Seahawks and Steelers

[Phlegm]

You can say what ever you want about the game but the Steelers made the big plays when they needed it while the Seahawks didn't. The Steelers defense did held the highest scoring offense in the league to 10 points also.

[xaoshaen]

Xao, you're digging a hole and sound like a whining apologists. We keep repeating football is a game of big plays, but you don't get it. It's ALWAYS been about the big plays.

That hasn't actually been one of the arguments here. The point remains that two of the three Pittsburgh plays came down to dumb luck: Trufant overpursuing once, and blowing a coverage on a busted play. For what it's worth though, it's NOT about big plays. Big plays are simply what people remember because they can't grasp the complexities of the game.

Seattle didn't deserve to win, if only for the 4th and a mile play they let Pitt convert on.

I don't recall claiming they did. I don't feel cheated out of a Seattle victory, particularly since I'm not a Seattle fan. I feel cheated out of the opportunity to watch a good game.

Pitt barely showed up and easily won. If they had brought their A game, it'd have been worse.

If you think Pitt "easily" won, you don't know much about football.

Keep blaming the refs, the tight end, whatever. It has no bearing. Pitt is the better team, and even on an off day easily won. Seattle can feel fortunate Pitt didn't play their A game.

Heh, facile dismissal without consideration of the facts is exactly what I've come to expect from you Lyion. Thanks for not letting me down.

[xaoshaen]

You can say what ever you want about the game but the Steelers made the big plays when they needed it while the Seahawks didn't. The Steelers defense did held the highest scoring offense in the league to 10 points also.

The Steelers held the Seahawks to ten points with quite a bit of help from the zebras.

[Captain Insano]

I'll agree with xaoshaen's comment.


Seahawks got a little sloppy at points but the steelers should got some help from those fucking refs.

[numatu]

Which is exactly what I said would happen if New England's defense and running game disappeared. I never said Brady wasn't an excellent quarterback, just that the Patriot's system wasn't going to have him ring up big numbers unless other aspects of the team collapsed.

You said nothing of the sort in the FFL thread, check it again. This time, don't backtrack. You proclaimed him "decidely mediocre" and the DVOA trend suggests he was capped out as a fantasy QB. He finished third this season in FFL. You lost. Say your prognostication was incorrect, and have it be done with.

How many other teams had to play multiple games with neither of their starting receivers?

Rams? Lions? A slew of others that lost their only big name target to injury and couldn't rely on the best (or 2nd best) offensive line in the league to carry them through 10 games of 6-10 or worse opponents.

Or perhaps teams like the Patriots that started an NFL-record 45 different players this season? Having to sign guys like Heath Evans and Amos Zereoue off the street is appealing, especially when your two best lineman are on IR. I don't even have to bring up the secondary.

The complete loss of a passing game isn't a big deal, because, you know, a team never uses the pass to set up the run.

Complete loss of a passing game? Engram missed Weeks 5, 6, and 7. Most teams didn't have the luxury of bringing in Jurevicius and having him post a career season. This thread is craving more hyperbole.

Because it matters whether the player is on IR or just unable to play?

Knowing your star player's season is over might have a little more impact during the playoffs in a game you know you might need him (why, hello Mr. Jackson in the Super Bowl; hello Mr. Owens last year!).

Nobody said it was his sole measure of performance, but it was the only measure of performance you alluded to, which makes you sound like a member of the ESPN Sunday Night Football crew.

No, I didn't allude to anything to do with the Pro Bowl at all. Perhaps you'd benefit from re-reading before analyzing.

[numatu]

For what it's worth though, it's NOT about big plays. Big plays are simply what people remember because they can't grasp the complexities of the game.

Umm, because they gave up three plays in sixty minutes of football? That was the entirety of the offense Pittsburgh managed to muster, even against a depleted Seattle defense.

This thread just gets better and better.


The funny thing is, though, despite the zealous fanboi-like contradictory quotes above, I completely agree Pittsburgh got shut down with the exception of those three plays. Seattle absolutely dominated in the first half, and came away with 3 points to show for it. Seattle's fate was sealed after squandering that half.

You can argue it was the officials, and while making many eyebrow raisers Sunday, it was basically par for the course officiating this playoff season. However, the officials didn't make Seattle run one of the most bizarre and pathetic two minute drills before the half, and with less than 8 minutes left in the game in Super Bowl history. I kept looking to see if Mike Tice, Mike Martz, and Herm Edwards were somehow hired as clock management consultants on Seattle's sideline. Also, letting Pittsburgh throw the Randel El reverse pass is absolutely inexcusable. That play was run on highlights over and over and over again all season long. Seattle should have practiced Cowher's well-known and obvious trick-plays until it was instinct to follow the cross.

