Well, we're nearly half way through the NFL season, and we're starting to separate the contenders from the pretenders. From the list below, who do you think is for real (as in a genuine shot at the playoffs) and who are the wanna-be teams that aren't going to make it.

So 10 questions: one for each division, and then two wildcard questions:

Poll Information
This poll contains 10 question(s). 16 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: NFL - Contender or Pretender? (16 votes.)

AFC East (Choose 1)
* Patriots - 100% (16)
* Jets - 0% (0)
* Bills - 0% (0)
* Dolfins - 0% (0)

AFC North (Choose 1)
* Bengals - 38% (6)
* Steelers - 63% (10)
* Browns - 0% (0)
* Ravens - 0% (0)

AFC South (Choose 1)
* Colts - 94% (15)
* Titans - 6% (1)
* Jaguars - 0% (0)
* Texans - 0% (0)

AFC West (Choose 1)
* Broncos - 56% (9)
* Chiefs - 0% (0)
* Raiders - 13% (2)
* Chargers - 31% (5)

NFC East (Choose 1)
* Giants - 44% (7)
* Eagles - 38% (6)
* Cowboys - 13% (2)
* Redskins - 6% (1)

NFC North (Choose 1)
* Packers - 13% (2)
* Vikings - 38% (6)
* Lions - 19% (3)
* Bears - 31% (5)

NFC South (Choose 1)
* Buccaneers - 6% (1)
* Saints - 13% (2)
* Panthers - 38% (6)
* Falcons - 44% (7)

NFC West (Choose 1)
* Seahawks - 75% (12)
* Rams - 13% (2)
* Cardinals - 6% (1)
* 49ers - 6% (1)

AFC Wildcards (Choose 2)
* Patriots - 19% (3)
* Jets - 0% (0)
* Bills - 6% (1)
* Dolfins - 0% (0)
* Steelers - 19% (3)
* Bengals - 31% (5)
* Ravens - 0% (0)
* Browns - 0% (0)
* Chiefs - 19% (3)
* Raiders - 19% (3)
* Chargers - 19% (3)
* Broncos - 19% (3)
* Titans - 6% (1)
* Colts - 0% (0)
* Jaguars - 31% (5)
* Texans - 0% (0)

NFC Wildcards (Choose 2)
* Eagles - 25% (4)
* Giants - 0% (0)
* Cowboys - 31% (5)
* Redskins - 13% (2)
* Packers - 0% (0)
* Vikings - 19% (3)
* Lions - 0% (0)
* Bears - 0% (0)
* Falcons - 25% (4)
* Saints - 0% (0)
* Panthers - 0% (0)
* Buccaneers - 38% (6)
* Seahawks - 13% (2)
* Cardinals - 6% (1)
* Rams - 6% (1)
* 49ers - 6% (1)

Nice poll, Aldeth...I wonder why no one is commenting on their choices. I will, maybe start some discussion.

AFC East...somebody get the Jets a tourniquet and Joe Namath's phone number. If you're a Jets fan, consider watching a lot of NHL and NBA this winter. Dolphins have some talent but are still trying to find out who they are under the Nick Saban regime. Bills have an electrifying back, but in the end the Patriots will prevail. Despite injuries and adversity, the defending champs will find a way to win the division.

AFC North...Steelers, Steelers, Steelers...with the Bengals nipping at their heels. The Ravens inept offense makes them a non-contender. The Browns exist so other teams don't have to take an extra bye week.

AFC South...Colts almost rule uncontended. Jags will struggle to oppose, but lack depth for an entire season. Titans continue to slide toward the bottom feeders of the league. Texans...see "Browns" above.

AFC West...Oddly enough we all once again realize that there's no "D" in "Kansas City". Raiders will play surprisingly tough but fail. This division will in the end come down to a dog fight between the Broncos and Bolts. The winner? The team who plays a Mile High. The reason? Jake's quit throwing INTs!

NFC East...Not only will the Eagles fail to return to the Super Bowl, but they won't even win the division. Can't go far with an injured QB and no run game to protect him. Redskins...smoke and mirrors. Cowboys have made remarkable strides under Parcels, but aren't there yet. Giants will take this bunch. Every week Eli matures a little more and they have the intangible of playing for a beloved, deceased owner.

NFC North...da Bearz. Nobody else wants the division. Detroit will try...but hey, it's the Lions. Favre will announce his retirement after a record number of sacks and picks. The Vikings will wish they'd taken their little cruise in the Bermuda Triangle.

NFC South...Panthers will edge out the Falcons, whose offensive clout will be hampered by a semi-injured Vick. Saints and Bucs prepare for next storm.

NFC West...perhaps the weakest division in the NFL. Living in Arizona I get to see the Cardinals quite a bit...loaded with talent but perhaps forever cursed. I take air sickness bags to the games. The Niners...will begin to realize that Alex Smith may not be an NFL quarterback. Hard to pick against the Rams...but for some reason I can only see the Seahawks winning this division. THE SEAHAWKS! Oh well, somebodies gotta lose in the first round of playoff, huh?

AFC Wildcards...

Bengals...don't see anyone keeping them out.
Chargers...LT's thrown for as many touchdowns as the Jets!

NFC Wildcards...

Cowboys...yeah, I said "cowboy".
Falcons...Even though they fail to win the division, they will show up for the playoffs.

AFC Champs...Colts

NFC Champs...Giants

NFL Champs...Colts


There...I'm sitting out on a shaky limb. Anyone care to join me?

Thanks Hack, I knew someone else had to watch the NFL. Here are my predictions:

AFC East: Pats
AFC North: Steelers
AFC South: Colts
AFC West: Chargers (Broncos always seem to lose 6 of their last 8 games).

Wildcards: Bengals and Jags. The Jags have a ridiculously easy schedule, and should easily win 10, maybe even 11 games.

NFC East: G-men
NFC North: Bears, as they are the least flawed of a set of four flawed teams.
NFC South: Panthers - they should have been the team to beat last year until they set a record for injuries - at one point they had something like 12 injured starting players in one week - hard to win when everyone is hurt.
NFC West: Just like the Broncos in the AFC, the Seahawks choke down the stretch, so I'm going with the Rams.

Wildcards: Falcons and Eagles (the NFC wildcard is going to the birds - ok - bad pun).

Also, to anyone picking a wildcard to come from the AFC East, NFC North, or NFC West - and you know who you are - you are completely insane if you think any of those divisions are producing two playoff teams. All of them are extremely weak divisions, and the only team coming out of there is the one who wins the division.

I'm sorry guys I voted but didn't write my predictions down and then got dragged away and forgot about it. The one I know I made and stick to even more now is the Giants winning NFC East and if they stay healthy possibly going all the way. I loved watching them on Sunday keeping the skins to 125 total yards.

You all heard it here first, the Colts will win the superbowl. Only problem is that they have not played any "good' team yet, next monday will tell us if they are superbowl quality. (vs the patriots)

You all heard it here first, the Colts will win the superbowl. :confused: The only way we would hear it here "first" is if none of us had access to newspapers, television, radio, the internet, or any other form of sports media. Since everyone posting obviously has access to at least the internet, and probably other forms of sports meida listed above, that applies to NO ONE. Everybody is picking the Colts, so unless you came out right after the Pats victory in SB XXXIX, you weren't first.

Go Steelers!

The Steelers are pretty much done now for the season, especially since they lost to the who, oh yes the Bengals. This is how it should end up for the NFL for this year.

AFC
North: Bengals
East: PATS
West: Broncos
South: Colts
Wild Card: JAGS
Wid Card: Chargers

NFC
North: Bears
East: Giants
West: Seahawks
South: Panthers

AFC Championship Game:
Bengals vs. Colts
Winners: Bengals (Read NFL article about teams they play each other twice a year and notice the team that lost the first match up tends to win the second)

NFC Championship Game:
Bears vs. Panthers
Winners: Panthers

Superbowl:
Bengals vs. Panthers
Winner: Bengals - They just can get scores vs. top 10 defenses.

Seahawks vs Colts in the Superbowl.

The Colts will win.

Yeah, it may be safe to assume that we can stick a fork in my beloved Steelers (they may very well be done). However, I do have some hope of them getting the #6 seed. Here's my reasoning - there are currently 4 teams that can be the wild cards - the Jags, Chargers, Chiefs and Steelers. The Jags schedule is really easy after the Colts this weekend. I'm assuming they're going to go 12-4, which would make them a lock for the first wildcard berth. However, the Chiefs schedule is absolutely brutal down the strech. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost at least 2 if not 3 of the last 4. The Chargers don't have a easy schedule either. They still play the Colts in Indianapolis, and the aforementioned Chiefs in Arrowhead (obviously one of them have to lose there). The Steelers also have the tie-breaker over the Chargers as they beat them earlier this year. So, provided the Steelers win out - which is far from certain - I think they can still make the playoffs. If they lose to Da Bears this weekend, then we can really stick a fork in them.

That having been said, I don't see anyone beating the Colts. The only way I feel they will lose a game this year is if they rest players before the playoffs. That, IMO, would be a mistake. You are already going to get a week off with the playoff bye, and coming in rusty can't be good. I think you have to play your starters at least the first half of the remaining games.

Yes the colts will loose this year most likely. Dungy is a very smart coach and chances are he will not play the started for all the remaining games after their game this weekend.

As for them loosing in the play off please read the article previously posted on the NFL.com. And if you read the article closely most teams they play each other twice a year split the games. If the Bengals and Colts play again, by that time the Bengals will have a good idea on how the Colts will play them and being indoors could be a good thing for the Bengals.

@Abdel - As a long time die-hard NFL fan myself, I know you speak the truth. The chances of beating a team three times in the same year are even slimmer. (But that might be because it doesn't occur that often - it would have to be a division rivalry, and then have those same two teams meet in the playoffs.)

That said, I'm still not entirely sold on the Bengals. Yes, they outplayed the Steelers last week, but when I consider all of the mistakes that the Steelers made - from tournovers, missed field goals, dropped touchdown passes (probably more but that's off the top of my head) - and then consider that the Bengals STILL only won by a touchdown, sorry, but I'm not sold on them. The better teams in the NFL would have blown out the Steelers in a game like that.

The other thing is, unless the Broncos slip up down the stretch, they, and not the Bengals will be the #2 seed (I think Indy being the #1 seed is a given at this point). That means that the Bengals will be home against a wildcard team the first round of the playoffs and then likely have to go on the road consecutive weeks to play Denver and Indy. That's a lot to ask from a young team that has virtually zero playoff experience. So while I can agree to what you're saying, I'm not entirely sure that the Bengals will even GET to the AFC Championship Game to play the Colts.

