|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 24, 2006 10:21:14 GMT -5
I'll say it again... Seattle has had some easy PO games. Now comes the real test, can they beat a decent team (steelers). Fact is that the redskins QB has sucked throughout the PO, he never really got anything going. The panthers had good 1 player, you lock him down and the game is pretty much over. As far as I am concerned, every team had some easy playoff games. Not just the Seahawks. For example, the Redskins beat a weak Tampa Bay team(who really had no business in the playoffs), Pittsburgh beat an obviously unprepared Colts team, Denver beat up the Patriots pretty good. I think its a bit unfair to say that Seattle had weak games without placing that label on the other teams. I think Pitt maybe had it a little tougher, winning 3 on the road, but hey, maybe they should have won more games during the regular season and secured homefield like Seattle did? Seattle has proven all season they can beat tough teams. Dallas, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Washington, Carolina, NY Giants. They have nothing left to prove. As far as I am concerned, I think Pittsburgh needs to prove that they can handle the High Powered Seahawks. Seattle has beat better teams this year.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 24, 2006 11:02:08 GMT -5
I'll say it again... Seattle has had some easy PO games. Now comes the real test, can they beat a decent team (steelers). Fact is that the redskins QB has sucked throughout the PO, he never really got anything going. The panthers had good 1 player, you lock him down and the game is pretty much over. As far as I am concerned, every team had some easy playoff games. Not just the Seahawks. For example, the Redskins beat a weak Tampa Bay team(who really had no business in the playoffs), Pittsburgh beat an obviously unprepared Colts team, Denver beat up the Patriots pretty good. I think its a bit unfair to say that Seattle had weak games without placing that label on the other teams. I think Pitt maybe had it a little tougher, winning 3 on the road, but hey, maybe they should have won more games during the regular season and secured homefield like Seattle did? Seattle has proven all season they can beat tough teams. Dallas, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Washington, Carolina, NY Giants. They have nothing left to prove. As far as I am concerned, I think Pittsburgh needs to prove that they can handle the High Powered Seahawks. Seattle has beat better teams this year. And the redskins had? 120 Offensive yards vs tampa, worst offense in the PO's EVER. The only difference was that tampa made some turnovers and the redskins didn't. Steelers had by far the hardest way, Bengals in first round, who lost their star QB on first play. Colts in second round who they almost didn't beat, despite the Colts playing bad in the first two quarters. Denver didn't beat up the patriots pretty good... The patriots handed them the game with 5 turnovers. Steelers got 11-5, thats pretty good considering their diversion was better than Seattle's... Seattle actually had one of the weak season schedules. Oh and they lost to the redskins in the regular season too I still think it's gonna be a good game. Seattle can finally prove if they are worth something, by beating the Steelers in the superbowl they can finally show that they can beat a top team when it really counts. However if they lose they will earn that speciel place where everyone remembers Seattle as the team who had it easy and lost when they finally met a good team on the day...
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 24, 2006 15:00:04 GMT -5
As far as I am concerned, every team had some easy playoff games. Not just the Seahawks. For example, the Redskins beat a weak Tampa Bay team(who really had no business in the playoffs), Pittsburgh beat an obviously unprepared Colts team, Denver beat up the Patriots pretty good. I think its a bit unfair to say that Seattle had weak games without placing that label on the other teams. I think Pitt maybe had it a little tougher, winning 3 on the road, but hey, maybe they should have won more games during the regular season and secured homefield like Seattle did? Seattle has proven all season they can beat tough teams. Dallas, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Washington, Carolina, NY Giants. They have nothing left to prove. As far as I am concerned, I think Pittsburgh needs to prove that they can handle the High Powered Seahawks. Seattle has beat better teams this year. And the redskins had? 120 Offensive yards vs tampa, worst offense in the PO's EVER. The only difference was that tampa made some turnovers and the redskins didn't. Pats "handing" the game as you put it to Denver is how you win football games. Capitalize on turnovers. Like the Pats willingly GAVE the game away lol. Just admit it. They lost. Steelers had by far the hardest way, Bengals in first round, who lost their star QB on first play. Colts in second round who they almost didn't beat, despite the Colts playing bad in the first two quarters. Denver didn't beat up the patriots pretty good... The patriots handed