The story of this Super Bowl is clearly the ineptitude of the officiating during the entire playoffs, coupled with the embarrassing clock management and missed opportunities by the Seahawks.

[Mop]

You can argue whatever way you want but if you saw either of those 2 min drills you know they didnt deserve to win - they chocked when it came down too it

[Lyion]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 328/SPORTS

Even his critics around the NFL admit that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher knows the rulebook as well as any of his peers.

Fisher, who is co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, conceded yesterday that the league had a tough weekend officiating-wise on Jan. 14-15 in the Divisional Playoffs. But he said he thinks much of the debate over officiating in Super Bowl XL was a result of the extensive media coverage of the game.

Fisher on some of the controversial calls in Super Bowl XL:

• Offensive pass interference against Seattle wide receiver Darrell Jackson that washed away a 16-yard touchdown catch: "Offensive pass interference is called when a receiver extends the arm and initiates contact resulting in separation between he and the defender. In my opinion that was the correct call. Now the difficulty with the call is you certainly can go in and look at other instances where there is separation where it's not called. Well, oftentimes it's not seen. But as the interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is offensive pass interference."

• Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown plunge that was upheld by replay review: "The issue is not officiating, the issue is replay. The call went to review and because there was not indisputable evidence under the hood, the ruling on the field stood. Most times in a challenge situation that's going to be the case. It's not going to be reversed because there is not overwhelming, indisputable evidence.

"In the official's opinion the ball crossed the plane. We can't say based on the replays we got on the network feed that it didn't. Maybe it didn't, but you can't say that. It wasn't a situation where the ball ended up a yard short of the goal line and it was a disastrous type call. That was a very close call."

• Holding call against Seattle OT Sean Locklear that washed away an 18-yard pass: "By definition it's a hold. There is contact, there was a grab, there was restriction." •

[xaoshaen]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060207/SPORTS01/602070353/1328/SPORTS

Even his critics around the NFL admit that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher knows the rulebook as well as any of his peers.

Fisher, who is co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, conceded yesterday that the league had a tough weekend officiating-wise on Jan. 14-15 in the Divisional Playoffs. But he said he thinks much of the debate over officiating in Super Bowl XL was a result of the extensive media coverage of the game.

Fisher on some of the controversial calls in Super Bowl XL:

• Offensive pass interference against Seattle wide receiver Darrell Jackson that washed away a 16-yard touchdown catch: "Offensive pass interference is called when a receiver extends the arm and initiates contact resulting in separation between he and the defender. In my opinion that was the correct call. Now the difficulty with the call is you certainly can go in and look at other instances where there is separation where it's not called. Well, oftentimes it's not seen. But as the interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is offensive pass interference."

Right

• Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown plunge that was upheld by replay review: "The issue is not officiating, the issue is replay. The call went to review and because there was not indisputable evidence under the hood, the ruling on the field stood. Most times in a challenge situation that's going to be the case. It's not going to be reversed because there is not overwhelming, indisputable evidence.

"In the official's opinion the ball crossed the plane. We can't say based on the replays we got on the network feed that it didn't. Maybe it didn't, but you can't say that. It wasn't a situation where the ball ended up a yard short of the goal line and it was a disastrous type call. That was a very close call."

Right

• Holding call against Seattle OT Sean Locklear that washed away an 18-yard pass: "By definition it's a hold. There is contact, there was a grab, there was restriction." •

Wrong. There has to be some consistency on the calls. If you call Locklear there, you have to call holding on almost every play of the game. Not a drive went by for either team without more blatant holds by offensive linemen, that went uncalled, which is NFL standard. The only way you can justify this is if you're pushing for the letter of the law to be upheld in regards to holding, in which case you should be far more upset with the officiating, as they missed several dozen calls in the game.

[xaoshaen]

This thread just gets better and better.


The funny thing is, though, despite the zealous fanboi-like contradictory quotes above, I completely agree Pittsburgh got shut down with the exception of those three plays. Seattle absolutely dominated in the first half, and came away with 3 points to show for it. Seattle's fate was sealed after squandering that half.

Fanboi? Wow, talk about a gratuitous insult. Once more, for the cheap seats, not a fan of either team. Football isn't about big plays, in the long run it's about consistent execution, which is what got the Steelers to the Superbowl in the first place. You simply can't rely on Michael Boulware making two terrible defensive plays as a winning strategy.

