Steelers at the White House Today

[Mike the Brit]

"Did the Seahawks deserve to win?" as a justification for the Steelers winning makes no sense. The Steelers didn't deserve to win any more than the Seahawks did, they were just on the right side of lousy officiating. And watching that game, maybe if those horrendous calls that took away most of Seattle's positive plays hadn't been made, you'd look at it differently. The point is though, that because one team sucked doesn't validate the other team's performance when they sucked just as much, if not arguably more (Worthlessburger's performance puts them over the top, in my opinion).

I guess it comes down to what you think "deserve to win" means. For me, it's about scoring more points.

The only time I'd say that the team that scored more points didn't deserve to win is if they benefitted from unfair refereeing. I don't think that the refereeing, atrocious though it was, took the game from the Seahawks.

Not even the most rabid Steelers fan (I'm looking at you, ClosingTime) could deny that both sides were an embarrassment to watch -- they played like a bunch of second-stringers in pre-season. You couldn't help think that the Patriots would have beaten either of them on the day -- my goodness, I think that San Francisco could have beaten them that day.

But that doesn't mean that the Steelers aren't worthy champions. It wasn't luck that they were there and we weren't. They beat Denver in Denver; we didn't.

 

[ClosingTime]

I'm not going to rehash the calls. That debate has been done to death and serves no purpose. People have their opinions about it and that's not going to change.
But to answer your question Mike, yes, one reason people like to talk about the officiating is because it was a poorly played game on both sides. And I will also say that the Seahawks probably played a more consistent game. But, they didn't make any big plays whereas the Steelers did. Let's not also forget that if Rothlisburger doesn't throw a duck down by the goaline the game is essentially a blowout and none of this talk happens.
Another contributing factor is the highly scrutinized officiating in the playoffs leading up to the SB, especially the Colts-Steelers game. That put a microscope on the officating. Also add in to the equation that Holgrem during the game was complaining to the refs (maybe he should have worried about coaching his team and not allowing so many mental mistakes).
I was actually at the SB in Detroit and even though the game wasn't well played the tension and excitement, and elation was not minimized in the least and the ensuing debate actually just is prolonging my enjoyment of the championship.
Say what you will about the SB itslef but the Steelers had one of the most remarkable playoff runs in NFL history.
And sure it's easy for other teams' fans to watch the SB and say, we could beat this team but that's kinda silly. Steelers looked like the best team in the league against the Colts and Denver. Shall I compare the Pats-Denver game to the Steelers-Denver game. Pats, (turnover officiating aside) struggled against Denver. Steelers dominated them in every facet of the game.
The Colts-Steelers game was probably one of the worst officiating jobs but the Steelers overcame that, and even overcame a fluke fumble in the waning part of the game.
Was the SB played at a top level? No. Did the Steelers play well on defense and make enough big plays to win? They sure did. Did the Steelers show in the playoffs that they were the best team? Absolutely.
And one more note on Rothlisburger. Funny that he never looks impressive and yet he's 27-4 as a starter. The benefactor of a good team? The facts say otherwise. He took over for a 6-10 team. Did you see how the Steelers played when he was out of the line up last season? How'd he play vs Cincy, Colts and Denver? 27-4 is not fluke even though his last game was poor.
Shall we base our opinion of Brady solely on the last game he played? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[mikey]

But to answer your question Mike, yes, one reason people like to talk about the officiating is because it was a poorly played game on both sides. And I will also say that the Seahawks probably played a more consistent game. But, they didn't make any big plays whereas the Steelers did. Let's not also forget that if Rothlisburger doesn't throw a duck down by the goaline the game is essentially a blowout and none of this talk happens.

I think the reason people like to talk about the officiating is not because it was a poorly played game on both sides.

I thought the reason was that it was a poorly officiated game where all the calls consistently went against Seattle.

The league in fact instituted a NEW RULE in reaction to the SB officiating.

The NEW RULE is that the referee CANNOT call HOLDING unless he (the referee) ACTUALLY sees a HOLDING. In other words, the official cannot ASSUME a holding if he does not see a holding.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seahawks/archive/story/5608974p-5040253c.html

But is this not suppossed to be the rule in the first place?

The RULE CHANGE is clearly the reaction to the HOLDING call against Seattle when Hasselbeck brought the Seahawks to the Stealers' 1-yard line. If the HOLDING was not called and Seattle scored, then the Seahawks would up have been UP by 4 points and would most likely be the Super Bowl Champs.


.

 

[ClosingTime]

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[mikey]

You're entitled to your opinion.

It's not my opinion. Those are facts.


.

 

[ClosingTime]

If you say so.

 

[Richter]

Pats, (turnover officiating aside) struggled against Denver.

Only if you're blind. The defense was stuffing Denver in every facet of the game, they were doing nothing and Plummer looked horrendous. They had scoring drives of 1 yard, 1 yard and a 1/2 yard, two as a direct result of botched calls, the pass interference being the most egregious. Go back and watch the game tape, and aside from one fumble and Brady's pick, the Pats dominated that game, and would have easily overcome those mistakes if the refs didn't keep botching things.