I'm with Aldeth on the Bengals. It's great to see them doing so well, but I worry that the playoffs will be a different animal. So many of the Bengal's wins have been directly due to turnovers...they're a league high +23 now I think. When you combine a significantly reduced turnover incidence in playoff games along with their lack of post-season experience, it might be a hard run for them.

If the season were to end today the Bengals would host San Diego for a game, and if successful they'd travel to Denver to face the Broncos. Very tough to win in Mile High in December...just ask Bernie Kosar.

I'm almost ready to jump on the Seattle bandwagon. Nobody seems to want to give them any love. True, they won a game against the Giants that they probably should have lost...but that incredibly dominating performance against the Eagles on Monday night makes them appear to be peaking at the right time. I can't remember when I've seen one NFL team so totally control an entire game.

I wish the Bears had a little more offense to go along with that incredible defense...

Should be a good weekend of games...lot's of "must wins"

Thus far, the Colts have played three teams twice (don't really need to say how that turned out). The hole 'split when facing each other twice in a year' is great statistically -- but then you can say pretty much anything you want to and back it up with statistics. A team like the Colts just blows the statistics apart.

I'm with Aldeth, the Bengels need to win in Denver (tough to do) and in Indianapolis (impossible to do lately). Add to that they will be playing San Diego, Kansas City, or Jacksonville at home. Granted the Colts will be playing a hot New England team, but they shouldn't have much of a problem at home.

The wildcard picture is interesting, especially in the AFC -- San Diego and Kansas City have the most brutal end-of-season I've seen. The Steelers have a shot, but they'll have to go through a healthy New England in the playoffs (I don't see anyone beating the Pats at home right now).

The game on Christmas Eve will be interesting: Colts at Seattle.

Actually, the way it is shaping up, the Patriots are more likely to get the Jags. The Patriots are pretty much locked into the #4 seed, meaning they'd get the #5 seed in the playoffs. Given their ridiculously easy end of year schedule, the Jaguars are likely to be the #5. That means that Cincy will get either the Steelers, Chargers or Chiefs. They got rid of that rule that you can't play a divisional opponent in the first round (simply because it is now possible that two wild card teams come out of the same division, in which case they HAVE to play a divisional opponent if their divisional opponent doesn't have a bye). Regardless, the rule is now defunct, so if the Steelers do make the playoffs, they'll be the #6 seed, and they will play the #3 seed, most likely Cincinnati.

As a long-time Steelers fan, I am actually cautiously optimistic about their playoff prospects. If they win their final two games (at Cleveland and home vs. Detroit), then regardless of how the Chargers or Chiefs do, it doesn't matter, the Steelers get in. Both those games are very winnable, and the Steelers will be favored in both games. The game vs. Cleveland may prove challenging, as it is a divisional rivalry, but I definitely don't see the Steelers having any problems against Detroit (and if they lose to Detroit, then they don't deserve to make the playoffs anyway).

The NFC is pretty interesting. Seattle is looking like the #1 seed, but seeds 2-4 are very much up in the air. The other division winners are probably set at this point (most likely Giants, Bears and Panthers) but it's anyone's guess who comes out with the two wildcard spots.

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot you hit it pretty much on the noise.

Don't forget the Chiefs and the Charger are playing this weekend. This game could affect next weeks game for Denver and Cinci. If the Chief's win than
Cinci may have a very hard game next weekend. If they loose, than it could be a very easy game. As for Denver, the same is true here. If the Chargers win they will play their best at Denver for the #6 seed which would take your beloved Steelers out of the playoffs. So there are some complication going into this weeks game that could affect the out come for the playoffs.

As for the Steelers I have a feeling the Browns might just be a little too much for them and that wouldn't surprise me one bit.

On a sad and tragic note, Tony Dungy's son has just been found dead. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2268593)

Obviously, Dungy will be away from the Colts for an undetermined time and something like this makes a 'game' pale in importance. Losing a child is a lot like surviving your own death.

I can't help but wonder how this tragedy "off" the field will affect what happens "on" the field.

Yes, the Dungy scenario is very sad indeed. I can't see how it is possible for Dungy to even be able to coach the team this weekend. I imagine coaching duties will fall to one of his assistants. If I were Colts ownership, I'd give him a leave of absense until the playoffs start. Even a month of time to grieve probably isn't enough for a loss of this magnitude, but it's the least they can do.

@ Abdel - if the Steelers win their last two games, then the Chargers still need help to be the wildcard, even if they win their last two games.

Here's how it works out: If only the Steelers and Chargers are tied for the last spot, then the Steelers win the tie breaker due to beating the Chargers earlier this year.

However, it's not good for the Steelers if it finishes in a three team tie. For example if both the Steelers and Chargers win their final two games, and the Jaguars lose one of their last two, then we would have three 11-5 teams and only two wildcard spots to put them. Head-to-head matchups can't break this tie as the Chargers didn't play the Jaguars this year. So the next tie breaker is conference record. All of the Steeler's losses have come to teams in the AFC, whereas the Chargers and Jaguars each have one loss to the NFC. Based on conference record, the Steelers lose out and the Jags and Bolts make the playoffs.

Technically, the Chiefs are still eligible as well, but they need the Chargers to lose (and they play them, so they have a hand in that) and the Steelers to lose (which is outside of their control). Still, if it comes down to a three way tie between the Chiefs, Chargers and Steelers, I think the Steelers are the odd team out in that scenario too.

How could the chief make it if they loose to the Chargers? They would have to win this weekend game to be in as would the chargers.

What would happen if the Jags loose their last two games and the steelers, Chief and Charger each all win one game of the season. What than?

Steelers have a head to head victory over the Chargers, so in event of a tie Steelers in, Chargers out.

ESPN keeps this up to date with each game played and applicable tie-breakers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2255786)

Y'know...I could actually root for the Bengals if someone would stick a sock in Chad Johnson's mouth ;)

@ Abdel - the Chiefs cannot make the playoffs if they lose to the Chargers this weekend. They would be two games behind the final wildcard team with one game left to play. Sorry if I implied otherwise. However, if the Chiefs beat the Chargers this weekend, it is possible that they finish in a tie with the Steelers and Chargers.

Consider this scenario:

Chiefs win their last two.
Chargers lose to Chiefs, then beat the Broncos in Week 17.
Steelers lose to Cleveland this weekend, and beat the Lions (or vice versa)

All three teams would finish at 10-6. Let's assume that the Jaguars win at least one of their last two games and finish at least 11-5. The Jags are then the #5 seed, and there is only one spot left.

I did a little bit of research on this to see what happens if you have a three way tie and two of the three teams are in the same division. It's a little different than the scenario with the Jags, Chargers, Steelers, because in that case all teams are in different divisions, so the conference record is the tie breaker.

When two of the three teams are in the same division, it is first necessary to break the tie in the division. So Chiefs-Chargers tie-breaker would look like this:

1st tie-breaker: Head-to-head record. The Chargers won the first meeting, but in the scenario I posted above, the Chiefs win the second game, so they're 1-1 head-to-head, so tie not broken.

2nd tie-breaker: Divisional Record. Again, with the scenario posted above both teams would finish with identical 4-2 divisional records. Tie still not broken.

3rd tie-breaker: Conference Record. This is where the tie gets broken. The Chiefs would be (using scenario above) 9-3 in conference games, while the Chargers would be 8-4. So the Chiefs would beat the Chargers and be considered the 2nd place team in the West.

Then, to determine the final spot in the playoffs, the Chiefs would go to a tie breaker with the Steelers.

1st tie-breaker: Head-to-head. The Chiefs and Steelers did not play this year, so we skip this step.

2nd tie-breaker: Conference Record (skip division record tie breaker because they aren't in the same division). The Steelers divisional record would be 7-5, and the Chiefs would be 9-3. So Chiefs win the tie breaker and are the 6th seed, while the Steelers go play golf.

Now onto your next question which basically comes down to what if the Chargers, Chiefs, Steelers and Jags all finish tied at 10-6? Well, using the same rules I listed above, the Chiefs would beat out the Chargers, and be the 2nd place team behind Denver in the West. Then we'd compare the Chiefs, Steelers and Jags. The Chiefs did not play either the Jags or Steelers this year, so head-to-head is out the window. Then, we'd look at Conference Record, and the Chiefs would be 9-3, and if the Jags lose thier last two, they'd be 7-5, as would the Steelers, so the Chiefs would be in and the Jags and Steelers out.

So to summarize - the Chiefs own all the tie-breakers, but they are one game behind the Steelers and Chargers, and two games behind the Jaguars. So they need to win their last two, and have two of those other three teams lose to get to the point where they would finish in a tie, which is unlikely to occur. It is much more likely that the three teams vying for the last 2 spots are the Steelers, Chargers, and Jags. The breakdown of tie breakers works like this:

Chiefs-Anybody else - Chiefs (but tie with Chiefs unlikely)
Jags-Chargers - Chargers
Jags-Steelers - Jags
Steelers-Chargers - Steelers
Steelers-Chargers-Jags - Jags and Chargers.

Confused yet? :confused:

[ December 23, 2005, 14:56: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

to my enormous frustration. NFL is almost impossible to get in Holland. For one month it was on try with a special super de lux package which costs a lot of money. I even watched the re-runs.
So back to our football, or soccer as some say, to watch games prime time in which al the action worth of five minutes is put in 90. Our national pasttime is so boring to watch.

Patriots are definately contending - they're already in the playoffs (secured last week). Hopefully they can beat the damn Colts!

Everyone on the Falcons except Vick and DeAngelo Hall should hide there faces in shame.

@Merlanni

You can pick up video highlights of every game from every week here (http://www.nfl.com/video) . You can even sign up for internet radio coverage of every game at the same location for a price.

On Gamedays, ESPN maintains a live up-dated scoreboard of every game. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/scoreboard)

Somebody, still trying to find out who it is, offers a subscription to internet broadcast so you can watch any game on your PC (assuming connections and PC speed are suitable).

