|
Post by Spencer on Feb 2, 2009 13:23:34 GMT -5
The Cardinals were 5 seconds from not even making the playoffs. Complete Cinderella story. The Giants cinderella story to the super bowl wasn't as good as the Cardinals? The Giants won three games on the road, the Cardinals had two homes games. The Giants beat the 1 and 2 seed. I loved this years Cardinals and I'm not arguing that it wasn't sick, but the Giants beating the then 18-0 Patriots has apparently been forgotten for how incredible it was. No, Im saying that all the factors combined make this years SB better. The Giants beating the Patriots was incredible, but this game was better.
|
|
|
Post by DB on Feb 2, 2009 13:23:56 GMT -5
I can't believe that people are saying this years super bowl was better than last years. That is amazing. The undefeated patriots were going for the best record ever in football and the giants beat them in an amazing game. How can you even compare the two? This years was not nearly as exciting as last years at all. Nobody gave the giants a chance last year, NOBODY, at least this year a few people chose the cardinals as surprise upset picks, no one had the giants winning. The Cardinals were 5 seconds from not even making the playoffs. Complete Cinderella story. The giants winning was one of the biggest upsets in sports history, the game was amazing. The steelers game got really interesting in the 4th thats about it. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:25:42 GMT -5
The Giants cinderella story to the super bowl wasn't as good as the Cardinals? The Giants won three games on the road, the Cardinals had two homes games. The Giants beat the 1 and 2 seed. I loved this years Cardinals and I'm not arguing that it wasn't sick, but the Giants beating the then 18-0 Patriots has apparently been forgotten for how incredible it was. No, Im saying that all the factors combined make this years SB better. The Giants beating the Patriots was incredible, but this game was better. I think if anything, the only thing to argue would be that these 60 minutes were better than last year's 60. I wouldn't agree with that, but at least it could be argued. All of the factors combined last night versus last year? The context in which the game was played? Not at all close IMO. There wasn't anything going into yesterday's game that came close to the most dominant team in history (up until that point) going for a 19-0 season against an incredible underdog team.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 13:26:03 GMT -5
The end of the 2nd quarter wasn't exciting? The fact that the Cardinals were in the game in the first half wasn't exciting? Yeah I know really. What was their not to love about this game? It was hard hitting, ferocious, people were playing with incredible emotions. The only play I remember from last year's Superbowl was the Manning escape and Tyree catch that's it! The first 3 quarters were a complete snooze fest. I'll admit the 1st quarter was bleh, in this game but from the 2nd quarter on you just knew this game was going to be special and played at a ridiculous level with all the hitting going on.
|
|
|
Post by DB on Feb 2, 2009 13:28:42 GMT -5
The end of the 2nd quarter wasn't exciting? The fact that the Cardinals were in the game in the first half wasn't exciting? Yeah I know really. What was their not to love about this game? It was hard hitting, ferocious, people were playing with incredible emotions. The only play I remember from last year's Superbowl was the Manning escape and Tyree catch that's it! The first 3 quarters were a complete snooze fest. I'll admit the 1st quarter was bleh, in this game but from the 2nd quarter on you just knew this game was going to be special and played at a ridiculous level with all the hitting going on. The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 13:30:50 GMT -5
Yeah I know really. What was their not to love about this game? It was hard hitting, ferocious, people were playing with incredible emotions. The only play I remember from last year's Superbowl was the Manning escape and Tyree catch that's it! The first 3 quarters were a complete snooze fest. I'll admit the 1st quarter was bleh, in this game but from the 2nd quarter on you just knew this game was going to be special and played at a ridiculous level with all the hitting going on. The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game. and the Cardinals offense was pouring it on a Steelers defense that only got 1 sack on Warner and allowed him to throw for 300+ yards? I don't remember because nothing happened for 3 quarters. I remember the 2000 Superbowl and all the great plays, I remember the 2003 Superbowl and the 2005 Superbowl because they had some great moments and I've only watched them all once.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:31:09 GMT -5
