Here We Go Steelers

[deltachi8]

The Steelres were outplayed in the first half.

And Jimmy Cracked corn or something too...

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Arguing over which team in this game played better is like arguing which tastes better, haggis or liver and onions.

I myself am more partial to Slátur, an Icelandic dish similar to haggis.

Or perhaps nakami-jiru, an Okinawan pork tripe soup.

I recall watching a game earlier in the year (Bengals?) where a DB was returning an interception, he was running on the heels of a blocker, and a opposing player made what I thought was a nice play and went low right through the blocker's legs and took down the runner.

He got a PF flag as well. I thought it was a load of hooey and told my TV set so. It didn't listen.

[deltachi8]

"I think all Scotish food is based on a dare"

[M2]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Yep. The same half in which Seattle outgained the Steelers, then lost a touchdown on a questionable-at-best call (see previous 1000 posts).

The same half in which the Steelers got lucky on their scoring drive with TWO scrambling, seat-of-your-pants, chuck-and-duck third down plays, then got a gift touchdown from the line judge.

I guess if you just look at the score and don't take into account their actual on-field play, it does look like the Steelers did pretty well in the first half.

Me, I look at it and see a team that got knocked around but managed to survive because it landed a couple of wild, eyes-closed haymakers and ended up on the favorable side of the penalty flag quite a few times.

I always thought the yardage game in football was a blind alley. Bad teams spend entire seasons going 20-30 yards and punting. A bad offensive plan, like the one Seattle employed in the Super Bowl, will run out of steam before it goes much of anywhere.

What's hard is driving the 40+ yards you normally need to go to score points. Seattle didn't show any ability to do that until extremely late in the game. By that time Pittsburgh had already put three haymakers into the Seahawks and still had plenty of gameclock to launch another (which it did).

Seattle did well for a gandy dancer, but teams like that lose Super Bowls - think Redskins-Dolphins II and Giants-Broncos.

Seattle didn't knock anyone around. It danced around the edges and hoped that one substantial drive would be enough to win it a game. Pittsburgh landed those haymakers because it could and because it softened up Seattle's defense by attacking it instead of running from it.

Had the Seahawks unleashed the best offensive player and tried to force their way down field rather than sneak there it might have been a very different game. Unfortunately they only gave the league MVP 22 touches.

What I saw in the first half was Pittsburgh stalking Seattle.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by KronoRed

I can see the outline of someone in the backround

We have our suspect

Bob Boone?

[Krusty]

Read John Clayton's article and you'll see that it was more of Seattle's performance than the officiating that cost the Seahawks the game:

Mistakes doom Seahawks in Super BowlBy John Clayton
ESPN.com
Archive

Coaches say there are five key plays that decide a football game. The Seahawks blew at least eight in Super Bowl XL -- costing them as many as 20 points -- and lost to the Steelers 21-10.

In many ways, this was the most painful of Super Bowl losses. For two weeks, the Seahawks were confident about their ability and game plan, and they were right. For a while, they looked like the better team. Matt Hasselbeck came out and moved the football with quick passes to Darrell Jackson in the first quarter. Receivers were open. The defense continued its shutout streak in the first quarter, holding the Steelers' offense to three three-and-out possessions. Against the Redskins and Panthers in the NFC playoffs, the Seahawks' quick, undersized defense had a combined seven three-and-outs to start playoff games.

Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and coach Mike Holmgren were stoic in defeat.

Then came the mistakes, and the Seahawks didn't have answers.

"We had a great week of practice, and we did things very, very well," coach Mike Holmgren said. "There were some guys who made some great plays and great catches out there, but we did drop the ball uncharacteristically. And the thing that bothers me as much as anything was the penalties. We had a touchdown called back. We had a catch down to the 1-yard line called back. We had a pretty good punt return called back, and that's tough. You can't overcome those things."

Holmgren teams normally are among the best at not committing penalties. In Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks had seven infractions for 70 yards, and they all came at key times and left the Seahawks scratching their heads. In the regular season, Seattle averaged six penalties per game but for far fewer yards.