[edit]OK, I think it's ESPN.com that offers the online NFL broadcast. I found the link for the coverage they're offering for the basketball season, I just don't think they're advertising the NFL package since the season's almost over. Here's the basketball link, for what it's worth. (http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncb/fullcourt/index?campaign=FC06&source=TTopen)

[ December 27, 2005, 21:30: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

@Merlanni does the UK's channel 5 show in Holland because they have Monday night football live at about 2am cet, and sky show live NFL every sunday from 7pm cet

Oh, I have NFL all week long :D I just try not to watch the highlights on every game so I won't spoil myself from next game....

So, wasn't the Colts last year or the other on a very good victory season but couldn't make it to the Super Bowl? Will do the same this year?
Bledsoe seems to get better every game.

Here is what I hope this weekend happens.

Bengals go in play a good first quarter with their starters and than loose due to a lack of experience from their 2nd and 3rd string players.

Steelers win Detriot to clinch the final playoff spot.

Patriots win and clinch the third seed.

That gives mean the Steelers would go into Gillete Stadium and the Jaguars would be off to Browns Stadium.

This scenario would give the Steelers a chance to get back at the Patriots for what they did to the Steelers a few years back, beat them in their own turf.

Haha, not gonna happen - Pats lost (I think on purpose, we could have tied it, but we obviously threw it away), so we're playing at home against Jacksonville.

3rd time repeat is what I'm hoping for.

Bengals look to have had their defense exposed when they don't rack up the turnovers. I wonder if they can even beat the Steelers this weekend.

I didn't do so well on my playoff contender picks...Atlanta, San Diego and Dallas let me down. Who'd have ever thought the Skins would make it in.

So, wasn't the Colts last year or the other on a very good victory season but couldn't make it to the Super Bowl? Will do the same this year?
Bledsoe seems to get better every game. I'm assuming you mean either Manning or Brady, not Bledsoe. Bledsoe plays for the Cowboys, and he seems to have gotten worse as the year goes on. Before the Cowboys, he played on the Bills. He never played for the Colts, and hasn't played for New England in the last 4 years.

The dance of joy! :banana: The Steelers are in the playoffs! :banana:

Plus, as an added bonus, they get to play the Bengals - which is a much better matchup for the Steelers than the Patriots. With the way both teams have been playing lately, I certainly expect the Steelers to win this game. However, unless they have something clever up their sleeves, which I seriously doubt, they will likely get pwned when the play Indy in the second week of the playoffs.

I'm a little concerned about Indy. I think when San Diego beat them they showed a defensive scheme that revealed an Indy weakness. 3-4 with a blitzing linebacker and 2 deep cover in the secondary. Even the pathetice Arizona Cardinals used it against them with some success (granted, the played most of the game against the second team, but it could be claimed that it was the Cardinals second team too, due to injuries).

I still think they're the team to beat, but they don't seem quite as invincible as a few weeks ago.

That being the case, I'm going to go out on a limb with some Wildcard Weekend picks...

I'll go with the Bengals over the Steelers (I'd love to see the Steelers win, but I just get a feeling there'll be turnovers in this game)

I'll take the Jaguars over the Patriots

I'll take Tampa Bay over Washington

and, I'll take the Giants over the Panthers.

We'll see if I can do any better than my first picks.

I think when San Diego beat them they showed a defensive scheme that revealed an Indy weakness. 3-4 with a blitzing linebacker and 2 deep cover in the secondary. Unfortunately, that's the Steelers base defense, and they pwned when they played Indy a few weeks back. That having been said, teams always make adjustments when they face a team for the 2nd (or even 3rd) time in the same year, and it is possible, even likely, that the Steelers will have a better idea of what to expect during the second meeting.

Finally, holy upset Hack! :eek: The Patriots going down in flames to the Jags? I'd love to see it, but I think that is the LEAST likely upset to occur this weekend.

Let me try to predict the AFC championship game.

Bengals vs. Steelers - These teams met twice in the regular season spliting the games. Both winning on the road. Steelers are on a 4 game winning streak, the Bengals haven't one a game since winning the division. Both teams know each other. The winner, Bengals - homefield advantage.

Jags vs. Pats - Brady has not lost a playoff game ever. That all I have to say.
The winner, Pats.

Bengals vs. Broncos - Denver has not commited a bunch of turnovers this year and has a good defense. The Bengals defense needs the turnovers to give the team to win.
The winner, Broncos.

Pats vs. Colts - The Colts tend to loose to the Pats in the playoff. This year is no difference. The Pats are a different team than they were when they meet earlier in the season.
The winner, Pats.

Pats vs. Broncos - This game will be close but Brady will finally loose his first game by a point or two.
The winner, Broncos.

NFC....

Redskins vs. Buccaners - This game will be determined by the team who can play better on offense and right now that goes to the Redskins.
The winner, Redskins.

Panthers vs. Giants - Both of these teams are great or bad. I have a feeling the Panthers experience in playing for the big game will benefit them here since most of the Giants players don't have playoff experience.
The winner, Panthers.

Panthers vs. Chicago - This is simple. Chicago just needs to do enough to shut down Steve Smith and they dominate at stuffing the run and that is where Chicago will control the ball on defense.
The Winner, Chicago.

Washington vs. Seahawks - Alexander, Alexander, Alexander, Alexander. Seattle wins.
The winner, Seahawks.

Chicago vs. Seahawks - Alexander, Alexander, Hasselback (thought I would say Alexander didn't you).
The winner, Seahawks.

Superbowl Broncos vs. Seahawks... (Didn't these two coach coach coach against each other before in the superbowl)...

Winner... Bronco just like it was almost ten years ago....

I would like my Bengals to go all the way or the Colts go for the glory for once but chances are they will play the Pats. And if history is any indication of how the Colts always loose to the Pats in playoff games we can say good by to the Colts in the 2nd round if the Bengals and Pats both win. If not that completely mess up my predicition listed here.

Hey, let's see if Tal will let us run an "all SP" fantasy league next year!

Hey, let's see if Tal will let us run an "all SP" fantasy league next year! I volunteer for kicker! :roll:

What happened to the Chiefs this year?

@Harbourboy: Chiefs season's over. (http://www.nfl.com/standings) , didn't make it to the playoffs.

@Aldeth: :doh: You're right; I wanted to say Brady; Colts had a great season last year but nothing, Patriost didn't look too impresive, but there they are.

Superbowl Broncos vs. Seahawks... (Didn't these two coach coach coach against each other before in the superbowl)... Indeed they have - and that's a most astute observation. In the Broncos first Super Bowl vitory (which I believe was in 1997 - meaning the 1996 season, but the Super Bowl was played the following January), they played the Packers. Shanahan was the head coach of the Broncos then, as he is today. However, Holmgren, the now-coach of the Seahawks, was coaching the Packers that year. So yeah, the coaches HAVE been in a Super Bowl against each other. I wonder if there are any remaining members of the Broncos Super Bowl victories that are still on the team - there's a lot of turnover from year to year, so still being there 8 years after the fact is unlikely, but it's possible.

Hey, let's see if Tal will let us run an "all SP" fantasy league next year!

I volunteer for kicker! This is one of those occassions that I don't know if Fel is being serious or not. I'm playing the odds here and saying he knows that Fantasy Football doesn't actually have people role-playing positions in real football, but you never know.

Having said that, I'd LOVE to get a Fantasy League together for Football through SP. However, given the relatively limited interest in this topic (not in terms of number of posts, but in number of DIFFERENT posters), we might be hard pressed to have enough people. The majority of posts in this thread were made by just 4 different people. We really need at least 10 people for a decent league, and I'd prefer a number closer to 12.

if it were to be offered i would join it.

But to continue the discussion i think that the Steelers will come back to beat the bungles. We have a grudge, and that means alot in football.

we might be hard pressed to have enough people Ah, but you forget the fact that there are some of use here who love all sorts of sports and would gladly play a fantasy sport even if it was one they knew little about. I've played Fantasy Premiership Football many times even though I don't know my Bolton from my Fulham. Playing the fantasy game encourages you to spend more time following the sport than you might not otherwise spend.

We are now down to eight playoff teams, as the Bengals, Jaguars, Giants, and Bucs were the first to bow out of the playoffs this weekend, with the Patriots, Panthers, Redskins and :banana: Steelers :banana: moving on. All told, it was a pretty disappointing first round of the playoffs, with three of the four games being well in hand by the winning team long before the game officially ended. The only game that kept fans interested to the very end was the Redskins victory over the Bucs.

Now we go to Round 2, which is when the big boys come out to play. The NFL re-seeds after the first round so that the #6 seeds (who both won) get the #1 seeds in the 2nd round. We'll have Pats at Broncos, and Steelers at Colts in the AFC, and Panters at Bears and Redskins at Seahawks in the NFC. Is it just me, or has there ever been a less impressive group of first round bye teams? Or maybe it's just because the lower seeds have really good records this year. I'm just saying that out of the four favorites (Colts, Seahawks, Bears, Broncos) the only one that I'd be surprsied if they lost is the Colts. Does anyone really think the Bears and Seahawks are that good? Not me. Isn't it possible to imagine the Pats going into Denver and laying the smack down on the Broncos? You betcha. The Colts losing to my beloved Steelers would be surprising. I wouldn't be shocked though if any of the other favorites lost their games.

Actually, the only 'upset' I see for the weekend is the Pats. I think the other games are advantageous matchups for the home teams.

'Da Bears defense will shut down the Panthers. So as long as Grossman can get two touchdowns the Bears will win. Unless the Steelers can knock off another QB, the Colts will dominate. Seattle vs. Washington -- been there, done that and Washington got lucky (unlikely this time).

Playing at Denver is such a huge advantage for the Bronco's (especially in January). The elevation and cold just wears down the opponents. The Pats are probably the only team up to that challenge right now.

Perhaps I should clarify my statement. I am not predicting that Washington, New England and Carolina are all gonig to win. I'm just saying that I don't think any one of those teams winning would come as a great shock to anyone. Espcially in the NFC. I agree that if Grossman can get two touchdowns the Bears will be in great shape - but 14 has proven to be quite a difficult number for the Bears to reach some weeks.

Did I mention that my picks were for the losing teams ;) .

:lol: Hack - I didn't review your picks until now - you went 4-for-4!

I thought I was being clever...Let me regroup and make picks for this weekend...

well im gonna post my picks for this week

Colts vs Steelers...i have to go with my hometown team...steelers get pressure on manning and come up with a win :)

Broncos vs Pats im gonna go with the Pats for the win, even though im guessing this will be the best game of the week

Panthers vs Bears....Panthers with an upset. they got steller defense and a decent offense...balanced with steve smith and their 2 rb's.