Yeah I know really. What was their not to love about this game? It was hard hitting, ferocious, people were playing with incredible emotions. The only play I remember from last year's Superbowl was the Manning escape and Tyree catch that's it! The first 3 quarters were a complete snooze fest. I'll admit the 1st quarter was bleh, in this game but from the 2nd quarter on you just knew this game was going to be special and played at a ridiculous level with all the hitting going on. The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game. Haha yup. For someone who loves "hard hitting, smash mouth FOOTBALL" like you seem to, I'm surprised that you've forgotten how incredible it was that the Giants D line was getting to Brady and drilling him the way they were.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:34:10 GMT -5
The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game. and the Cardinals offense was pouring it on a Steelers defense that only got 1 sack on Warner and allowed him to throw for 300+ yards? I don't remember because nothing happened for 3 quarters. I remember the 2000 Superbowl and all the great plays, I remember the 2003 Superbowl and the 2005 Superbowl because they had some great moments and I've only watched them all once. It was definitely a sick game. What separated last year's game from this year's is that every series for the Pats you had to hold your breath on. The Giants weren't going to be able to score with the Pats and they had the best offense ever. It was non-stop anxiety that the Pats would just start marching down the field and the game would be over. The Steelers have an incredible defense but that aspect was lacking last night. It's not even a knock on the game, it's just not possible to replicate unless you have the best ever (offense or defense) playing. Brady hadn't been hit all year and the Giants were drilling him. If you don't remember that then you either A) aren't the football die hard it seems or B) weren't watching.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 13:34:38 GMT -5
The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game. Haha yup. For someone who loves "hard hitting, smash mouth FOOTBALL" like you seem to, I'm surprised that you've forgotten how incredible it was that the Giants D line was getting to Brady and drilling him the way they were. What's so incredible about that? The Giants led the league in sacks last year? It wasn't anything astonishing or extrordinary. It was great because the Patriots were a great O-Line but it's not like the Giants were this bad defense coming into the game...
|
|
|
Post by DB on Feb 2, 2009 13:35:25 GMT -5
The giants fucked up tom brady, what was not to love about that game. You don't remember because it was over a year ago and you only saw it once. It is hard to remember what happened a lot of times right after you saw an entire football game. and the Cardinals offense was pouring it on a Steelers defense that only got 1 sack on Warner and allowed him to throw for 300+ yards? I don't remember because nothing happened for 3 quarters. I remember the 2000 Superbowl and all the great plays, I remember the 2003 Superbowl and the 2005 Superbowl because they had some great moments and I've only watched them all once. Yeah I am sure every game sticks out to you from every super bowl you have ever seen except the giants beating the undefeated patriots! YUP. You remember great plays from certain SB but that does not prove a damn thing. A lot of people will tell you that the giants/pats sb was the best thing they have ever seen. They can give you a shit load of great plays through out the entire game because it was that good. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean nothing happened.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 13:35:33 GMT -5
and the Cardinals offense was pouring it on a Steelers defense that only got 1 sack on Warner and allowed him to throw for 300+ yards? I don't remember because nothing happened for 3 quarters. I remember the 2000 Superbowl and all the great plays, I remember the 2003 Superbowl and the 2005 Superbowl because they had some great moments and I've only watched them all once. It was definitely a sick game. What separated last year's game from this year's is that every series for the Pats you had to hold your breath on. The Giants weren't going to be able to score with the Pats and they had the best offense ever. It was non-stop anxiety that the Pats would just start marching down the field and the game would be over. The Steelers have an incredible defense but that aspect was lacking last night. It's not even a knock on the game, it's just not possible to replicate unless you have the best ever (offense or defense) playing. Brady hadn't been hit all year and the Giants were drilling him. If you don't remember that then you either A) aren't the football die hard it seems or B) weren't watching. Steelers not only have an incredible defense, statistically this season they rank as one of the best of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:35:53 GMT -5