"That's the way it is when you are going against the world," Jackson said. "It seemed like all our big plays were overturned or called back. When you are going against the world, that's the way it is."

Jackson was involved in four wacky plays. He started the game red-hot, with five catches for 50 yards, the first five-catch first quarter in Super Bowl history. But worlds started colliding for Jackson.



AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
At the end, Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck could only watch the clock tick away.In the first quarter, the Seahawks had a third-and-6 at the Steelers' 41. Hasselbeck hit Jackson with an 18-yard completion to the Steelers' 23, but it was called back by a holding penalty against guard Chris Gray. That killed a potential scoring drive and led to a punt.

Later in the first quarter, Hasselbeck threw a 16-yard touchdown pass to Jackson, but Jackson had shoved safety Chris Hope slightly with his right hand and drew an interference penalty. He couldn't believe it.

"I don't think I touched him," Jackson said. "I was very surprised when I got the call."

Replays showed Jackson's hand on Hope. It's safe to say the officials were calling them close in Super Bowl XL. The play cost the Seahawks four points when they failed to get a first down after the penalty and settled for a 47-yard Josh Brown field goal and a 3-0 lead.

Jackson caught two balls out of bounds in the final minute of the first half, one that could have been a touchdown and another that would have put the ball inside the 5. Instead, they settled for a missed 54-yard field goal attempt at the half and trailed 7-3 at the break.

"The ball hung up a little bit on the one throw, but maybe [I] could have done something to stay in bounds," Jackson said.

Joey Porter of the Steelers must have been smiling. During the week, in response to what he thought was a verbal slam against the Steelers, Porter called Jerramy Stevens soft, unwilling to block, a first-round bust and his "huckleberry." In Super Bowl XL, Stevens dropped three key passes.

“ I'm not sure they were mental mistakes as much as just mistakes. I guess it wasn't our day that way. You can't make the mistakes we made and expect to win the game against a good team like that. ”
— Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck
One drop would have been a 20-yard completion to the Steelers' 27 on a third down early in the second quarter when Stevens had gotten behind a safety. Another would have been a 29-yard completion to the Steelers' 8 on the first possession of the third quarter. He dropped another one with four minutes left in the third quarter. After the game, reporters wondered whether the national attention affected his game.

"It doesn't matter what anyone thinks," Stevens said. "The bottom line is I didn't get it done. It was frustrating because we didn't play the way we were capable of playing. Obviously, it was frustrating. We just lost the Super Bowl."

Fittingly, Stevens -- who finished with only three catches for 25 yards and a touchdown -- had Porter standing over him while Stevens was on the ground at the end of the game.

"I don't need to think of anything," Stevens said of Porter. "He is on the winning team, and that's all that matters."

However, Stevens can't take the blame for the play that might have been the most critical of the game. With Seattle trailing 14-10 late in the third quarter, Hasselbeck was directing what looked to be a 98-yard scoring drive. Stevens caught a 17-yard pass to the Steelers' 2, but right tackle Sean Locklear was called for his second holding penalty of the game.

The drive came to an end when Hasselbeck didn't spot cornerback Ike Taylor on a throw to Jackson. Taylor made the interception, thwarting the scoring opportunity and preserving the Steelers' lead. Four plays later, Antwaan Randle El hit Hines Ward with a 43-yard touchdown pass on a reverse.

If the penalties and drops weren't enough, kicker Josh Brown missed two long field goals -- for 54 and 50 yards. He was 5-for-8 on long kicks this year. The Super Bowl attempts -- had he made them -- could have kept the Seahawks in the game.

"I'm not sure they were mental mistakes as much as just mistakes," Hasselbeck said of the Seahawks' offensive woes. "I guess it wasn't our day that way. You can't make the mistakes we made and expect to win the game against a good team like that."

This loss won't be easy to get over for the Seahawks and Holmgren. Remember, when Holmgren and the Packers lost the Super Bowl to the Denver Broncos, it took him a month to get out of the funk. He punished himself mentally for what he thought was his inability to convince the Packers that the Broncos were that good.

