superbowl, 7-3 halftime

[Phlegm]

I was kinda surprised that Alexander, league MVP, was a non-factor in the game. Even though he got 95 yards on 20 carries, he didn't make any kind of impact on the game.

[xaoshaen]

Your post here is utter bullshit. I don't like Pitt, but the officiating in this game was the BEST it had been in the post season. Every call had good reasoning behind it, even if it wasn't accurate. There were no uber boneheaded calls like there were in many of the other playoff games.

You're wrong. Pure and simple, dead wrong. In realtime or in slow motion, the Locklear call was egregiously bad, and negated a big play. There was no "good reason" behind it.

If you understood football, you'd understand the Hasselback personal foul. You can't take a blocker out at the knees and another player. All games have questionable calls, but the ones made in this game from the refs vantage were good. Jackson wasn't anywhere near inbounds which likewise didn't warrant a replay.

You clearly don't understand NFL rules. You can't BLOCK low on a return. You can, however, TACKLE low on a return. The differential is your intended target, in this case, clearly the returner

I think you're actually talking about a different Jackson out-of-bounds call, or don't understand the pylon issue, which wouldn't be surprising given the NFL's unwillingness to post the rulebook.

Seattle lost the game on the field. Your posts here make you appear to be bitter. If that's not the case, I suggest you show less bias than CNN doing a Bush speech review.

All games are lost on the field. I can't be "bitter" per se, not having any rooting interest in the game. Sportswriters who picked the Steelers, Slate, and plenty of other outlets have commented on the excruciating state of officiating yesterday.

[Lyion]

You clearly don't understand NFL rules. You can't BLOCK low on a return. You can, however, TACKLE low on a return. The differential is your intended target, in this case, clearly the returner

No. He went low both ACROSS the blocker and runner. That is why he was rightfully flagged. Go watch the play again, and you'll see why the flag was called. It was an illegal play any way you slice it and was rightfully called.

You made a very ignorant post here obviously without watching or rightfully remembering the play.

The Locklear call was wrong, but egregious would be the Polamalu interception. Nothing in the super bowl was remotely close to extremely bad. Refs make calls based on real time percieved things. There was nothing clearly far out. The only gripe I personally would have is the calls did not even out, as they usually do. A pure stat guy like yourself should prefer a pure game, though, versus an even one though.

Sportswriters nitpick. The officials are always blamed, but again they did not effect the outcome of the game.

[xaoshaen]

You clearly don't understand NFL rules. You can't BLOCK low on a return. You can, however, TACKLE low on a return. The differential is your intended target, in this case, clearly the returner

No. He went low both ACROSS the blocker and runner. That is why he was rightfully flagged. Go watch the play again, and you'll see why the flag was called. It was an illegal play any way you slice it and was rightfully called.

You made a very ignorant post here obviously without watching or rightfully remembering the play.

Umm, except for one minor issue: that's LEGAL. As long as the intended target is the ball carrier, the rest is incidental contact. Nice try though. You made a very ignorant post here, obviously without understanding or rightfully remembering the NFL rules.

The Locklear call was wrong, but egregious would be the Polamalu interception. Nothing in the super bowl was remotely close to extremely bad. Refs make calls based on real time percieved things. There was nothing clearly far out. The only gripe I personally would have is the calls did not even out, as they usually do. A pure stat guy like yourself should prefer a pure game, though, versus an even one though.

The Locklear call was egregious. It kept the Seahawks from a first-and-goal at the one, and was a ludicrous call.

Sportswriters nitpick. The officials are always blamed, but again they did not effect the outcome of the game.

You can't say the officials didn't affect the outcome of the game, as it's an excercise in proving a negative. You can definitely say that they incorrectly altered the process of the game, however. Just an abysmal game by the zebras.