Haha yup. For someone who loves "hard hitting, smash mouth FOOTBALL" like you seem to, I'm surprised that you've forgotten how incredible it was that the Giants D line was getting to Brady and drilling him the way they were. What's so incredible about that? The Giants led the league in sacks last year? It wasn't anything astonishing or extrordinary. It was great because the Patriots were a great O-Line but it's not like the Giants were this bad defense coming into the game... By that logic, the Cardinals weren't a bad offense coming into the game so them putting it on the Steelers shouldn't be a big deal. It's fine if you believe what you believe, but there are such holes in your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:36:17 GMT -5
It was definitely a sick game. What separated last year's game from this year's is that every series for the Pats you had to hold your breath on. The Giants weren't going to be able to score with the Pats and they had the best offense ever. It was non-stop anxiety that the Pats would just start marching down the field and the game would be over. The Steelers have an incredible defense but that aspect was lacking last night. It's not even a knock on the game, it's just not possible to replicate unless you have the best ever (offense or defense) playing. Brady hadn't been hit all year and the Giants were drilling him. If you don't remember that then you either A) aren't the football die hard it seems or B) weren't watching. Steelers not only have an incredible defense, statistically this season they rank as one of the best of all-time. Yup, they're sick. They're not the Pats offense from last year, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 13:39:10 GMT -5
What's so incredible about that? The Giants led the league in sacks last year? It wasn't anything astonishing or extrordinary. It was great because the Patriots were a great O-Line but it's not like the Giants were this bad defense coming into the game... By that logic, the Cardinals weren't a bad offense coming into the game so them putting it on the Steelers shouldn't be a big deal. It's fine if you believe what you believe, but there are such holes in your argument. I never said it was this incredible deal, in fact, anyone who brings that up is dumb. If anything the Cardinals who didn't stop anyone all season were stopping the running game all playoffs long is the story.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:43:14 GMT -5
By that logic, the Cardinals weren't a bad offense coming into the game so them putting it on the Steelers shouldn't be a big deal. It's fine if you believe what you believe, but there are such holes in your argument. I never said it was this incredible deal, in fact, anyone who brings that up is dumb. If anything the Cardinals who didn't stop anyone all season were stopping the running game all playoffs long is the story. You implied it like 5 minutes ago! Dan mentioned that it was amazing that the Giants were drilling Brady, and you said, "and the Cardinals offense was pouring it on a Steelers defense that only got 1 sack on Warner and allowed him to throw for 300+ yards?" Your counter to something amazing (the Giants drilling Brady) was that the Cards offense scored on Pittsburgh. The Giants had an incredible pass rush last year but no one expected them to touch Brady the way they did, no one.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:44:28 GMT -5
I thought that the Cardinals would be able to move it on Pittsburgh, why not? Sure, maybe they wouldn't, but they could. There was no chance the Pats only scored 14 points but they did.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 2, 2009 13:49:02 GMT -5
Class time, bye Martinez!!
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Feb 2, 2009 13:56:36 GMT -5
Last years was better because the Refs didn't win it last year.LOLZ
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Feb 2, 2009 13:59:37 GMT -5
The intrigue and storyline behind last year's game was better (doesn't matter a ton to me anyway) but this year's game was better.Regardless, pretty sick that I lived to see both of them... I can see next year's game being shitty.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Feb 2, 2009 14:02:23 GMT -5
First the bad call by Ed Hochulis in that SD vs DEN game and now this. Awesome year refs! !!!!