them the game with 5 turnovers. Steelers got 11-5, thats pretty good considering their diversion was better than Seattle's... Seattle actually had one of the weak season schedules. Oh and they lost to the redskins in the regular season too I still think it's gonna be a good game. Seattle can finally prove if they are worth something, by beating the Steelers in the superbowl they can finally show that they can beat a top team when it really counts. However if they lose they will earn that speciel place where everyone remembers Seattle as the team who had it easy and lost when they finally met a good team on the day... Seattle has proved that they can beat top teams when it really counts. The last 2 weeks proved that. And I have to say that the Redskins offensive performance against Tampa looks way worse for Tampa who lost than the Redskins who won. If you can beat a team with 120 yards of offense, than obviously the team they were playing made some INCREDIBLY BAD mistakes There are a ton of people who hate the Hawks for various reasons, they are in Seattle, far away from the East Coast, they beat all the top NFC teams this year. Yes they are in a weak division. And they blew the division away like they should have, right? I dont care if people dont like the Seahawks, but I hate hearing all this crap about "weak divisions", "weak playoff games", and lucky wins because its a huge pile of BS. Traditionally, 70 percent of Super Bowl winners have had schedule strength below .500. Pitt is a tough team, they will probably be the biggest test all year for the Hawks. But I am sure the Seahawks will pull it off, and if they don't, they still got to the Super Bowl didn't they? Thats a huge improvement from last year. The Seahawks saga is just getting started. They have young, good players who are just now getting their confidence. I predict that they will be in a similar situation next year. By the way the Pittsburgh schedule wasn't THAT much harder than the Seahawks. Here was their schedule: Sep 11 Tennessee Won (34 - 7) Sep 18 @ Houston Won (27 - 7) Sep 25 New England Lost (20 - 23) Week 4 BYE Oct 10 @ San Diego Won (24 - 22) Oct 16 Jacksonville Lost (17 - 23) Oct 23 @ Cincinnati Won (27 - 13) Oct 31 Baltimore Won (20 - 19) Nov 06 @ Green Bay Won (20 - 10) Nov 13 Cleveland Won (34 - 21) Nov 20 @ Baltimore Lost (13 - 16) Nov 28 @ Indianapolis Lost (7 - 26) Dec 04 Cincinnati Lost (31 - 38) Dec 11 Chicago Won (21 - 9) Dec 18 @ Minnesota Won (18 - 3) Dec 24 @ Cleveland Won (41 - 0) Jan 01 Detroit Won (35 - 21) And here was the Seahawks schedule: Sep 11 @ Jacksonville Lost (14 - 26) Sep 18 Atlanta Won (21 - 18) Sep 25 Arizona Won (37 - 12) Oct 02 @ Washington Lost (17 - 20) Oct 09 @ St. Louis Won (37 - 31) Oct 16 Houston Won (42 - 10) Oct 23 Dallas Won (13 - 10) Week 8 BYE Nov 06 @ Arizona Won (33 - 19) Nov 13 St. Louis Won (31 - 16) Nov 20 @ San Francisco Won (27 - 25) Nov 27 NY Giants Won (24 - 21) Dec 05 @ Philadelphia Won (42 - 0) Dec 11 San Francisco Won (41 - 3) Dec 18 @ Tennessee Won (28 - 24) Dec 24 Indianapolis Won (28 - 13) Jan 01 @ Green Bay Lost (17 - 23)
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Jan 24, 2006 16:16:25 GMT -5
And I have to say that the Redskins offensive performance against Tampa looks way worse for Tampa who lost than the Redskins who won. If you can beat a team with 120 yards of offense, than obviously the team they were playing made some INCREDIBLY BAD mistakes Did you even watch the game? The redskins got 2 Int/fumbles returned for TD, thats how they won the game. Tampa did try to come back, but the redskins DEFENCE was very good. Tampa's Defence was even better, but it doesn't really matter when the offence turns the ball over... I'm sure you watched the Seattle/Redskins game, now imagine that Hassleback had thrown 2 INT that ended up in redskins TD, then imagine the score...
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 24, 2006 20:02:32 GMT -5
And I have to say that the Redskins offensive performance against Tampa looks way worse for Tampa who lost than the Redskins who won. If you can beat a team with 120 yards of offense, than obviously the team they were playing made some INCREDIBLY BAD mistakes Did you even watch the game? The redskins got 2 Int/fumbles returned for TD, thats how they won the game. Tampa did try to come back, but the redskins DEFENCE was very good. Tampa's Defence was even better, but it doesn't really matter when the offence turns the ball over... I'm sure you watched the Seattle/Redskins game, now imagine that Hassleback had thrown 2 INT that ended up in redskins TD, then imagine the score... See Yilar, thats what I have been saying. Championship teams take advantage of turnover oppurtunities. Washington did that against Tampa. You can play the "if this had happened" scenario all day, but what it comes down to is that the team that can take advantage of turnovers win. Don't want to lose? don't throw interceptions. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Feb 6, 2006 1:27:11 GMT -5
So I guess I was right. Seattle couldn't keep it together when it really mattered...
They should have locked that game in the first (and the first half of second) quarter.