[Tikker]

if you're putting the locklear call in the same category as the polamalu pick you're a bigger idiot than I thought

from certain angles, it does look like a hold/tackle

and at 100 miles an hour, it'd be hard not to call that every single time

[xaoshaen]

if you're putting the locklear call in the same category as the polamalu pick you're a bigger idiot than I thought

from certain angles, it does look like a hold/tackle

and at 100 miles an hour, it'd be hard not to call that every single time

You mean the "blatantly incorrect, game-altering" category? If you didn't see a dozen more obvious holds go uncalled over the course of the game, you're either blind or completely unqualified to render any football analysis. At first glance, it looked as if it may have been a minor hold, of the sort that go completely uncalled on a routine basis, as they must if the game is to proceed. On review, it wasn't holding at all. There's no way that call should be made.

[Lyion]

You can't compare things at full speed which look like reasonable calls to REAL blatantly incorrect and xtravagant calls. Nobody is buying this diatribe but you.

It was a minor call, any way you slice it.

Just like the millimeter here was minor and not overturnable, even examined frame by frame, but I'm sure it's the game breaker for you, since you ignore the fact Seattle had no big plays which is the reason they lost, and not one or two close calls.

[Tikker]

I was kinda surprised that Alexander, league MVP, was a non-factor in the game. Even though he got 95 yards on 20 carries, he didn't make any kind of impact on the game.

there's not a lot of running backs that are factors against the steelers

they play to destroy the run first, then force you to pass

I was really impressed with seattles Oline tho
they really did a good job of handling the pressure

[Lyion]

The problem is Holmgren won't and can't commit to the run. If Seattle had indeed pounded the rock, and not thrown so many passes early on they would've been much more competitive.

Alexander had 95 yards on 20 carries. That's almost 5 yards a carry. Pitt was running a lot of cover 2 and 4 plus keeping their safeties back to respect the passing game.

If they had run Alexandar most of the time early on, they would've tired out Pitt's D and opened up the play action pass more for Hasselback so he could hit a pass longer than 2 yards without a perfect throw.

Homlgrens offensive playcalling and his inability to commiting to run the ball cost Seattle a good shot at winning a game against a lethargic Pitt team that were not at the top of their game.

If he had run more, his FG kicker most likely would have been kicking 30 yard attempts versus 50+ yarders and also would've eaten more clock.

[xaoshaen]

You can't compare things at full speed which look like reasonable calls to REAL blatantly incorrect and xtravagant calls. Nobody is buying this diatribe but you.

It was a minor call, any way you slice it.

Umm, no, it absolutely wasn't minor. Do you even know what the difference in field position was?

Just like the millimeter here was minor and not overturnable, even examined frame by frame, but I'm sure it's the game breaker for you, since you ignore the fact Seattle had no big plays which is the reason they lost, and not one or two close calls.

I'm interested to know why you're so sure. Oh, right, it's a useful rhetorical trick to pretend like an opponent has said something that plays into your hands. I'm not convinced that Ben actually made it into the endzone, but the replay was inconclusive. Whatever the call on the field was should have stood, as it did. Regardless of the call, on fourth-and-inches, a touchdown is the likely outcome, so regardless of whether you agree with the call or not, it's unlikely to be a major issue.

Oh, and Seattle did have some big plays, like a certain run near the goal line. The refs just negated them.

[Emongmai]

This game reminded me of the St. Louis v. Tennessee Superbowl. (XXXIV i think it was) With one team dominating on time of possession, and the other team getting a few scores, all on big plays. Now Warner had a 400 yd game so it wasn't as bad as watching Big Ben winning a ring with a 22 passer rating in the big game. I enjoyed the game, but I am a Steelers fan and a huge NFL nut. I imagine this game was horrible to any casual fan.

[Tikker]

The problem is Holmgren won't and can't commit to the run. If Seattle had indeed pounded the rock, and not thrown so many passes early on they would've been much more competitive.

Alexander had 95 yards on 20 carries. That's almost 5 yards a carry. Pitt was running a lot of cover 2 and 4 plus keeping their safeties back to respect the passing game.

If they had run Alexandar most of the time early on, they would've tired out Pitt's D and opened up the play action pass more for Hasselback so he could hit a pass longer than 2 yards without a perfect throw. .

I'm actually surprised they got away from the quick outs to jackson

that was open 90% of the game, and with the Steelers pressure defence, they're susceptable(sp? jeje) to the double move if your O-line can pick up the blitz (which seattle did almost all day)