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Feb 2, 2009 14:04:34 GMT -5
The atrocious call in the 2nd Steelers/Ravens game too
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Feb 2, 2009 14:50:24 GMT -5
- The holding in the endzone. It just simply wasn't holding. I've heard quite a few people say this exact same thing. Hartwig simply got trucked - that's not holding. It should've never happened and THAT CALL got the Cardinals back in the game. That was the biggest call of the entire game. What people, Steelers fans? That was the easiest call all-game long. You can't bring your arm up to a guys neck/head area and expect to get away with it. I forget what player on the Cardinals O-Line got called 2 or 3 times for the same thing, but come on. That was an EASY call and a good call. - Harrison still was mauled the entire game. Polamalu was held a few times without it being called. OK but then you can do it vice-versa with the Cardinals. If they're going to have non-calls on certain plays why not be consistent with it? - I've also heard quite a few media outlets agree that Ben was in the endzone on his bootleg in the first quarter. You could see the shadow underneath his knee on the replay. His knee never touched the ground. That's a four point swing right there and a big momentum killer early on. Are you saying his knee was in the endzone? The balls needs to be in the endzone regardless. - What questionable calls were made against Arizona? The roughing-the-QB was iffy, but that will get called most of the time. I don't necessarily agree with the call in that situation. Ben has been hit much later than this throughout this season without a call. However, I can't really think of another questionable call going against the Cardinals. If anything, they had two favorable challenges (I agree that Warner didn't fumble on the second challenge, but it was close). However, why wasn't it intentional grounding on that play? He just basically spiked the ball in front of him. It actually hit off of a lineman. Um, the roughing the passer? Running into the holder which I've never seen called in my life... he was also stumbling and tripping over himself there was nothing he could do. The two challenges Arizona was forced to use when they were clear plays? Not throwing out Harrison, there's no place for punching in football, ever.? It wasn't intentional grounding same reason why Ben's wasn't he was outside the box. Santonio Holmes using the ball as a prop. Sure, it's a dumb penalty, but it's a rule the NFL has in-stated since last season and they've been calling it alot. So why not call it now? I'm not saying the Cardinals lost because of the Refs, but the Refs sure did have a hand in things and NO one can deny that.- And why wasn't the last play reviewed? Well, it looked pretty much like a fumble in my opinion. It wouldn't have been overturned. The ball was knocked loose before Warner's throwing motion progressed. Either way, it would've come down to one more play with that being a Hail Mary in the endzone. Anything can happen, but you don't see those completed all that often. So even if it were a fumble, on such a pivotal moment why not review it? What harm would come of that? I think it's not a fumble... to me the ball came out after his forward motion. When you have Larry Fitzgerald on the team... anything can happen.- Nope. A couple on the NFL Network crew said that wasn't holding on Hartwig. He didn't have his arms anywhere near his neck. Hartwig chipped off a block with the guard, stumbled a little and got run over by the oncoming defender. He didn't grab his jersey, neck, or anything like that. He simply got in his way and was run over. That's not illegal. It was a bad call. - The refs were fairly consistent with holding calls but they still left a lot on the field. The Steelers had two huge holding calls against them - the safety and on the final drive. - No, I'm saying his knee never touched the ground before the ball broke the plane. He held his knee up until he broke the plane. You could see the shadow under his knee. That should've been a touchdown. - I said the roughing the passer was an iffy call. However, they'll call that a lot of the time. He hit him from behind after the ball was released. And the holder is protected the same as the kicker. He's on one knee with his head down. Completely defenseless. Adrian Wilson lost control of himself and made a boneheaded play. Simple. The challenges weren't clear plays at all. Ben scored on that damn play. The Cardinals should've lost that challenge. And Harrison didn't punch him. He never had a closed fist. It was the right fucking call with the unnecessary roughness. It would've been absolutely ridiculous if he got kicked out of the game for that. Again, it wasn't a fucking punch. - Because the booth thought it wasn't a fumble. Fact is, the Cardinals had the Steelers pinned on the 12 yard line, 1st and 20, with a little over two minutes left. If you can't stop a team in that situation you do not deserve to win. The refs didn't affect the outcome of this game in favor of either team. The Steelers won.
|
|
|
Post by easy on Feb 2, 2009 15:20:49 GMT -5
- Nope. A couple on the NFL Network crew said that wasn't holding on Hartwig. He didn't have his arms anywhere near his neck. Hartwig chipped off a block with the guard, stumbled a little and got run over by the oncoming defender. He didn't grab his jersey, neck, or anything like that. He simply got in his way and was run over. That's not illegal. It was a bad call. See Galo's explanation on this play, having played OL in college I know for a fact he knows what he's talking about, it was holding simple. Everywhere I've searched agrees.