Seattle vs Washington...Sean alexander gets 120 yrds rushing and they walk away with the win.

My heart's picks are the same as LoS, although I must admit that my head says take the Colts over the Steelers.

OK...let's see if these do a little better...

Seattle over Washington
Patriots over Broncos
Colts over Steelers
Panthers over Bears.

:doh: Hack picked the same four teams I did, which bodes poorly for my picks, but great for my Steelers.

I've really tried to find ways to see the Steelers win this one...but every advantage I can see for the Steelers, I find one for Indy that trumps it.

New England and Denver was tough but ended up just being an unwillingness to go against the champs (again).

But who knows...lately a pick from me has been the kiss of death

Did anyone else today watch the Steelers vs Colts game? That was the most piss poor officiated game that I have ever seen. I know i sound like I'm trying to cry cuz we lost...but we won..and I'm STILL pissed about it. The officials tried to hand the damn game to the Colts and they still couldn't do it. I honestly think that vanderjackt missed that field goal because he felt bad for how bad we were getting it in the ass.

All four games this weekend were very poorly officiated. Being a Pats fan, I'm still convinced that the fix was in for Denver.

If Indy had ended up winning the game, I think someone would have called for an investigation.

yea I had heard that the Pats game had been pretty bad too but I didn't say anything because I didn't see the game and didn't want to spread something should it be false.

You gotta hand it to the Steelers...they gelded the Colts. To win in spite of the bad calls is certainly a credit to them.

Aldeth, are you stil partying?

Big Ben had the play of the YEAR. What was that defender thinking -- the field's wide open, he's one of the fastest players on the field, and he runs right into Ben -- what a dip stick.

I agree, I was disappointed by the officiating -- but it was pretty consistently bad and not one sided.

How 'bout those Bears... talk about playoff jitters. That defence just self-destructed.

Hand it to the Bronco's -- they just kept pounding away. Next week should be good. But I'll go with the home teams.

Eh, there were quite a few fishy calls in the Pats game... Asante Samuel's pass interference was a bull**** call. If anything, it should have been offensive interference. And, at the end, when Brady threw the bomb that Lynch intercepted, Givens was pushed in the back by one of the Bronocs on the left while the ball was in the air and before Lynch caught it. Poorly officiated.

Anyways, Pats will be back next year, and we'll be healthy, so we won't play like crap or be undermanned.

Doing :banana: the dance :banana: of joy! :banana: :banana: :banana:

And while I'm on a smileys kick, lets just say that Colt fans must be :grr: :sosad: :flaming: :wail: :cry: and :sick: , now that the Steelers have laid the smackdown :smash: on them.

That said, they nearly gave me a god damn heart attack watching that game. I mean, they really won that game three different times. 1.) Polamalu interception that wasn't an interception, even though the league came out yesterday and said that it was an interception. 2.) Bettis fumbling on the 2 yard line when I thought they were going to score the game-icing touchdown. and 3.) Vanderjadt pushed it so far right I think it landed in Ohio.

I can't believe that some commentators were saying that it was a stupid call for the Steelers to do anything but kneel on the football. That's idiotic. The Colts had all three timeouts. If the Steelers just fell on the ball four times, the Colts would have had to burn all their timeouts, but would have got the ball back with about a minute left deep in their own territory, and still would have had a chance to score. OTOH, if you score a touchdown, the game's over. The last time Bettis fumbled was in December 2003. The guy's reliable - I didn't expect him to fumble there.

The officiating though was terrible, and also there were way more calls against the Steelers than the Colts. In addition to the interception, there was the no-call pass interference on Randle-El, and then the fourth down play where the Steelers might have had a slight flinch, and the Colts came across the line, and the refs called a do-over. WTF? You have to call SOMETHING in that instance. If a ref saw a Steelers lineman move, it's a false start. If they didn't, it's encroachment on the defense. Do-over isn't an option.

I actually think that three out of the four games were poorly officiated. There has already been adequate *****ing about the Steeler game, but the Pats game was equally terrible. In addition to what has already been said, it certainly looked like Bailey fumbled that ball out of the endzone. That's huge if it happened that way. It would have been a touchback, and Patriots ball on the 20. Now granted, the Patriots did blow a chance to score on the play, but at least they would have got the ball back without a Denver touchdown.

The Bears game was almost as bad - calling a touchdown when the ball was clearly fumbled out of bounds (although in fairness that call was reversed upon replay review) and throwing a drive-killing interception after the play clock had expired. The only game I didn't have a problem with is the Seattle game.

In closing though - the better team won all four games. Seattle was definitely the better team than Washington, even without Alexander. (As an aside, if you're Carolina, don't you just give Alexander a cheap shot in the head on the very first play of the game to take him out? I mean, isn't that worth a 15-yard penalty?) The Patriots wouldn't have beat Denver even without the poor officiating (if you turn the ball over five times, you deserve to lose). The Steelers clearly outplayed the Colts in nearly every phase of the game (except the last 1:20). The Bears don't deserve to win if their game plan seemed to ignore the fact that one of the best receivers in the game (Steve Smith) was on the opposing team, and thought it was a good plan to play one-on-one coverage with him the whole game. That the cornerback got repeatedly burned was only surprising to the Bears.

I thought the Colts had just as many bad calls go against them -- but then, I wasn't rooting for either side and was just enjoying the game. It's amazing how the officiating really sucks when it goes against your team, but it's "part of the game" when your team "get's away with one." There were a lot of non-calls all weekend (especially offensive pass interference).

My take on the calls:

That pass interference putting the ball on the one -- bad call, it was offensive pass interference.

The Bailey fumble was a good call -- it would have been a touchback if not for the penalty. The penalty negated the fumble.

The Polamalu call was a bad call.

The non-call was a good call. Had the center been even reasonably aware, he would have snapped the ball for a defensive offsides. As it was, no one was touched (required for encroachment) and the defense got back before the ball was snapped (since it wasn't snapped, that's not hard). But Aldeth is right, there should have been a penalty: delay of game on the Steelers (but that was not really appropriate since the officials stepped in too soon).

The Steeler's won the game because Harper is a complete idiot -- run down the sidelines = touchdown. Instead, Harper runs straight at the ONLY guy ahead of him. Stupid.

The Bailey fumble was a good call -- it would have been a touchback if not for the penalty. The penalty negated the fumble.Different game. The Bailey play was the interception run back to the one-yard line in the Denver-New England game. You're talking about the call in the Chicago-Carolina game. But you're right, after they reviewed the play the call was correct.

But Aldeth is right, there should have been a penalty: delay of game on the Steelers (but that was not really appropriate since the officials stepped in too soon). Right. Once the officials blew the whistle (thus ending the play and stopping the play clock) it all became a non-issue. You couldn't call delay of game, because they whistled the play dead, and with no officials seeing any penalty they had nothing to call (which does beg the question of why they stopped the play if they didn't see a penalty?).

The Steeler's won the game because Harper is a complete idiot -- run down the sidelines = touchdown. Instead, Harper runs straight at the ONLY guy ahead of him. Stupid. I'd say the game was lost by either Manning or Dungy - which ever one of those people was calling the plays in the last 30 seconds of that game. There is NO reason that you should be kicking that field goal with 26 seconds left in the game, and two time outs. None. They had 2nd and 2 and 3rd and 2. You have to call a running play in there somewhere to pick up the first down and have a couple more shots at the endzone or at least to get closer. Granted, the field goal was missed BADLY, so closer might not have made a difference, but that's still poor clock management and play calling. You call a running play on 3rd and 2, likely pick up the first down because the Steelers are playing pass, call you're second time out, and then you have at least two more plays before you have to kick the field goal.

EDIT: And I'm sorry but one five-yard penalty that would have forced the Steelers to punt does not come close to the non-call on Randle-El's pass pattern (that was deep in Indy's territory and would have likely resulted in at least a field goal) and the Polamalu interception. In fact, the only reason Randle-El's interference play isn't being discussed is because of the egregious call on the interception.

I still have to watch the game, that will be tonight, so, what happened? Do the Steelers won the game because the referees? Or they deserved to win?

Oops, so many games, so little sleep. :coffee: There were so many non-calls on both sides that any single one does not really matter. There were plenty of times the Pittsburg receivers mauled the secondary of the Colts (and should have been called for offensive pass interference). The officials were allowing a significant amount of contact on both sides.

Like I said: when the call/non-call benefits the fan's team it's part of the game -- when the opposing team benefits it's poor officiating. We tend to overlook and downplay the calls that go our way.

Everyone who won deserved to win. The Colts and 'Da Bears deserved to lose. The great open field tackle by Big Ben alone make the Steelers game worth watching.

[ January 17, 2006, 19:44: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

I think Instant Replay has made most Officials timid. Instead of making the right call, they either make no call at all, or most often, the call that can be reviewed and reversed. I remember when I first started watching football the players didn't dare to get into the face of the Officials, now every play they whine and plead for a flag...almost like watching the San Antonio Spurs ;)

Now, without delay, I'll make my mostly wrong picks for championship weekend...

Seattle and Denver.

(now everyone can rush out and put their money on Carolina and Pittsburgh)

[edit]I just got a weird nauseated feeling at the thought of Denver and Seattle in the Super Bowl :eek:

@Sydax - no, at least not in my opinion. In fact the exciting ending was set up by a call that went against the Steelers. If Polamalu's interception was called correctly, it is unlikely that Indy would have had enough time left once they got the ball back to make a serious comback.

And yeah, there's something that just doesn't feel right about the distinct possibility of Seattle playing in the Superbowl. I obviously want the Steelers to win, but I can accept seeing the Broncos and Super Bowl Sunday - we're used to that. Not so with the Seahawks.

Hey, hey, hey. I've been a Seahawks fan for 20 years now -- IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!

Besides, Holmgren is a somewhat familiar sight in the Superbowl.

Congratulations abound for the Steelers. They certainly deserved that win, and it really would've been unfair for the Colts to have won on that overturned interception.

There were tons of bad calls and no calls on both sides of the game. The interception, and the non-called "offsides" where Steelers jumped, Colts jumped to show the jump, and the officials didn't do anything but stand around with fingers in their asses, was a clear demonstration.

I believe that had the Colts been prepared mentally for the game, we would've seen a definite Colts win (although by a slimmer margin than earlier in the season). The team seemed to still be screwed up over Dungy's son's suicide. And their month without a meaningful game didn't help (coincidentally, they lost the Chargers game, their first loss, right after Dungy's son died and Dungy was absent).

