NFL Says SB Properly Officiated!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

jeremy stevens dropped at least, 4 passes that would have resulted in a first down and that "holding penalty" took away a first and goal.

add those up and seattle would have been 10/17 , thats pretty good but once again, the reason i think they lost is because of stevens and the refs.

[That Guy]

if you think seattle outplayed pit thats insane.. they gave up a 3rd and 28... they couldn't stop dropping passes. guess what, dropped passes = not outplaying your opponent.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by That Guy

if you think seattle outplayed pit thats insane.. they gave up a 3rd and 28... they couldn't stop dropping passes. guess what, dropped passes = not outplaying your opponent.

i think overall, seattle played a better game then pitt. that 3rd and 28 was bad and yes those dropped passes by stevens was awful but pitt only made 3 plays in my opinoin of course, the obove mentioned play, the run by parker and the trick play. seattle moved the ball quite easily on pitt and seattles defense did a good job, outside of those 3 plays.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

part of it was the refs and the other part was jeremy stevens. i've been pretty consistant in my belief that the game was lost by seattle because of the refs and jeremy stevens not playing well.

a team doesn't have to win the 3rd down % of success in order to win a football game, just look at some of the skins stats from this year and last years as well.

It makes it awfully tough to convert on third down when the ref's are putting a team in 3rd and long, I also saw a questionable spot that forced Seattle to punt where the ref came up and had his foot on the yellow line and then spotted it behind his foot, I was waiting for a challenge on that play it looked like a bad spot.

It's not like Pitt wasen't doing the same things on third down, it's not like Pitt didn't drop passes, how about we make it a level playing field, let's give Pitt the same penalties on their big play's as seattle recieved and see how well they played once you take them away? let's say just 2 big play's, the 3rd and 28 conversion to the 1, and the TD to ward, just 2 play's and Seattle wins, even with all those ridiculous penalties.

The fact is there was no interference by the ref's when Pitt needed a big play, but it sure seemed like they were Johnny on the spot when Seattle was on the move.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by offiss

It makes it awfully tough to convert on third down when the ref's are putting a team in 3rd and long, I also saw a questionable spot that forced Seattle to punt where the ref came up and had his foot on the yellow line and then spotted it behind his foot, I was waiting for a challenge on that play it looked like a bad spot.

It's not like Pitt wasen't doing the same things on third down, it's not like Pitt didn't drop passes, how about we make it a level playing field, let's give Pitt the same penalties on their big play's as seattle recieved and see how well they played once you take them away? let's say just 2 big play's, the 3rd and 28 conversion to the 1, and the TD to ward, just 2 play's and Seattle wins, even with all those ridiculous penalties.

The fact is there was no interference by the ref's when Pitt needed a big play, but it sure seemed like they were Johnny on the spot when Seattle was on the move.

i think you and i might be the only two on this site that actually watched and paid attention to the superbowl.

[sportscurmudgeon]

1. The game wasn't fixed by the NFL or the refs.

2. Seattle lost the game with their less than stellar play but the calls made against them did not hurt the Steelers in any way. And the preponderance of less-than-fully-obvious calls went against the Seahawks.


Now, with regard to the hideously self-serving statement by Greg Aiello, here is what I wrote in my rant for today in my Internet column. If I were ever to be on trial for something where jail time might be one of the outcomes of the affair, then I want Greg Aiello on my jury. I wonder whom he believes shot Lee Harvey Oswald.

[70Chip]

I think Pittsburgh's offense was exposed a bit even though they won the game. I think they lose that game seven or eight times out of ten.

I also think the Redskins could learn from Holmgren's strategy of using three and five step drops to throw on first down. At times the Seahawks made it look easy against a very strong Pittsburgh defense. When Pitt can't get pressure, they struggle because they have an average secondary. The Redskins did a much better job against Seattle because they have one or two guys that can actually cover.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think Pittsburgh's offense was exposed a bit even though they won the game. I think they lose that game seven or eight times out of ten.

I also think the Redskins could learn from Holmgren's strategy of using three and five step drops to throw on first down. At times the Seahawks made it look easy against a very strong Pittsburgh defense. When Pitt can't get pressure, they struggle because they have an average secondary. The Redskins did a much better job against Seattle because they have one or two guys that can actually cover.

I don't know if Pitt's O was exposed I think it was alot of poor execution from both teams.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i honestly do think seattle out played pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that. i will say this, those penalties decided the outcome of that game.

i don't think complaining about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

Saying that they only made 3 plays doesn't really support your point. That's what EVERY team does to win a game. When the Skins blew out Dallas, they made 5 plays to win. Outplayed or not, Pittsburgh won the game. Dallas outplayed the Redskins the first time around, but the Skins came up with BIG PLAYS with it counted. Do you think Dallas deserved to win that game?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Saying that they only made 3 plays doesn't really support your point. That's what EVERY team does to win a game. When the Skins blew out Dallas, they made 5 plays to win. Outplayed or not, Pittsburgh won the game. Dallas outplayed the Redskins the first time around, but the Skins came up with BIG PLAYS with it counted. Do you think Dallas deserved to win that game?

You kind of make his point with that statement MC, If 3 0r 4 plays deciede a game, then thats all it takes for a officials to determain the outcome of a game, all it takes is 3 or 4 timely bad calls and there you have it. And that is what happened in this game, take away those very questionable penalties and Seattle wins, THERE IS NO DOUBT!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

There was only one really bad call that stood out in my mind and that was Hasselbeck's "low block". The PI call WAS soft, BUT it was PI nonetheless and it was right in front of the ref. The holding call was most definitely holding. He wasn't offsides and the hold clearly prevented him from sacking Hasselbeck.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

There was only one really bad call that stood out in my mind and that was Hasselbeck's "low block". The PI call WAS soft, BUT it was PI nonetheless and it was right in front of the ref. The holding call was most definitely holding. He wasn't offsides and the hold clearly prevented him from sacking Hasselbeck.

I think this whole thing has really been blown out of proportion.

The refs aren't perfect, but they certainly didn't cost Seattle the game. To say that is glossing over the fact they simply did not play well enough to win.

The refs did however almost cost Pittsburgh the game against the Colts, but on that day you saw a team that was good enough to overcome difficult circumstances. Seattle simply wasn't the better team last week.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i think you and i might be the only two on this site that actually watched and paid attention to the superbowl.

LOL what game were you guys watching exactly??

Seems like you two are the only ones in the country convinced Seattle outplayed Pittsburgh.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

my reasoning for not focusing on the 3rd down % is because i don't feel it had anything or at least, very little to do with the out come of the game.

You can't tell me converting on just five 3rd downs has very little to do with the outcome of the game. Those are stalled drives, lost opportunities, and most importantly lost scoring chances.

Steven's 4 drops, Hasselbeck's INT and 2 missed FG's were far more damaging in the overall outcome than the refs in my opinion.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LOL what game were you guys watching exactly??

Seems like you two are the only ones in the country convinced Seattle outplayed Pittsburgh.

Maybe we can do a poll? Who outplayed who in the SB.