- No, I'm saying his knee never touched the ground before the ball broke the plane. He held his knee up until he broke the plane. You could see the shadow under his knee. That should've been a touchdown. Where do you have this proof? Again, I've searched and there was even a poll on this and 60% of the people said it should NOT have been ruled a TD. They reviewed it and OVERTURNED IT! I can understand a referee getting a call wrong on the field, but rarely if ever does an umpire get the call wrong AFTER reviewing it. It just does not happen, ever. So sorry, no go on that one.
- I said the roughing the passer was an iffy call. However, they'll call that a lot of the time. He hit him from behind after the ball was released. And the holder is protected the same as the kicker. He's on one knee with his head down. Completely defenseless. Adrian Wilson lost control of himself and made a boneheaded play. Simple. The challenges weren't clear plays at all. Ben scored on that damn play. The Cardinals should've lost that challenge. And Harrison didn't punch him. He never had a closed fist. It was the right fucking call with the unnecessary roughness. It would've been absolutely ridiculous if he got kicked out of the game for that. Again, it wasn't a fucking punch. He didn't have a closed fist? LOL you have the video in your sig and can't see him punching? If that video were maybe 2 seconds earlier you'd see it even more clearly. Closed fist or not a punch is a punch. He hits his helmet twice and then once on his back. All search results come up as James Harrison "punch" not "unsportsmanlike" play. As for roughing the passer, no, playing how they were playing they NEVER call that roughing the passer. It wasn't from behind, he came from his side and pushed him in his lower back and nowhere near the head, which will probably draw a roughing the passer penalty 99% of the time
- Because the booth thought it wasn't a fumble. From the time the play happened to the time Pittsburgh took the knee, maybe a minute of real-time transpired. You mean to tell me in that time they had enough evidence to consider that the right call was made on the field? I don't think so. If it's a fumble whats the problem with a booth review? Why end the game on a potential controversy? If it goes to review, and it's upheld there is no talk of controversy and point made.
Fact is, the Cardinals had the Steelers pinned on the 12 yard line, 1st and 20, with a little over two minutes left. If you can't stop a team in that situation you do not deserve to win. The Cardinals got to cautious, and let up on blitzing. If the Cardinals continued to play hard on defense, they would have shut them down. I don't blame the refs for Arizona's loss but they did miss out on lot of plays and it just so happened the majority of the calls favored Steelers.
|
|
|
Post by Gossip Girl on Feb 2, 2009 16:47:47 GMT -5
Pretty productive, Chris.
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Feb 2, 2009 16:48:51 GMT -5
- Nope. A couple on the NFL Network crew said that wasn't holding on Hartwig. He didn't have his arms anywhere near his neck. Hartwig chipped off a block with the guard, stumbled a little and got run over by the oncoming defender. He didn't grab his jersey, neck, or anything like that. He simply got in his way and was run over. That's not illegal. It was a bad call. See Galo's explanation on this play, having played OL in college I know for a fact he knows what he's talking about, it was holding simple. Everywhere I've searched agrees. - No, I'm saying his knee never touched the ground before the ball broke the plane. He held his knee up until he broke the plane. You could see the shadow under his knee. That should've been a touchdown. Where do you have this proof? Again, I've searched and there was even a poll on this and 60% of the people said it should NOT have been ruled a TD. They reviewed it and OVERTURNED IT! I can understand a referee getting a call wrong on the field, but rarely if ever does an umpire get the call wrong AFTER reviewing it. It just does not happen, ever. So sorry, no go on that one.