The Colts' defense didn't stop the Steelers at all. I don't know if that was because of Dungy's playcalling or the players' lack of concentration. The offensive line protected Manning horribly, when in the past they've held back equally strong defenses. Manning and his receivers weren't on the same page the entire game, which is rather rare.

In the game that was played, the Steelers were the better team. Had Dungy's son not died, I believe the Colts would be in the Super Bowl in a few weeks. Ahh well, there's always next year.

*turns his eyes to the Steelers* And you Pittsburg people better win the damned Super Bowl, because you just beat the best team in the league. Although I fear the altitude of Denver's stadium might give the Broncos an easy win...

I thought that James Dungy died a few days after the Colts lost to the Chargers?

I actually think that the Chargers exposed a glaring weakness in the Colts which the Steelers later used to their advantage.

Manning has had trouble reading the blitz when he faces a 3 - 4 defense. It was exposed somewhat against Jacksonville and Cleveland, which the Colts were able to defeat due to a strong rushing game. The Chargers and the Steelers were able to shut down the Colts rush and then confuse Manning's reads for a passing game. In his post-game comments, Manning basically dumped on his O-line...but in reality he'd better spend the off season looking at a lot of film so this weakness won't be exploited next year.

I also think it was a huge error to rest players. Dungy already knew he had a bye week...he should have played all starters against Seattle and Arizona. They're pros and they're paid to play. Can't play to avoid injury.

I like the Colts and was rooting for them to run the table if for no other reason than to shut up the '72 Dolphins (I don't like the idea of celebrating someone elses defeat...you celebrate when you win). I like Manning...but I'm no longer sure they really were the best team in the league...best teams show up for every game.

Also, Peyton is in danger of gaining a damaging rep...the "best" quarterback who could never win the big one.

I'm rooting for Denver for two reasons...I've always been a Jake Plummer fan...and...if I pull for Denver it almost gurantees a Steeler win for Aldeth. ;)

I also thought that Dungy's son died a few days after the Chargers game. I mean, if he died right before that game, I imagine I would have read hundreds of articles of "would the Colts have lost if Dungy was there to coach them?" and I don't remember reading anything like that, so I have to assume James' death was sometime afterwards.

I also think the initial blue print for stopping the Colts wasn't what the Chargers did this year but what the Patriots have done the past two years. Still, certain things that T2B points out are certainly correct - it helps to play a 3-4 defense, because it's easier to disguise blitzes, and it's essential to have safeties that can blitz as well. One of the reasons that the Patriots were not able to do that when they played the Colts this year was injuries. Bruschi was not yet at full game speed, and they were completely decimated at safety with injuries. They couldn't use their blue print because they didn't have the players to implement it.

Manning will have to wrestle that rep from Marino -- he still has a long ways to go there.

I think Manning actually was correct in his whining (although he never should have said it). One of the best offensive lines in football just did not seem to come to the game. There were so many missed blocks it was just pathetic. Even when Manning was obviously pointing out where the blitz was coming from, the offensive line was unable to adjust. The blitzes were not hard to see -- the Steelers defense was really pretty obvious.

The Colts offensive line was unable to adequately break away and set-up good screens -- that's just poor playing. The 3-4 should have been picked apart by Manning, but his offensive line allowed three rushers to pressure him.

That said, Manning was clearly not on his game either. A lot of poorly thrown passes even when he wasn't pressured. Big Ben showed poise in the pocket -- Peyton collapsed, just as his brother did.

I think Plummer does better in pressure situations. The same defense is not going to rattle him as much. I don't think the Steelers will be able to pressure him enough with a three man front.

Hmm. After going back to doublecheck the dates, you're correct - Dungy's son died just before the Seattle game, rather than the Chargers game. My bad ^^;

And I agree - the starters should've played all of the games despite having no "meaningful" advantages to continue playing for. At the time I thought maybe they wanted to keep some aces in their sleeves by keeping them out of the Seattle game, in case that matchup came out as the Super Bowl lineup; but still, it would've been better in my opinion to play them.

Weakness against the 3-4 defense, huh? I don't think they're really as weak against it as that last game would imply. However, it certainly is the form of defense they have the most problems with. With Dungy's prowess as a defensive coach, I think he'd better do some real thinking on how to stop it this off-season.

I stand by the following three statements, though: [1] the Colts played a bad game due in part to lack of preparation, and in part to the cloud still hanging over the team from Dungy's son's death; [2] had the Colts come into the game fully ready mentally, we would've seen a Colts victory, albeit by a smaller margin than in their first meeting with the Steelers; and [3] the Steelers had better go to the Super Bowl and win it, or I'll be pissed.

@bruno
It's not so much the fact that they disguised the blitzers, but they often blitzed nobody, and when they did blitz, it was everyone. We rushed him with 3 ppl a whopping 19 times...couldnt tell ya where I saw that stat but I remember it.

Also we disguised the blitzes better than it seemed at times. 2 times Polamalu got to him by faking like he was going back to cover...which he commonly did...and then turning around and bullrushing through. many of the linebackers did this as well and we used it to our advantage. On one of Porters sacks the inside linebacker played that move and took a step towards the outside lineman and froze him...Porter bowled him over and got the sack.

To further what LoS was saying, it isn't just the number of people Pittsburgh rushed, it's also where they are coming from. The Colts had almost 60 plays in the game, and so LoS number of 19 represents about 1/3 of the total plays. For the vast majority of plays, the Steelers rushed either 4 or 5 people. That in itself is not a very big number, as all offensive lines consist of 5 people. Also, many blocking schemes feature a tight end and/or a back, so on every pass play, the quarterback is being defended by at least 5 and as many as 7 blockers.

So just looking at the numbers, it certainly seems like Manning should have had adequate protection. The problem is that on every play, any of the 3 lineman, the 4 linebackers or the strong safety can rush the quarterback. So you're right in saying 4 or 5 rushers isn't a lot, but the problem is you don't know which 4 or 5 are coming. In their base 3-4 defense it's typically the three down lineman and one or two others that I listed above.

The Steelers are also unusual in how they play their nickel defense. The nickel defense gets its name because you have a fifth defense back (as opposed to 4 in the base defense). So it's the whole nickel=5 thing. When most teams go to a nickel defense, they remove one linebacker and replace him with a defensive back. The Steelers are very unusual in that they remove a defensive lineman and replace him with a defensive back. It's essentially a 2-4 defense at that point. That means you only know for sure two of the four or five possible rushers. The other thing that Pittsburgh did was to rush a lot of people from one side. For example, they would rush five, but four of the five would all rush the same side of the line, usually the side that would eliminate the running back or the tight end as a potential blocker. The result was that even though Indianapolis had more blockers than Pittsburgh had rushers, they were not in the proper position to block effectively. There's a problem if one side of your line can block a maximum of three people, and four rushers come from that side.

Steelers also have small, agile fast linebackers...similar to the Patriots and Chargers.

Of course, when talking about NFL..."small" is relative.

well some of our LB's are small..Farrior, Foote, Haggans....Porter and Harrison on the other hand....Harrison is a monster lol

Steelers vs Seahawks Superbowl. Anyone surprised?

Nope. :p I knew the Steelers would get it since the start of the playoffs. And the Seahawks just don't matter. ;)

I agree, on the Steelers anyway. I knew they were going to the big one once the first quarter of the Steelers @ Indy game was over.

Seahawks? Who gives a damn. The NFC's a joke, and I feel they've been such ever since the Dallas dynasty fell apart.

I knew the Steelers would get it since the start of the playoffs. And the Seahawks just don't matter. Oh man, I gotta call :bs: on that. I went back and checked the four pages of responses on this thread, and I didn't see you once predict that Pittsburgh was going to the Super Bowl. The fact is, that pretty much nobody (myself included) expected Pittsburgh to defeat Indianapolis. There were many people (myself included again) that thought it was possible, but there is a ton of difference between thinking it is possible for a team to win and expecting a team to win.

But enough of that. For now, it's PARTY TIME!!! :banana: :banana: :banana:

My beloved Steelers are going to the Super Bowl for the first time in 10 years. As I have stated my prediction for the Steelers for each round in the playoffs up to this point, I will say that I expect them to beat Seattle. (For the record, I expected them to beat Cincinnati, I didn't expect them to beat Indy, and I expected them to beat Denver.)

Not only are the Steelers the first #6 seed to ever make the Super Bowl, but they are also the first team to make the Super Bowl by defeating the top three seeds in the conference. They are also playing the #1 seed from the NFC (Seattle) so it can be said that the Steelers will have to beat all of the league's top teams in order to win the Super Bowl. (Not to be down on the other NFC teams, but IMHO Seattle is the only NFC team that deserves to be mentioned as "among the best in the league".

The other shocking thing is that Pittsburgh was a #6 seed, while Seattle was a #1 seed, and yet Pittsburgh is being installed as the early 4-point favorite to win the Super Bowl. It goes to show that a lot of people still think that the AFC is the superior conference.

Aldeth it may have nothing at all to do with thinking AFC is the superior conferernce, although it is right now.

We have dominated everyone we have played for the past 7 weeks, not just on offense or just on defense but in every aspect of the game. We were rated as underdogs for every playoff game, except maybe Cincinatti. We were expected to lose to Indy, and Denver, although I expected us to win both. We did and now I have one more expectation....for Bettis to walk away from the game with one for the thumb.

I've always been amused by fans who say 'we' when talking (writing) about a professional team. Did you play for them? Do you work for the organization? Perhaps you own stock?

People are just on the 'happy for the Steelers' rollercoaster. The four point is just necessary to even the number of bets.

Seahawks are the better team.

Oh man, I gotta call :bs: on that. I went back and checked the four pages of responses on this thread, and I didn't see you once predict that Pittsburgh was going to the Super Bowl. I didn't say anything because you would have laughed at me. :rolleyes: You said it yourself that noone else expected the Steelers to get to the Super Bowl, and I wasn't exactly up for the ridicule, especially after what you said when I picked the Vikings as a wild card back at the beginning of the season. So you'll have to excuse me if I didn't speak up. :p

People are just on the 'happy for the Steelers' rollercoaster. The four point is just necessary to even the number of bets. But aren't there just as many people who are Seahawks fans? If it was just based on fan interest, there should be just as many people pulling the other way. Granted, I don't know of any Seahawks fans beyond you, T2B, but I live on the east coast. I imagine in the pacific northwest, pretty much everyone who follows football is a Seahawks fan.