That's one reason he felt so good about his team's chances in this game. His team peaked during Super Bowl week. Wednesday's practice was one of the team's best and sharpest. The passing was crisp. The tempo was phenomenal. The defense was flying around the field, and that carried over to a first quarter in which the Seahawks defense pitched a shutout.

But the penalties and the dropped passes and the questionable officiating calls nagged at Seattle all game. Holmgren was so mad about Ben Roethlisberger's controversial 1-yard touchdown run that he spent as much time arguing with officials while heading to the locker room at halftime as he did talking to ABC's Suzy Kolber.

"I'm more disappointed in how we played in certain areas," Holmgren said. "I think we were careless with the football, and we had too many penalties. And that combination against a great team like the Steelers is not a good combination, so I think that's pretty much the story of the game."

Hasselbeck admitted his interception in the fourth quarter came when he was trying to force a pass because the Seahawks were trailing and were trying to make a play. It killed him to think how many points the Seahawks -- the league's highest-scoring offense -- left on the field.

"There were a lot of them," Hasselbeck said. "We've done a great job of scoring this year and scoring in the red zone. We had a touchdown taken away from us. We had a ball on the 1-yard line. That's unfortunate."

It cost the Seahawks their first Super Bowl.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[SunDeck]

Yet another reason why baseball is superior to football. In a seven game series it's pretty tough to say the team that played better lost.
I wonder if the NFL has considered the revenue of a best out of three series. Sure, some players might just die, but think of the money it would make.

[NJReds]

I guess there was no problem. The NFL is satisfied.

That (questionable calls) led to plenty of public scrutiny of the officiating, but Greg Aiello, the NFL's vice president of public relations said Monday the league is satisfied with the performance of its officials during the postseason.

"It was a very well-officiated playoffs, including the Super Bowl," he said.

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by SunDeck

Yet another reason why baseball is superior to football. In a seven game series it's pretty tough to say the team that played better lost.
I wonder if the NFL has considered the revenue of a best out of three series. Sure, some players might just die, but think of the money it would make.

Cash over health issues

Word

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by SunDeck

Yet another reason why baseball is superior to football. In a seven game series it's pretty tough to say the team that played better lost.
I wonder if the NFL has considered the revenue of a best out of three series. Sure, some players might just die, but think of the money it would make.

The only one that comes to mind is the Dom Denkinger call in the KC-St. Louis World Series (game 6) in 1985.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Puffy

OK.

So when a guy pushes off in front of the ref its a "judgment call" - forget the fact that the push off completely disallowed the defender to make any effort whatsoever to make a play - judgment call. Forget that the fact that anytime a defender or a receiver "extends" the arm its textbook interference - judgment call.

So what, he pushed off to gain an unfair advantage - judgment call.

That is correct. Your judgment said the pushoff gave an unfair advantage. I watched the same play several times and came to a different conclusion with no more known mitigating factors than you have. That's the way it is with officiating and reviewing calls--there's a lot of personal, subjective opinion, so it is a bit much (actually a lot much) to say you are the objective one and those who don't agree with you are intellectually dishonest. It was a close call, but I and many, many others did not see the play the way you did (judgment vs. judgment) and do not agree that the level of contact reached pass interference.

[Fil3232]

Originally Posted by M2

I always thought the yardage game in football was a blind alley. Bad teams spend entire seasons going 20-30 yards and punting. A bad offensive plan, like the one Seattle employed in the Super Bowl, will run out of steam before it goes much of anywhere.

What's hard is driving the 40+ yards you normally need to go to score points. Seattle didn't show any ability to do that until extremely late in the game. By that time Pittsburgh had already put three haymakers into the Seahawks and still had plenty of gameclock to launch another (which it did).

Seattle did well for a gandy dancer, but teams like that lose Super Bowls - think Redskins-Dolphins II and Giants-Broncos.

Seattle didn't knock anyone around. It danced around the edges and hoped that one substantial drive would be enough to win it a game. Pittsburgh landed those haymakers because it could and because it softened up Seattle's defense by attacking it instead of running from it.

Had the Seahawks unleashed the best offensive player and tried to force their way down field rather than sneak there it might have been a very different game. Unfortunately they only gave the league MVP 22 touches.