[xaoshaen]

You said nothing of the sort in the FFL thread, check it again. This time, don't backtrack. You proclaimed him "decidely mediocre" and the DVOA trend suggests he was capped out as a fantasy QB. He finished third this season in FFL. You lost. Say your prognostication was incorrect, and have it be done with.

*sigh* You have massive reading comprehension problems. I said Brady was a decidedly mediocre fantasy quarterback because of the system he plays in. I also said that he was one of the best quarterbacks in football, and that if Belicheck was forced, by the collapse of his defense or running game, to turn to Brady, that he would put up excellent numbers. What happened? The defense suffered a slew of injuries, Dillon got hurt (and possibly just old), the offensive line lost players, and Brady put up excellent numbers.

Rams? Lions? A slew of others that lost their only big name target to injury and couldn't rely on the best (or 2nd best) offensive line in the league to carry them through 10 games of 6-10 or worse opponents.

And how did that work out for the Rams and the Lions? Losing one of your starting receivers is bad, but it leaves competent organizations with at least on NFL-calibre target on the field. Losing both is a compounded problem.

Or perhaps teams like the Patriots that started an NFL-record 45 different players this season? Having to sign guys like Heath Evans and Amos Zereoue off the street is appealing, especially when your two best lineman are on IR. I don't even have to bring up the secondary.

Ah, and here we come to the gist of it: a fanboi feeling his team has been disrespected! Yep, the Patriots suffered from injuries more than almost any other team. Unfortunately, it's not relevant to the topic at hand. Quit trying to lyionize this by pretending I've said something in order to strengthen your argument: I never claimed that the Seahawks suffered more from injuries than anyone else. I simply pointed out that claiming they struggled against the 3-4 defense on the basis of one game with both their primary receivers out was foolish. If someone tried to claim that the Patriots had a terrible defense, or struggled against pass-oriented offenses on the basis of games where they started college-quality DBs, I'd have laughed at them too.

Complete loss of a passing game? Engram missed Weeks 5, 6, and 7. Most teams didn't have the luxury of bringing in Jurevicius and having him post a career season. This thread is craving more hyperbole.

Once more, for the hearing impaired ONE OF THOSE GAMES IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE IDEA THAT THE SEAHAWKS STRUGGLED AGAINST 3-4 DEFENSES. No, they struggled when they lost both their starting receivers.

Knowing your star player's season is over might have a little more impact during the playoffs in a game you know you might need him (why, hello Mr. Jackson in the Super Bowl; hello Mr. Owens last year!).

What? That's just incoherent. Knowing whether or not your player will be back for the playoffs doesn't alleviate their absence in the meantime.

No, I didn't allude to anything to do with the Pro Bowl at all. Perhaps you'd benefit from re-reading before analyzing.

Allow me to quote you then "but Tatupu in his first year being an All-Pro seemed to help". I just assumed you meant the Pro Bowl, since Tatupu didn't actually make the AP All-Pro team. If you prefer, we can just say that you had no idea what the hell you were talking about.

[Lyion]

Losing mediocre WRs didn't seem to hurt the Seahawks this year. They should try and get Engram and Jackson hurt more each year so they can make the Super Bowl more often.

IMHO, Jurevicius is better than either of them, and Hackett is a better route runner according to Holmgren. I'll look for the source for that.

Your WR argument really is poor. Losing a WR for a few games is not a big deal. Especially medicore ones such as Seattle has who thrive in a dink and dunk game that really does not require the talent a verticle offense does. They are all decent, but it's not like losing Engram is akin to losing Walter Jones. That would be devastating.

Losing a Tackle or starting CB is much more of a challenge, but then your posts regarding big plays that have been pointed out over and over show you really don't understand the game that well.

[Mop]

again - did anyone see those two min drill drives? that was highschool football style - uncordinated and seattle really didnt look like they had any sort of game plan.

[Lyion]

Yep, but a lot of the problems were moreso Pitts D attacking and not falling into a soft zone, Mop since Seattle needed to go one dimensional and attack downfield, something they are not accustomed or good at doing.

Did you see the one time Seattle rushed the snap and Hope blitzed and decked Hasselback? That's the problem with the hurry up and Lebeau's schemes and the reason Seattle looked so disheveled.. Although at some point ya gotta just snap it and play, which they didn't look comfortable ever doing after the 1st quarter and the quick 1 yard throws early on.