I would also hazard a guess that the number of people who live in and around the Seattle area far out-number the people living in and around the Pittsburgh area, and thus it is highly likely the Seahawks have a larger fan base. I say this because there is in-state competition for football in Pennsylvania (the Eagles) as well as every neighboring state having one or more teams. Ohio has the Bengals and Browns. Maryland has the Ravens (and if you want to count DC, the Redskins). New York has the Giants (technically New Jersey), Jets (again technically New Jersey), and Bills. With the Seahawks on the other hand, not only are they the only game in town when looking at the state of Washington, but there's no pro team in Oregon, Idaho, or northern California either. I mean the next closest team is what - San Francisco?

Yes, the Steelers have played exceedingly well the last few weeks, but the Seahawks also won in convincing fashion - so it seems like that can't be the whole of it either.

I agree on the silliness of using the term "we" when refering to your favorite team. I agree with you that if you don't play for them, work for them or are in some way tied to the team beyond a rooting interest, there's no reason to use "we". That having been said, with the Packers being owned by the city of Green Bay, I guess it's OK for them to say "we" - they own the team.

EDIT: You said it yourself that noone else expected the Steelers to get to the Super Bowl, and I wasn't exactly up for the ridicule, especially after what you said when I picked the Vikings as a wild card back at the beginning of the season. Oh, that was you? Sorry about that. :o

I wasn't really making fun of you regarding the Steelers comment either. I just thought you were claiming that you had publicly announced that you had them picked from the start, which would have been total bs. I can't claim to know what you thought of course, and if that's who you thought would go to the Super Bowl, then good for you.

I think that due to the Steelers run of Super Bowls in the 70's and the legends of Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swan, "Mean" Joe Green etc...they tend to have a nationwide fan base, probably third in popularity to the Dallas Cowboys and the San Francisco Forty Niners. Although the metropolitan Seattle population is larger than the Pittsburgh area, it hasn't always supported the Seahawks. There have been years when the Seahawks have played second fiddle to the Washington Huskies or the Washington State Cougars. All things considered, I'd think the Steelers have significantly more fans...fans who have a reputation of travelling with the team. I have a feeling that Detriot will almost look like a home game for the Steeluz...lots of yellow terrible towels.

Congrats to you and your Steelers, AFI. They looked awesome against the Broncos, especially in the first half. Big Ben has shaped up to be one of the finest quarterbacks in the league, and he's still developing.

I have a feeling that the Super Bowl may not be much of a contest. It's hard to judge the Seahawks because we can't really tell the quality of their opponents. They played the AFC South this season with victories over the Texans and Titans (hardly powerhouses) and a loss to the Jaquars (they're only quality AFC opponent)...I can't really count the game against Indy. If you extrapolate out the loss to the Jags, then factor in that the Jags where spanked by the Pats, who in turn were spanked by the Broncos, who in turn were spanked by the Steelers...that's a lot of cumulative spankings.

I just hope for a good game that survives the hype...and that they don't take any close-ups of Keith Richard during the halftime show. And there's always hope for some good, new commercials.

Pittsburg also lost to the Jaguars -- at home. Extrapolate that. :)

I didn't know any Seahawks fans when I lived in either Utah or Idaho. I have family in Oregon and they say there are not very many Seahawks fans around them either.

The fan base is small and fairly loyal. It took several consecutive losing seasons and a crumbling stadium to end the Kingdome's sell out streak -- which I believe was the second longest in NFL history (the longest was and is still the Redskins, every game played has been a sellout).

[ January 23, 2006, 23:07: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

OMG...I extrapolated and found out Jacksonville should be playing Jacksonville in the Super Bowl!!!!

I think that it will be a good game. Both teams won in convincing fashion throughout the playoffs, both teams like to run, although neither has shown it in the past couple of weeks, both can pass when necessary. The only differences are, I think, that the Seahawks have a better RB, and that Pittsburgh's defense is more solid.

As to amount of fans during the Superbowl fanbase becomse obsolete, or close to it. How many thousands do you think buy tickets to the Superbowl just because it IS the Superbowl.

and yes I concede that using "we" when talking about a pro team is stupid unless with the team, or working for them in a fashion, I slip it sometimes but most of the time I catch it.

Pittsburg also lost to the Jaguars -- at home. I have a two word explanation as to why PittsburgH lost to the Jaguars - Tommy Maddox.

very true. Batch should have started over him after that first game.

Actually, one of the things that is being takled about now is how boring the Super Bowl will be. Based on what the media is saying, this Super Bowl will likely hold very little interest to people beyond the fans of the respective teams. As a long-time football fan, I find this concept surprising. I will grant that my interest in this Super Bowl is greater than in past years because the Steelers made it, but I don't see any reason why I wouldn't watch the Super Bowl if the Steelers were not involved.

The other argument I hear is that the Super Bowl matchup is anti-climatic. We were "supposed to" get Manning breaking through and finally winning the big game. Or conversely, we were "supposed to" see Tom Brady and the Patriots go for an unprecedented third straight Super Bowl victory. Neither of those things happen.

Instead we get the Steelers and Seahawks, and neither of those teams are as eye catching as the others I listed. The Steelers have a relatively small, but extremely loyal and well-traveled fan base. There are some that think this game will be virtually a home game for the Steelers, as Detroit is just a few hours away from Pittsburgh by car. Seattle, similarly has a relatively small and very loyal fan base, but they aren't nearly as well-traveled as the Steelers. Also, they don't get nearly the national coverage of other teams. I'm not saying that there is an east coast media bias (in the past, teams like the 49ers, Dallas, and Denver have gotten tons of press when their teams made the Super Bowl, and they can hardly be considered east coast), but perhaps a media bias exists against the Pacific Northwest. I'm a big football fan, and I can name exactly six members of the starting 22 of the Seahawks. That number is significantly smaller than what I can name for other teams.

@Aldeth: the same happened when Houston Rockets were champions in the NBA, no sport media seemed to care about it, and why? Because that team doesn't sell t-shirts and hats; same happened when Diamondbacks were champions in MLB, everyone expected the Yankees to win, because around the world, nobody buy D'backs shirts.

I bought a Diamondbacks shirt (I was at game 6...whould've given anything to have been at game 7).

I think the "football fan world" is still in a state of shock as we try to get our bearings. There's been a lot to soak in...

A post season that doesn't include the Colts...when we've been getting it pounded into our brain all season that this juggernaught of a team could run the table. I remember back in week 12 when Vegas was listing the Colts as a 10 point favorite against ANY NFC foe. It seemed like a lock...but it vaporized into nothing two weeks ago at the RCA dome (btw, is the roof of that thing a giant beach ball?).

A post season that doesn't include the Pats and Tom "Terrific". No chance to see a game winning Adam Vinatieri field goal. No third straight Super Bowl. No fourth in five years. No Bill Belichik keeping the same facial expression for 3 straight hours. No drunks on Boston Common...OK...there'll be drunks on Boston Common, regardless.

Face it...didn't you all think that the real Super Bowl was going to be the AFC Championship game between the those two titans?

There's no fabled NFC superpower. No Cowboys. No 49ers. No Eagles. No Vikings.

We've had a lot of illusions shattered as the playoffs unfolded. The Bears dominant defense was dominated. Plummer still can find ways to choke. One of the best young QB's in the game was gone in the first few minutes.

We don't seem to have any loud-mouth, angst ridden stars. There's no T.O. playing on a broken leg. There's no upstart braggart like Chad Johnson. There's no party boy like Jim McMahon. There's no "bad boy" like Michael Ervin. There's no superman like Joe Montana.

We've got a lot to accept in a relatively short period of time. Thank God for the bye week.

But I think as we get closer to the game the fans will begin to find things to get excited over. I think we're getting a chance to see one of the future elite QB's in the league hidden behind a scuffy beard. We're getting a chance to see the MVP of the league perform in the biggest game (roll tide). We're getting a chance to see two teams that are a captivating mix of veteran and youth. We're getting the chance to see one of the most electrifying young defensive backs in the game, and wonder if anyone will try to grab his hair if he's running back an interception. We're getting a chance to see a team who's NEVER been there before. We're getting a chance to see a veteran QB who's having the season of his career, and perhaps the season that'll define his career. We're getting a chance to see two teams who've gotten to this stage because that's exactly what they are...teams.

I think there's a lot to get excited over. We all just need to overcome our shock to be able to see it.

Some other story lines:

Bettis playing what is likely his final game in front of his home-town fans in Detroit.

Holmgren becoming the 3rd head coach to take 2 different teams to the super bowl, and having the chance to become just the 2nd head coach to win a Super Bowl with 2 different teams.

Cowher gets an opportunity to finally get a ring - he's been to the AFC title game 6 times in 14 years - a really impressive figure given parity, but he won't vaildate it without a SB win.

I'm going to take the points and Seattle. I may be crazy, but I think they have a shot to win the game.

@TGS - probably a smart straregy given the point spread. If the spread is under 7 points, it's usually only a good idea to take the points if you think the team getting the points can win the game outright. For spreads of 7 points or more, then it becomes more of a question of "can they keep it close"?

My reasoning here is simple: The smaller the point spread (and 3.5-4 is pretty small) the less of a chance you have of the winning score of the game falling within that point spread. A 4-point spread isn't enough for me to take a team if I only think they "can keep it close". You can play close and lose by more than 4. If I'm looking at only four points, the only way I'm taking them is if I believe the other team has a chance to win outright, and then the 4 points are a security blanket - just in case.

As an aside - we had the opposite situation in last year's game of Pats-Eagles. The Eagles were getting 7 points. Now it became a question of "Can the Eagles keep it close?" Given that the Patriots tend NOT to blow teams out (their first two SBs were both won by a field goal, and that trend continued in the 3rd SB), the 7 points was tempting.

I think it will be a nail biter to be honest. The two teams seem to be very evenly matched, and neither will have the edge since they didnt play each other during reg season.

I am so happy. Due to some reason, my cable company has cut the prices. well slashed it to pieces. Competition after two other systems got populair will do that. Live on NASN, that means they start at midnight here.

So the Steelers made it, after so many years. If they lose how will Bill Cowhur's face look the next morning. I think the pressure will get to them so they choke. Getting there is one thing, one goal, but that last step.

Thanks for the replies.

I think that this most likely Bettis' last game will give the team more intensity...Thats honestly the only reason I think that the Bronco's won the 'bowl back in Elways day...cuz they thought it was his last year.

