NFL Says SB Properly Officiated!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Can anyone honestly say the Seahawks played a better overall game than the Steelers?


-Seattle was penalized 7 times for 70 yards compared to the Steelers who were penalized 3 times for 20 yards.


As some have already said, complaining about the refs is what losers do. Once the dust settles on this whole thing, the Seahawks only have themselves to blame and they know it.

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

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

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that.

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

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

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

Was that all on the refs too?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

Was that all on the refs too?

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

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

[offiss]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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

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

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

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

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

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by offiss

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

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

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

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

[sportscurmudgeon]

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

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


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

[70Chip]

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

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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

LOL what game were you guys watching exactly??

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

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LOL what game were you guys watching exactly??

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

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

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LOL what game were you guys watching exactly??

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

besides a few people on this site i have yet to talk to or hear someone on tv that thinks seattle did not outplay pitt. everyone i've talked to or seen says that basically seattle lost the game moreso than pitt won. they all point to the bad play of stevens and the "questionable" officiating.

maybe you have talked to or seen people that feel differently, thats great but i'm just giving you a little day in the life of wolfeskins.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

Was that all on the refs too?

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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

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

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

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

thats great, i'm glad that thats your opinion. my opinion is just a bit different than yours. i respect your opinion, i just feel differently about it.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

Was that all on the refs too?

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

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

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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

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

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

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