[Mop]

I know im justsaying ppl want to blame seattles loss on things other than Seattle not executing.

[Kramer]

yeah, Seattle looked cold the whole game, except during that one quick scoring drive to make it 10-14, the rest of the time, even during the first quarter, they were just maintaining, no spark at all...

[xaoshaen]

Losing mediocre WRs didn't seem to hurt the Seahawks this year. They should try and get Engram and Jackson hurt more each year so they can make the Super Bowl more often.

IMHO, Jurevicius is better than either of them, and Hackett is a better route runner according to Holmgren. I'll look for the source for that.

Your WR argument really is poor. Losing a WR for a few games is not a big deal. Especially medicore ones such as Seattle has who thrive in a dink and dunk game that really does not require the talent a verticle offense does. They are all decent, but it's not like losing Engram is akin to losing Walter Jones. That would be devastating.

You've already claimed that Engram has bad hands, so we can entirely discount your opinion on Seattle's receivers, I do believe. Jackson is definitely the Seahawks' top receiver, and Engram is an essential component to their offense. Just watching the Super Bowl should have taught you the latter. An example of an extremely poor argument would be claiming that Seattle struggles against 3-4 defenses, based on a single game when both their starting wideouts were injured. How did other teams fare with neither starter able to play at wideout?

Losing a Tackle or starting CB is much more of a challenge, but then your posts regarding big plays that have been pointed out over and over show you really don't understand the game that well.

I say again, how did other teams do without their top two receivers? If you honestly believe that football is all about big plays, not the ability to consistently execute well, then you know less about football than I thought.

[Lyion]

I never said Engram had bad hands, I said Seattle WRs the previous year were known for their many drops. Are you arguing that point?

You completely missed my point about big plays, still.

[numatu]

*sigh* You have massive reading comprehension problems. I said Brady was a decidedly mediocre fantasy quarterback because of the system he plays in. I also said that he was one of the best quarterbacks in football, and that if Belicheck was forced, by the collapse of his defense or running game, to turn to Brady, that he would put up excellent numbers.

I bumped the FFL, for sheer comedic value. As the the entire thread was around Brady's poor fantasy value overall, and the only time the system was ever mentioned was in comparison to Roethlisberger (which is one of the most ridiculous comparison I think I've seen in a while, something I'd expect from a complete novice). Brady's stats were, once again, consistent relative to the rest of the league's ups and downs. This year, it was good enough for #3. Belichick's(sic) system is not comparable to Cowher's at all.

Ah, and here we come to the gist of it: a fanboi feeling his team has been disrespected!

What does comparing injuries have to do with disrespect? The Patriots, are of course, my hometown team. Therefore, I know much more about them. I also listed other team's with devastating injuries.

No, they struggled when they lost both their starting receivers.

No, they struggled in only one of the three games they had both Jackson and Engram out, the Dallas game.

Knowing whether or not your player will be back for the playoffs doesn't alleviate their absence in the meantime.

Yeah, they really needed Jackson and Sharper this regular season. Those rough and tumble games versus 10 teams that finished 6-10 or worse, as well as the league's easiest strength of schedule. Don't worry, despite making the Super Bowl, Seattle will have the 29th toughest schedule again next year. Knowing whether or not star players will be back eventually is a fundamental shift in morale, to disregard the impact of Injured Reserve is just moronic.

Allow me to quote you then "but Tatupu in his first year being an All-Pro seemed to help". I just assumed you meant the Pro Bowl, since Tatupu didn't actually make the AP All-Pro team. If you prefer, we can just say that you had no idea what the hell you were talking about.

And here we finally come to the Ben Roflberger.

You assume I meant the Pro Bowl, when All-Pro has nothing at all to do with the Pro Bowl. Then you say he didn't make the All-Pro team, so it's impossible for someone to say he had an All-Pro season based on his performance. Just when I thought this thread couldn't get more Paul Maguire on me.

[xaoshaen]

I never said Engram had bad hands, I said Seattle WRs the previous year were known for their many drops. Are you arguing that point?

So, umm, which Seattle wide receivers would you have been referring to, then?

You completely missed my point about big plays, still.

You completely missed my point about big plays, still (sic).