What I saw in the first half was Pittsburgh stalking Seattle.

I think you are giving Pittsburgh way too much credit. Pittsburgh was inept in the first half. I hardly think they were stalking anybody. In fact, the majority of their yards came from a Ward reverse and a Roethlisberger wounded-duck that inexplicitly found its way past the Seattle secondary. Hardly plays that sent messages of toughness and the ability to grind the Seattle defense down.

They didn't soften up the Seattle defense at all. They ran at them twice, got stuffed, didn't complete a 3rd pass, and finally punted the whole first quarter. Their gameplan was miserable in the first half and didnt get much better in the second half (save for K. Whisenhunt calling the trick play at the right time.) They got fortunate Seattle's 3rd string strong safety was woefully out of posistion on Parker's TD run to start the third or they would have been back to the same gameplan as the first half.

Seattle, on the other hand, came out throwing which is what it needed to do to open up the running lanes for Alexander. And the running lanes were there as evidenced by the 5.5 avg. yards per carry.Unfortunately, as stated before, Seattle couldn't overcome drops and dubious penalties.

[Johnny Footstool]

What I saw in the first half was Pittsburgh stalking Seattle.

Like Clouseau stalking Kato.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Fil3232

I think you are giving Pittsburgh way too much credit. Pittsburgh was inept in the first half.

Offensively yes. So were the Seahawks. Neither team drew a lot of blood in the first half, but what the Steelers did, to my eyes, was soften up the Seahawks so that they could pile up 155 yards on the ground in the second half. It's not sexy, but it almost always works if you've got the patience, will and muscle to do it.

Originally Posted by Fil3232

I hardly think they were stalking anybody. In fact, the majority of their yards came from a Ward reverse and a Roethlisberger wounded-duck that inexplicitly found its way past the Seattle secondary. Hardly plays that sent messages of toughness and the ability to grind the Seattle defense down.

You pay too much attention to the window dressing. Pittsburgh did quality bodywork in that half.

Originally Posted by Fil3232

They didn't soften up the Seattle defense at all.

Then explain the 227 yards of offense they racked up in the second half. Did they just try harder? No, they simply pushed on the defense enough to open it up. Football's a simple, brutal game.

Originally Posted by Fil3232

They got fortunate Seattle's 3rd string strong safety was woefully out of posistion on Parker's TD run to start the third or they would have been back to the same gameplan as the first half.

Safety's are out of position and/or miss tackles all the time. The real trick is punching the hole to spring your back in the first place.

And, far as I could tell, Pittsburgh's gameplan never deviated. The ran their offense at the Seahawks, waited for the payoff and then ran a few wrinkles when Seattle reacted to what Pittsburgh was doing.

Originally Posted by Fil3232

Seattle, on the other hand, came out throwing which is what it needed to do to open up the running lanes for Alexander. And the running lanes were there as evidenced by the 5.5 avg. yards per carry.Unfortunately, as stated before, Seattle couldn't overcome drops and dubious penalties.

Let's see, this plan netted only one sustained drive the entire game and you're defending it as a good idea?

I'll guarantee you that if you asked Bill Cowher what he didn't want Seattle to do it was to punish his defense with Alexander and then to spring big plays off the play-action fake. He was probably doing a jig inside when he saw Seattle picking at the edges of the field. I know my initial thought was that it was the kind of sissified football that Super Bowl losers invariably play.

The 5.5 yards per carry only points out how ridiculous it was to throw chains around Alexander. He only got 20 carries, never found the endzone and the Seahawks walked out with 10 points to show for the night (might have had 17 if not for that one holding flag). That's 5.5 yards per carry of kissing your sister.

Seattle ran as afterthought and not nearly enough to win. Alexander and the offensive line could have opened up running lanes for Alexander. Seattle didn't try it and it found out what happens when you try to be cute.

The game featured two of the best running teams in the NFL (neither club was anything special in the air). Pittsburgh won the running battle and, not surprisingly, the game.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Like Clouseau stalking Kato.

It worked better than the beer garden death brassiere approach the Seahawks tried.