I imagine Bill CowhEr will look just like he did when the Steelers lost to the Cowboys in Super Bowl XXX. He was the coach back then too. However, that year, the Cowboys were definitely the better team - not just that day, but pretty much the entire season. I think the Steelers gave them a better game than most people thought going in.

Yes, the Broncos certainly may have played with more intensity because of Elway. While they weren't positive it was going to be his last season (as it turned out he did play one more year in which they won another Super Bowl), they knew that time was running out, and that if this wasn't his last chance, there wouldn't be many more opportunities.

My personal opinion is that Bettis should hang them up after the Super Bowl, regardless of whether they win or lose. He is a certain Hall of Famer, and continuing to play on a part time basis will do nothing to further his credentials. Football is such a brutal game. There is a saying about when you should retire: "You can walk away now, or limp away later."

I read an interesting article on Yahoo.

Steelers Logo (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-superbowl-steelersemblem&prov=ap&type=lgns)

It was interesting because I just couldn't believe that this reporter (and Steeler fans) did not know their logo was a corporate logo from the steel manufacturing industry -- the reporter sounded like it was news to him in the article. I always thought it was such a cool idea (I'd seen the US Steel logo when I was a kid).

Of course, even the most rabid fans do not seem to have an appreciation of their team's history. So many in Chicago do not know who the Decatur Staleys were or that the team in Arizona started in Chicago. In fact, the Decatur Staleys and Chicago Cardinals are the only two of the original professional football league that are still around (and are the two oldest teams in football).

Oh yeah -- Go Seahawks!

I did know that the emblem was from the steel industry, although I must admit that I was unfamiliar with all the details surrounding the story. For example, I didn't know that the first year they used it was 1962, nor what the emblem looked like before then, nor that the three different colors represented the materials used in making steel. The other unusual thing about the Steelers helmets is the logo is only on one side. All the other teams have symmetrical helmets with either the same symbol on both side (as they nearly always do) except in the rare cases where the helmet is devoid of any symbol (as is the case with the Cleveland Browns).

Most of the "experts" are picking the Steelers. So are most of the poeple I know. That makes me nervous, because if people were generally successful in making predictions, bookies would be out of business.

EDIT: However, this made me feel a little better. It's from Bill Simmon's column on Page 2 of ESPN.com. He usually does a pretty good analysis. It's a lengthy read, and only a small portion of it is relevant to what I'm talking about, so I will just cut and paste instead of linking. Here's the 7 reasons why he thinks the Steelers will win.

1. The NFC stunk all season. Just look at the interconference matchups: The six AFC playoff teams went 20-4 against the NFC; the six NFC playoff teams went 9-11 against the AFC. Sorry, I'm going with the good conference.

2. Seattle made it to the Super Bowl by beating, at home, two banged-up teams that were running on fumes. We have no idea how good they are, or if they're good in the first place. That's the only reason this line isn't seven points or higher. The Seahawks might be really good. It's just that nobody knows. Personally, I don't think they're in the class of Pittsburgh, Indy or New England. They're on that next level.

3. Over the last two seasons, the Steelers are 26-2 in games not started by Tommy Maddox, Charlie Batch or Tom Brady. Warrants mentioning.

4. Even before that interception touchdown bounced off Champ Bailey's shoulder pads and went to Hines Ward for the first down in Denver, I was writing that the Steelers looked like the proverbial Team of Destiny. Sometimes, certain teams get on a run of luck, almost like someone at a hot blackjack table. And you have to ride it until it's over.

5. Roethlisberger, Ward, Parker, Polamalu, Antwan Randle El, Heath Miller, James Farrior ... just seems like Pittsburgh has an inordinate amount of guys who can make big plays during the course of a game.

6. The number of Steelers fans at Sunday's game is going to be staggering -- I bet that 70-75 percent of the stadium will be rooting for them, and at least 30 percent of those people will be poorly dressed and wearing a Pittsburgh jersey with some sort of condiment stain on it. Call it a modified home-field advantage for the Steelers.

7. I'm a big believer in the "We need to win this for Jerome" angle. Seattle seems happy to be there; Pittsburgh seems inspired by a higher cause. You can almost see Cowher's jaw trembling on the podium as he hands the trophy to Bettis, followed by Jim Nantz wishing he could have been there to gush, "Jerome Bettis, welcome home!" Some things are just destined to happen.

The pick: Pittsburgh 23, Seattle 17

[ February 03, 2006, 20:44: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

That makes me feel a bit better too. I've been thinking all week that we're underestimating seattle. Joey's **** talking has only enforced that beleif, although he didn't start it. I think that the Seahawk's tight end not keeping his mouth shut might cost the Seahawks during the game :)

that prediction is almost identical to my prediction..which was 18-21

I am out of sync for to long to know tha names of the better players. Bettis I know from his Irish games. But not to temper the spirits for the steelers, I like them to, but more teams have been destined to win. Remember the Bills?

Today's the big day. My pick...Steelers 27-17...although I'll be rooting for the Seahawks as an underdog.

Congratulations to the Steelers for being the third team to win 5 Super Bowl games. Congratulations to the Steelers for being the first team to go from Wild Card to Super Bowl champion. Congratulations to the Steelers for beating the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranked teams in the AFC IN ADDITION to the 1st ranked team in the NFC. Congratulations to H. Ward for being the MVP, and playing a pretty damned fine game. Congratulations to Roethlisberger for being the youngest Super Bowl champion quarterback ever. Congratulations to Jerome Bettis for winning his final game.

Damn, I'm looking forward to next year... it'll be interesting to watch the Steelers, Patriots, and Colts come autumn.

And congratulations to the offiaciting team for ruining the game

How did the officials ruin the game? The only truly bad call I saw was the call on Hasselbeck for cut blocking on the INT return.

The PI penalty was the correct call, and Jackson deserved it for doing it when he could have made the catch, and also for doing it right in the refs face.

Trying to say that the defensive player talked the ref into throwing that flag is wrong as well, because under replay(I thought it was a bad call at first too) The ref reaches for the flag and flicks his wrist forward, but didnt grab the flag, which made it look bad when he looked down and then threw it.

Roethlisberger's touchdown was too close to overturn, if they had called it a non touchdown then they would have left the call on the field stand under the review as well.

Seattle was saved a fumble because the ref's called an incomplete on what was clearly a catch under replay(Stevens)...but didn't have the angle to make the call. I don't agree with the overturn of Hasselbecks apparent fumble(fingertips touching his jersey before he went down had nothing to do with him going down), but I do agree it was the correct call.

Seattle held a whole hell of a lot and got away with it, don't be pissed because they got called on it 4 out of 20 blatant holds to save the QB.

Both teams got away with a couple of clips on their respective INT returns(Porter clipped for Pittsburgh and Tatuto(51) for Seattle), and some on ST as well.

I watched a bit of this game. I had to laugh in the first half when in a supposedly 'aggressive and physical' sport, a touchdown is denied because one man stroked another mans nipple.

I watched a bit of this game. I had to laugh in the first half when in a supposedly 'aggressive and physical' sport, a touchdown is denied because one man stroked another mans nipple.Sorry, the game has rules. Touching/shoving a receiver or a cornerback while the ball is in the air is against the rules. It's an evolution necessary for the passing game; otherwise you'd just see defensive linemen in the place of cornerbacks, and they'd just tackle the wide receivers so that passing would never be possible. The pass interference rule applies to both the offense and the defense. In many cases the officials are not close enough to notice the subtle pass interference events such as the pass interference perpetrated by that particular Seahawk player; however, when an official is right there, he WILL see it, and WILL call it.

There are also rules in place to protect players from extraneous injuries when they're in vulnerable positions that have no bearing on the play's outcome (for instance, a quarterback cannot be tackled after a decent amount of time once the ball is thrown; and a kicker cannot be tackled after the ball is in the air but while his kicking leg is still elevated). This isn't some form of streetfighting where excessive, injurious force is encouraged.

American football IS aggressive and physical. HOWEVER it is also disciplined.

@LD4 there were bad calls against both teams and I agree with the PI call (if it hadn't been the superbowl it probably wouldn't have been called) and the TD call unclear at best so it couldn't be overturned. But one missed call stands out, Haseelbeck was sacked for a second time when Pittsburgh were clearly offisde, the next play he threw the int which turned the whole game. The refereeing is supposed to be by the best officials it didn't look like it yesterday. I still think the steelers would have won but it would have been closer, and I'm not a seahawks fan.

Lol actually I didn't write that whole thing in response to your comment. I copied it directly from my response to a Seahawks troll on the Steelers boards. I must have missed the sack that your talking about. Do you remember who made the sack?

Lol tbh Ike Taylors(I'm assuming your talking of Hasselbecks pick) lack of hands was gods gift to the Seahawks...he dropped 3 picks and got one, 2 were sure touchdowns.

Not offhand no it was a good game I just think better officiating was nedded overall, besides my bet was on the steelers by 4!

All in all, it was a disappointment to anyone who wasn't a Steelers fan. Sloppy play, lackluster performances, questionable officiating, dropped balls, missed opportunites (for both sides), bad clock management...the best play of the game didn't come until the 4th quarter, the WR option pass to Ward for the TD. The commercials and half-time show really sucked too...couldn't someone have told the Rolling Stones that they're all supposed to do the same song at the same time?

Best moment of the entire game was seeing all the MVP's from past SuperBowls...that was awesome...but even that was flawed. Where the hell were Montana and Bradshaw?

My congrats to the Steelers and their fans.

Roethlisberger's touchdown was too close to overturn, if they had called it a non touchdown then they would have left the call on the field stand under the review as well No way! No part of his elbow crossed the line, let alone the ball. His elbow hit a few inches behind the white line, and the ball (even in the air) was a few inches away at most. That ref rarely overturns calls (23% of them overturned with a minimum of 3 years, they showed at the beginning of the game). With a different judge, it would have been the correct call.

I think that his elbow did cross personally...I admit when the refs screw something up most of the time, but the call really was close...seeing it on NFL access, I think the tip of the ball crossed in air.(during the game i thought it was the wrong call)

I was very irritated that Bradshaw and Montana weren't there, and still haven't found a reason for it...i must say when Franco harris pulled out his terrible towel i was completely surprised. Lynn Swann woulda secured his election had he done that :)

I was very irritated that Bradshaw and Montana weren't there, and still haven't found a reason for it... Well, Bradshaw claimed that one of his daughters was playing a basketball game that afternoon, and he never misses her games. He watched the Super Bowl at home with his family. Regardless of what you think of Bradshaw, you really can't knock the guy for going to one of his kid's games.