- I said the roughing the passer was an iffy call. However, they'll call that a lot of the time. He hit him from behind after the ball was released. And the holder is protected the same as the kicker. He's on one knee with his head down. Completely defenseless. Adrian Wilson lost control of himself and made a boneheaded play. Simple. The challenges weren't clear plays at all. Ben scored on that damn play. The Cardinals should've lost that challenge. And Harrison didn't punch him. He never had a closed fist. It was the right fucking call with the unnecessary roughness. It would've been absolutely ridiculous if he got kicked out of the game for that. Again, it wasn't a fucking punch. He didn't have a closed fist? LOL you have the video in your sig and can't see him punching? If that video were maybe 2 seconds earlier you'd see it even more clearly. Closed fist or not a punch is a punch. He hits his helmet twice and then once on his back. All search results come up as James Harrison "punch" not "unsportsmanlike" play. As for roughing the passer, no, playing how they were playing they NEVER call that roughing the passer. It wasn't from behind, he came from his side and pushed him in his lower back and nowhere near the head, which will probably draw a roughing the passer penalty 99% of the time- Because the booth thought it wasn't a fumble. From the time the play happened to the time Pittsburgh took the knee, maybe a minute of real-time transpired. You mean to tell me in that time they had enough evidence to consider that the right call was made on the field? I don't think so. If it's a fumble whats the problem with a booth review? Why end the game on a potential controversy? If it goes to review, and it's upheld there is no talk of controversy and point made. Fact is, the Cardinals had the Steelers pinned on the 12 yard line, 1st and 20, with a little over two minutes left. If you can't stop a team in that situation you do not deserve to win. The Cardinals got to cautious, and let up on blitzing. If the Cardinals continued to play hard on defense, they would have shut them down. I don't blame the refs for Arizona's loss but they did miss out on lot of plays and it just so happened the majority of the calls favored Steelers. - I played offensive line in college also. I know what I'm talking about as well. I also just watched the play again. He didn't grasp the jersey. He didn't have his hands around his neck. He absolutely, clearly didn't have the jersey. Hartwig chipped off a double on the guard, stumbled a little and was run over by the defender. That was a bad call. Simple. - The run was close. It could've gone either way. From what I saw watching the HD broadcast it looked like I could see a shadow under his knee. That's what I'm going off of on that one. - And yes, there is a HUGE difference on that one. For one, anyone that has ever played on a line knows that you're supposed to bury the hell out of a player if they go for your knees. Francisco went low on Harrison. Harrison pinned him down like you're supposed to do. Francisco tried to get up, Harrison put him back down. It was unnecessary at that point in the play but it wasn't worthy of getting tossed. A closed fist is a lot different than an open hand. A closed fist is a punch. An open hand isn't. And yeah, the roughing the passer was from behind. blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/overheard_in_tampa_bay/First play of the second quarter. Robinson threw a haymaker in the pile and didn't get called for it. I just went back and watched the play. It was blatant. He didn't even get a penalty. Also, this guy agrees with me. That's what a football player is taught to do when someone goes at your knees. nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28971640/They reviewed the play and saw the same thing I did. The first challenge on a similar play was the right call. Warner clearly had possession of the ball when he was hit by Farrior. However, just as clearly, Woodley knocked the ball loose prior to Warner's arm coming forward. It's not a forward pass if the QB doesn't have control throughout the throwing motion. - And you're just wrong about the Cardinals on the last drive. Ben was under pressure on 1st and 20. He scrambled away and hit Holmes. Second down there was a rushed play before the two minute warning. Cards blitzed on 3rd and 6. Ben beat them and got it to Holmes for the first down. They rushed four on the next first down. Pittsburgh got another first down. That's what happens when you beat the blitz the first time. Ben scrambles the next play. They rushed four. 2nd and 6 - Cards blitz. Ben beats it and Santonio gets 42 on the play to the 5. That's another blitz that Ben beat. First and goal at the 5. Cards bring four. Ben overthrows it just a little. Second and goal they rush four as well. These are obvious passing situations though. Cards blitzed and got burnt twice on that drive. They didn't let up on it at all. It just didn't work. The majority of the calls didn't favor the Steelers.
|
|