[Tikker]

Xao you've repeatedly shown us you know numbers, but still don't have a fucking clue what it takes to wina football game

[xaoshaen]

I bumped the FFL, for sheer comedic value. As the the entire thread was around Brady's poor fantasy value overall, and the only time the system was ever mentioned was in comparison to Roethlisberger (which is one of the most ridiculous comparison I think I've seen in a while, something I'd expect from a complete novice). Brady's stats were, once again, consistent relative to the rest of the league's ups and downs. This year, it was good enough for #3. Belichick's(sic) system is not comparable to Cowher's at all.

I didn't compare the Patriots' system to the Steelers'. I'm terribly sorry if I confused you by using the phrase "offensive philosophy" instead of "system" in regards to Brady. I'll try and limit my vocabulary to avoid such brain twisters in the future.

What does comparing injuries have to do with disrespect? The Patriots, are of course, my hometown team. Therefore, I know much more about them. I also listed other team's with devastating injuries.

It's the classic Patriot fan bristling whenever some other team is pointed to as having suffered from injuries. Just amusing, that's all.

No, they struggled in only one of the three games they had both Jackson and Engram out, the Dallas game.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of the competition, of course.

Yeah, they really needed Jackson and Sharper this regular season. Those rough and tumble games versus 10 teams that finished 6-10 or worse, as well as the league's easiest strength of schedule. Don't worry, despite making the Super Bowl, Seattle will have the 29th toughest schedule again next year. Knowing whether or not star players will be back eventually is a fundamental shift in morale, to disregard the impact of Injured Reserve is just moronic.

I don't recall arguing that Seattle needed either Jackson or Sharper was needed during the regular season. Once again you're lyionizing the discussion. The point was that judging Seattle's performance against a 3-4 defense on the basis of one game wherein the team was missing its top two receivers is asinine.

And here we finally come to the Ben Roflberger.

You assume I meant the Pro Bowl, when All-Pro has nothing at all to do with the Pro Bowl. Then you say he didn't make the All-Pro team, so it's impossible for someone to say he had an All-Pro season based on his performance. Just when I thought this thread couldn't get more Paul Maguire on me.

It seemed a reasonable assumption since, once again, Tatupu didn't make the All Pro team. It doesn't make any sense to say that someone had an All-Pro season, when he was not, in fact, an All Pro. The other option was to assume you simply had no idea what you were talking about.

[xaoshaen]

Xao you've repeatedly shown us you know numbers, but still don't have a fucking clue what it takes to wina football game

And you've repeatedly shown us you know neither numbers nor what it takes to win a football game. I guess that puts me one up on the competition, which is a number I can certaintly appreciate.

[numatu]

I didn't compare the Patriots' system to the Steelers'. I'm terribly sorry if I confused you by using the phrase "offensive philosophy" instead of "system" in regards to Brady. I'll try and limit my vocabulary to avoid such brain twisters in the future.

The Steelers and Patriots do not share "offensive philosphy" or "system." Their offensive philosophies and systems are so far off only a complete novice would think they were in any way synonymous. It doesn't matter what you were trying to say: it was wrong.

It's the classic Patriot fan bristling whenever some other team is pointed to as having suffered from injuries. Just amusing, that's all.

Ignore all the other team's I brought up before the Patriots. Also, you didn't say "suffer from injuries", you said "hammered." I pointed out, by comparison, your statement was false, again.

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of the competition, of course.

Welcome to the discussion, I've been making this point from post number one.

I love the way people are willing to discount the Tommy Maddox games from the Steelers' record, but ignore the personnel disasters that befell the Seahawks.

Well, I guess that explains the phenomonon: people just have no idea how badly Seattle was hammered by injuries as this list demonstrates.

I don't recall arguing that Seattle needed either Jackson or Sharper was needed during the regular season.

You said the above two before the Dallas discussion. They were not hammered. They had some injuries that were nullified by the quality of competition faced.

It seemed a reasonable assumption since, once again, Tatupu didn't make the All Pro team. It doesn't make any sense to say that someone had an All-Pro season, when he was not, in fact, an All Pro. The other option was to assume you simply had no idea what you were talking about.

Yes, because only the players selected to the All-Pro team are deserving, or are the only players that had "All-Pro" caliber seasons?

Sure, Tatupu filled in admirably (though using a Pro Bowl selection as a measure of merit is laughable)

Contradiction after contradiction. Pro Bowl selections aren't a measure of merit, but All-Pro selections are? Please think thoroughly before replying.

[Kramer]

OMG
EVERYONE PLEASE STFU

THE STEELERS WON.

THE SEAHAWKS PLAYED DISPASSIONATELY.

ANY OTHER PLAYOFF TEAM WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE STEELERS A BETTER GAME.

GET OVER IT.