Montana is another matter. Multiple media outlets are reporting that Montana wasn't there because he demanded a $100,000 appearance fee that the NFL didn't want to pay. Why he would do this is entirely beyond me, because there's no way Joe is hurting for money.

Sloppy play, lackluster performances, questionable officiating, dropped balls, missed opportunites (for both sides), bad clock management. Agreed. I don't think either team played a good game. The Seahawks have to be disappointed, because they lost even though the Steelers didn't come with their "A" game. If the Seahawks had played a good game, they would have won. I think both Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck had horrendous interception throws deep in opposition's territory. At least I know what Roethlisberger did wrong, but with Hasselbeck's I don't even know who he was throwing to.

Some notes about the calls, and I'll focus on 4 that have been given a lot of press.

1. Roethlisberger's dive into the endzone. When asked on Letterman last night if he thought he had got into the endzone, Roethlisberger said, "To be honest, no." He went on to explain that he has no way of knowing whether or not the ball crossed the line while he was in the air. What he is sure about is when he landed, the ball was a couple of inches short. He even told Cowher on the sidelines that he thought he was short, and the Steelers had already decided to call on quarterback sneak on 4th and inches until they found out the touchdown was upheld. As a QB sneak that needs a couple of inches is a high percentage play, there is no reason to suspect that the call, even if it was wrong would have changed the outcome of the game.

2. Jackson's offensive pass interference in the endzone. At least I think it was Jackson - or was it Engram? Regardless, using a literal interpretation of the rules, that was offensive pass interference. He used his arms to get separation between himself and the cornerback. However, I've seen a lot more contact that doesn't get called. If a super star did that - say like someone like Steve Smith - it doesn't get called. So your interpretation of this judgement entirely rests with your rooting interest. If you're rooting for the Steelers, you obviously want the rules strictly interpreted in this instance. If you're rooting for Seattle, you want the more common rules used which means it most likely wasn't interference.

3. 15-yard low block penalty on Hasselbeck. This one was total :bs: . The rules clearly state that you can't hit a guy at the knees or lower on a return unless you are attempting to make a tackle. In other words, you can go low to make a tackle, but you can't block someone by going low. Hasselbeck was clearly attempting to make a tackle. We know this because he was successful - he actually got credited for the tackle. This to me is the only call that was clearly blown by the officials.

4. The completion to Stevens at the 1-yard line that was called back for offensive holding. It's hard to see from the angle you are given on the replay, but the offensive lineman for Seattle (I apologize for not knowing which one) chicken-winged Foote's inside arm that impeded his motion. That's holding. You need to see a side angle to see the holding. Most replays show it from the opposite endzone where it is impossible to see the location of his inside arm. From the opposite side it is definitely holding.

If you get NFL Network, you may want to check out the program where they have the head official on to discuss penalties - they do so every Wednesday night, at I believe 8pm EST. I have watched this program several times, and when asked about questionable calls, more often than not the official gives a reasonable explanation. Sometimes it's because as fans we don't know the exact wording of a rule, or an interpretation. But the vast majority of calls are correct. In fact, the only plays for the entire playoffs that the head official said were blown were 1.) Polamalu's interception against Indy, and 2.) Play clock expiring in Bears vs. Panthers.

I see how some Seahawks fans may feel that some calls went against them. There is one definite blown call (low block), one questionable call (interferene), another questionable call that may or may not have mattered depending on what happened on the next play (Roethlisberger's TD dive), and a call that turned out to be correct.

You still have to explain some other things to me. How did the officials fail to cover Hines Ward on two separate 40+ yard receptions? How did the officials not expect that the Steelers would run a trick play using Randle El? The Steelers only ran what, about 10 trick plays with Randle El throughout the year? It can hardly be said to be unexpected. How did the officials not tackle Willie Parker on his 75-yard TD run? How did the officials not better manage the clock at the end of the first half especially, and at the end of the game (less so at the end, because even with better clock management it was extremely unlikely that Seattle could have scored twice)? Oh wait... That's what the Seahawks or their coaching staff should have done, right? The point is, sometimes you get calls that go against you. It happened against Pittsburgh in the Indianapolis game. Sometimes you have to overcome calls and win anyway. When you don't, and instead decide to belly-ache about it, it shows very, very, poor sportsmanship.

It's a little long, but the Sports Guy at ESPN.com kept a journal of the game. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060206&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1)

Some funny moments, even if he is a Patriots fan.

Actually I've seen the OPI called quite a bit this year. CJ had it called against the ratbirds and I saw Moss called for it 2 times. Plexico gets it called on him all the time...some of them for less than what they called on Jackson....still I don't think that it would have been called if it hadn't been the Superbowl.

Well after the shaky start the steelers where more creative with plays. The TD was short, but I referee myself(not footbal, but fieldhockey) and know that sometimes you cannot come back on a call even if you wanted too. As for the PI, come on that was a cheap call. But still, the Seahawks did it themselves. The steelers could have lost the game in the first half, but adapted better in the second.

As for the halftime show, can someone please tell the rolling stones that not only the 60's are over, but also the 80's.

I'm sorry, but the pass interference call was justified. It WAS pass interference according to the definition. It was an entirely legitimate call.

As for the Roethlisberger TD: the line judge said it was good, and there was inconclusive evidence to overturn it... so what can you do? All of the TV replays I saw were ambiguous as to where the ball actually was when Roethlisberger's elbow landed. From the angle, it's easy to see how part of the ball could have broken the plane of the endzone before Roethlisberger's arm was forced back some due to contact. It's because the view of the ball's position was blocked that the play couldn't be overturned. The only truly bad call was the Hasselback tackle/block call.

I'm sorry to any Seahawks fans, but this game was not won or lost on officiating. It was won and lost based on properly-made calls. Seattle could've won the game if they hadn't botched their red-zone execution (penalty-wise, position-wise, and in the field of time management).

Hmm....can we abolish the NFC as it stands and send around 1/4th of the AFC's teams over there to make it competitive? Maybe the Bengals, Pats, Chiefs, and Chargers for a "good" NFC division. As it is, I think I'm gonna start considering the AFC championship as the real Super Bowl... :rolleyes:

Come on, NFC! Dallas, San Fran, New York, Green Bay...get your acts together! Do you not hunger for victory? ;)

Some funny moments, even if he is a Patriots fan Them be fighting words :mad:

In Brady we trust.

Well at least you got one thing right snook...Brady not Belichek :)

He seriously acted like a b*tch after the pats handed that game to the donkeys. He answered with 1 word when possible, was a complete dick to everyone. He should take a lesson from his QB, who acted like a man after the game.


As for the NFC if the players association doesn't come to another agreement soon then the NFC won't suck much longer. There will be no salary cap, and San Fransicso and Dallas have already said that should that happen they will pay off all debts and then start offering big money for players.

Ohhhhhh...just like the New York Yankees ;)

Hmm....can we abolish the NFC as it stands and send around 1/4th of the AFC's teams over there to make it competitive? Maybe the Bengals, Pats, Chiefs, and Chargers for a "good" NFC division. As it is, I think I'm gonna start considering the AFC championship as the real Super Bowl... It goes in cycles. Remember from the mid 80s to the mid 90s when the NFC won EVERY Super Bowl? I think it was something like 11 or 12 in a row. Before that, from the early 70s to the early 80s, the dominant teams were the Steelers, Dolfins and Raiders, and the AFC won almost every Super Bowl in those times. No need to get teams to switch conferences - the pendulum will swing back on its own accord.

Nobody will ever convince me that this wasn't the poorest ever when it came to officiating. So many games with so many bad calls. How was Seattle supposed to win when they were playing 11 on 14 (the three men in stripes)?

It goes in cycles. Remember from the mid 80s to the mid 90s when the NFC won EVERY Super Bowl? I think it was something like 11 or 12 in a row. Before that, from the early 70s to the early 80s, the dominant teams were the Steelers, Dolfins and Raiders, and the AFC won almost every Super Bowl in those times. No need to get teams to switch conferences - the pendulum will swing back on its own accord.You have a point, but also consider that the NFC's dominance (especially in the early 90s) was largely a result of what we'd view as "powergaming", without the restrictions of salary caps so that Dallas or San Francisco could buy every skilled lineman, receiver, cornerback, halfback, and quarterback they wanted. But, I'm young yet, and I've only had the pleasure of mentally recording 15 football seasons firsthand (I don't remember much of anything from the first 5 years of my life), so I'm sure your words are even more true than I can imagine. I just want to see some more competitive Super Bowls, some real thrills... and I tend to like games where more than 31 points are scored :) (hence why I still watch NO Ain'ts games at times...they'll ALWAYS be outscored by at least 50 million points. Yes, I love my home state and its utter suckiness for professional sports... but I'll be damned if our college teams aren't awesome)

Blame my love of high scores on that old crappy SNES game "Troy Aikman Football", back when I delighted in scoring, umm, 250ish points. Although honestly, any football game ever published is better than those freakin' Madden games. I hate John Madden.

...and when I don't get enough sleep, I ramble on and on about barely tangential subjects on SP... hmm. Sleep does sound good...

How was Seattle supposed to win when they were playing 11 on 14 (the three men in stripes)? What happened to the other 2 officials?

Zenastin,

While I am older than you, my memories prior to Super Bowl X are pretty fuzzy as well, and obviosuly, I was not born yet for the first few Super Bowls. I just did a little bit of research to show you what I mean.

The NFC won the first two Super Bowls, but starting in SB3 and continuing through SB15, the AFC won 11 of 13. Immediately following that, from SB16 through SB31, the NFC won 15 of 16. After that, the current trend is back with the AFC, who won 7 of the 9 contests in SB32 through SB40. The conference record is almost dead even, with the NFC having a slight lead, 21-19.

Still despite being young there have been several "good" SBs in the past few years, although I admit not all of them were very high scoring. To wit, you should check out 32, 34, 36, and 38 - and last year's 39 wasn't bad either although the final score made the game look closer than it really was.

There were seven officials.

A team should never allow itself to be in the position where a bad call can decide the game. Granted, three questionable calls is quite a bit (21 points), but Seattle still should have been able to win. They dominated the line of scrimmage and still managed to lose the game. This is a case where Seattle snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Seattle lost that game, Pittsburgh certainly didn't play well enough to win it without help from Seattle (et.al).