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Feb 6, 2006 10:40:45 GMT -5
So I guess I was right. Seattle couldn't keep it together when it really mattered... They should have locked that game in the first (and the first half of second) quarter. As far as I am concerned they did. As a Seattle fan, I am dissapointed to see the loss, as a football fan, I am embarassed for the entire NFL over the events that happened in super Bowl 40. The officials were the most blind, corrupt officials I have ever seen. Worst calls in modern officiating history. Two touchdowns called back for very very questionable calls. Even the announcers acknowledged this. Thats pretty bad. With all of the Steelers hype before the game, you'd think the world had their nose up Big Ben's ... That being said congrats to Pissburg for some tricky plays, and congrats to the refs, who turned the super bowl from a game that everyone would have enjoyed watching into a mockery. Ben had a 20.9 passer rating, worst for a winning quarterback in super bowl history. What is wrong with this picture. But its all over now, and the bottom line is that Seattle made it to the super bowl when 30 other teams did not, and this loss will not hurt them too badly. They will be just as strong or stronger next year, a force to be contended with. I honestly would not count on the Steelers to make the super bowl next year.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Feb 6, 2006 10:49:57 GMT -5
I'm not even a Seattle fan and I have to agree. They were robbed by the officials. First touchdown shoudl have counted, then the Pittsburg one should not have counted. This contributed to taking the winds out of their sails. This being said they had a shot in second half and fell apart.
not to mention wasting about 40 seconds in final minute of first half to end up having to try a 50+ yard field goal.
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Feb 6, 2006 10:59:04 GMT -5
I'm not even a Seattle fan and I have to agree. They were robbed by the officials. First touchdown shoudl have counted, then the Pittsburg one should not have counted. This contributed to taking the winds out of their sails. This being said they had a shot in second half and fell apart. not to mention wasting about 40 seconds in final minute of first half to end up having to try a 50+ yard field goal. Yeah they sure did make some mistakes too. Everyone on the NFL boards agrees with me on the bad officiating too, even some pissburg fans. Thats pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Feb 6, 2006 12:27:09 GMT -5
On the called back first touchdown by Seattle, the replay clearly showed the offensive player pushing away the defensive player, and then turning in opposite direction to make catch - this is textbook interference. It was replayed quite a few times and the film was convincing to me.
As to the Pittsburgh first touchdown, all that is necessary is for any particle of the ball to break the "plane" of the goalline (white mark). Replays showed this happened. Touchdown! It was appealed and reviewed on video also.
I can see where Seattle fans were disappointed, but I give the officials credit. Both immediate calls were sustained upon review.
SPM
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Feb 6, 2006 12:45:59 GMT -5
On the called back first touchdown by Seattle, the replay clearly showed the offensive player pushing away the defensive player, and then turning in opposite direction to make catch - this is textbook interference. It was replayed quite a few times and the film was convincing to me. As to the Pittsburgh first touchdown, all that is necessary is for any particle of the ball to break the "plane" of the goalline (white mark). Replays showed this happened. Touchdown! It was appealed and reviewed on video also. I can see where Seattle fans were disappointed, but I give the officials credit. Both immediate calls were sustained upon review. SPM Yes there was a little push there, but my point is that if the officials are going to be penalty happy all game long, at least throw it both ways. They threw a couple flags on the Steelers, but the really bad game-changing plays made by the Seahawks they called back. The "interference" call was very questionable at best, the way I see it is that both players had a chance at the ball, and to call offensive pass interference, there should be a bigger push than that. But the holding call is what killed me. They called back the huge gain for holding, and replayed it, and there was no holding at all. Then Hasslebeck throws an interception, tackles the guy returning the ball, and they call Hasslebeck on illegal blocking. WTF! Even the announcers were dumbfounded at that.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Feb 6, 2006 12:49:34 GMT -5
ya call that a push off??? Wuss ;D
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Feb 6, 2006 13:22:22 GMT -5
I fully agree with SPM.. Very well said. That was a textbook pushoff and there is no way you are gonna get away with it doing it in the endzone. Blaiming it on the refs is weak. They did an average job, oh and you can't claim that the refs should be equally fair, they can't just rule on who they think deserves it more thats why there are rules, if you commit a foul you get a penalty, you don't get to skip penalties cause you've had the most penalties. Oh and it doesn't matter if Big ben can't pass the ball when Willy parker and 2 of your WR's are former QB's Seattle lost because they were too worried about losing points over scoring in the first quarter...
|
|
|
Post by skidbladnir on Feb 8, 2006 7:33:46 GMT -5
what do you guys in the US think of some of the Rolling Stones lyrics being edited out during the break?
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Feb 8, 2006 10:04:26 GMT -5
Even though im not american, ill comment it..
I think it was expected, they even ran the game with a 5 second delay... You can't even say "bad" words on tv overthere anymore.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 10, 2006 9:46:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Feb 11, 2006 13:22:58 GMT -5
Yeah tell me about it
|
|
|
Post by Don K Hotay on Feb 11, 2006 16:24:04 GMT -5
what do you guys in the US think of some of the Rolling Stones lyrics being edited out during the break? they should have censored the whole Stones performance it was pretty awful
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Feb 11, 2006 17:19:52 GMT -5
what do you guys in the US think of some of the Rolling Stones lyrics being edited out during the break? they should have censored the whole Stones performance it was pretty awful I couldn't hear half of it anyway, the sound was awfull
|
|