogwash that comes from the "No excuses for losing" camp that never sees that yes, an official can cost you a game and there's not a gosh darned thing you can do about it.
The officiating was bad. That's not in dispute. But it's still Seattles loss. Yes, they could've overcome those bad calls. They just didn't.

bucksfan2
08-13-2010, 09:36 AM
The officiating was bad. That's not in dispute. But it's still Seattles loss. Yes, they could've overcome those bad calls. They just didn't.

The officiating was bad and one sided. I do agree that teams should be able to over come bad calls and bad breaks. But I remember the game to be very slanted putting Seattle behind the 8 ball the entire game. The way I remember it is that it was call after call nullifying Seattle's big plays as well as helping out Pittsburgh. Here is a bit from Wikipedia about Super Bowl XL's officiating.


Reaction to officiating

The officiating in Super Bowl XL was met with harsh criticism from some fans and the media soon after the game, with some columnists saying that the officiating cost the Seahawks the game. Among the controversial calls were a questionable offensive pass interference on wide receiver Darrell Jackson for a push-off against Steelers safety Chris Hope that nullified his 16-yard touchdown reception in the first quarter,[11] Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's 1-yard touchdown run in the second quarter in which it the replay did not provide clear evidence to overturn the call on the field,[12][13] a penalty in the fourth quarter against Seattle right tackle Sean Locklear for briefly holding Steelers linebacker Clark Haggans around the neck that nullified a deep pass,[14][15] and a 15-yard personal foul on Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck during a Steelers interception return during the final period.[16]

Kansas City Star writer Jason Whitlock encapsulated many views when he wrote the day after the game, "Bill Leavy and his crew ruined Super Bowl XL. Am I the only one who would like to hear them defend their incompetence?"[17] Initially, fans reacted negatively as well. A February 7 online ESPN poll found that, with 103,167 votes cast, 61.7% of voters felt that "officiating mistakes affected the outcome of Super Bowl XL."[18] Also, Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren himself took issue with the officiating at a celebration for his team on February 6 at Qwest Field, saying, "We knew it was going to be tough going against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."[19]

In response to the criticisms leveled at the officials, the NFL, just two days after the game, released a statement defending the officials' performance. "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement.[20]

On August 6, 2010, while visiting the Seahawks' preseason training camp for an annual rules interpretation session with the Seattle media, Leavy brought up Super Bowl XL without being asked:[21]
It was a tough thing for me. I kicked two calls in the fourth quarter and I impacted the game, and as an official you never want to do that. It left me with a lot of sleepless nights, and I think about it constantly. I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better ... I know that I did my best at that time, but it wasn't good enough ... When we make mistakes, you got to step up and own them. It's something that all officials have to deal with, but unfortunately when you have to deal with it in the Super Bowl it's difficult.[22]

Dom Heffner
08-13-2010, 11:13 PM
I can agree with that. I just don't agree with this:

The officiating was bad. That's not in dispute. But it's still Seattles loss. Yes, they could've overcome those bad calls. They just didn't.

Really? Well explain to us how the Bengals could have overcome that terrible call on the last drive in Tampa a few years ago.

You shouldn't have to overcome bad calls. The refs should do their job, period.

If teams can simply overcome bad calls, why even hire professional refs?

I mean, we could have beer league refs out there and these teams should be able to "overcome" it.

Redsfaithful
08-14-2010, 12:43 AM
Really? Well explain to us how the Bengals could have overcome that terrible call on the last drive in Tampa a few years ago.

The Bengals missed the playoffs by one win that year as well. This stuff matters even when it's not a Super Bowl and you can't put the blame on the team for not overcoming bad calls. Every game isn't going to be a blowout win.

It's really not asking too much for games to be fairly officiated. I actually think officials are corrupt more often anyone wants to admit (not at all often by any means, but a lot of people think it's never). The NBA is the worst, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we think the same stuff doesn't go on in other sports with makeup calls, home team favoritism, rewarding of player lobbying, etc.

Tommyjohn25
08-14-2010, 01:44 AM
The Steelers overcame a HORRIBLE call in the playoff game vs the Colts that same postseason and won the game regardless.

Caveat Emperor
08-14-2010, 04:06 AM
Really? Well explain to us how the Bengals could have overcome that terrible call on the last drive in Tampa a few years ago.

They could have, at multiple points during the game, scored more points on a woeful Tampa team and taken the game out of the hands of the officiating crew.

We've gone back on forth on this before, Dom, and I doubt we'll ever reach consensus, but I'm firmly in the camp that when you can't put an opponent away you leave yourself open to the whims of fate. That can come in the form of anything from a blown call, a key player pulling up lame at an important moment, or a sudden gust of wind that keeps a potential winning home run inside the ballpark.

And, as to that particular incident, I consider part of the decade's worth of officiating karma the franchise was owed after the awfulness that was the overturned Bert Emanuel catch in the 1999 NFC Championship Game.

Eric_the_Red
08-14-2010, 08:18 AM
The Steelers overcame a HORRIBLE call in the playoff game vs the Colts that same postseason and won the game regardless.

If Vanderjagt makes the FG the Steelers don't win. Not sure you are proving your point.

Dom Heffner
08-14-2010, 10:25 AM
CE-I know we'll agree to disagree.

For me, if you are playing the game, by definition you are trying to put yourself in a position to win.

You shouldn't have to put forth an extra effort to overcome blown calls.

Dom Heffner
08-14-2010, 10:49 AM
The argument seems to be that you should play to overcome the possibility of bad calls, but the problem is that bad calls prevent this from happening.

The Seahawks were playing to overcome bad calls, but how could they when bad calls prevented them from doing so?

It's like a team that is denied a winning field goal because the ref misses the call should go back to the locker room, hang their head, and blame.....themselves.

You're trying to play the personal responsibility card, but the ref doesn't have to take any at all.

He isn't to blame for changing the fair outcome of the game, the team that got cheated is, because at some point earlier in the game, they punted, threw a pick, let the other team score- as if every drive in the NFL leads to a score, you stop the other team every time....come on.

Lay the responsibility where it belongs- at the feet of the ref.

Tommyjohn25
08-14-2010, 10:53 AM
If Vanderjagt makes the FG the Steelers don't win. Not sure you are proving your point.

The Steelers D didn't allow a TD or even the Colts to get in range for a "chip shot" field goal. They played what they were dealt and won the game. No complaining, no whining. Win. The fact that this is still being talked about is very "Cardinals like".

redsfandan
08-14-2010, 10:55 AM
The Steelers D didn't allow a TD or even the Colts to get in range for a "chip shot" field goal. They played what they were dealt and won the game. No complaining, no whining. Win. The fact that this is still being talked about is very "Cardinals like".
I was tempted to say that but I'm glad I didn't have to.