rajncajn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bottom line is Warner doesn't throw a pick-six to end the half & Arizona wins the game. Nothing else really made that much of a difference either way. Bad calls were made as they always are. It's very likely that there were calls not made that could have gone against Arizona as well. It sucks that the focus ends up on the refs because when it's all said & done that was an outstanding end to what started out to be a ho-hum Superbowl and despite the bad calls it was the play on the field that determined the outcome, no the refs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bottom line is Warner doesn't throw a pick-six to end the half & Arizona wins the game. Nothing else really made that much of a difference either way. Bad calls were made as they always are. It's very likely that there were calls not made that could have gone against Arizona as well. It sucks that the focus ends up on the refs because when it's all said & done that was an outstanding end to what started out to be a ho-hum Superbowl and despite the bad calls it was the play on the field that determined the outcome, no the refs. Bingo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bottom line is Warner doesn't throw a pick-six to end the half & Arizona wins the game. Nothing else really made that much of a difference either way. Bad calls were made as they always are. It's very likely that there were calls not made that could have gone against Arizona as well. It sucks that the focus ends up on the refs because when it's all said & done that was an outstanding end to what started out to be a ho-hum Superbowl and despite the bad calls it was the play on the field that determined the outcome, no the refs. I wonder how many heartattacks happened with the guys who bet the over after the 1st quarter? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyr0802 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bottom line is Warner doesn't throw a pick-six to end the half & Arizona wins the game. Nothing else really made that much of a difference either way. Bad calls were made as they always are. It's very likely that there were calls not made that could have gone against Arizona as well. It sucks that the focus ends up on the refs because when it's all said & done that was an outstanding end to what started out to be a ho-hum Superbowl and despite the bad calls it was the play on the field that determined the outcome, no the refs. Pretty much sums up the way I saw the game too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bottom line is Warner doesn't throw a pick-six to end the half & Arizona wins the game. Nothing else really made that much of a difference either way. Bad calls were made as they always are. It's very likely that there were calls not made that could have gone against Arizona as well. It sucks that the focus ends up on the refs because when it's all said & done that was an outstanding end to what started out to be a ho-hum Superbowl and despite the bad calls it was the play on the field that determined the outcome, no the refs. well, more or less correct. I am just getting kinda sick of the The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY winning super bowls they get totally outplayed in with big-time assistance from the zebras. come on, 11 penalties for 106 yards? over the regular season, the cards averaged 6 penalties for 51 yards. plus two bad calls on the field that replay reversed, plus the shocking non review on that last play. it all adds up to a pretty stiff wind at the steelers' backs and in the cardinals' faces. you need that sort of x-factor to beat a team that outgains you by 115 yards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If they are giving these games/calls to the Steelers then help me understand why they didn't give the first fumble...err...I mean forward pass that I still think was knocked out of Warners hand to the Steelers? I mean do you people really think they turn it on and off like that? You probably think there was something shaky with killing of JFK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) If they are giving these games/calls to the Steelers then help me understand why they didn't give the first fumble...err...I mean forward pass that I still think was knocked out of Warners hand to the Steelers? well they did. but then replay showed that it was just too obviously a forward pass to let the ruling stand. edit to add: I'm not even saying it's some sort of conspiracy. I doubt the refs consciously intended to favor the The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY, I just think if you look at the game as a whole, the sum of their rulings had that effect. again. the steelers should officially make their motto, "it's better to be lucky than good" Edited February 2, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 well, more or less correct. I am just getting kinda sick of the The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY winning super bowls they get totally outplayed in with big-time assistance from the zebras. come on, 11 penalties for 106 yards? over the regular season, the cards averaged 6 penalties for 51 yards. "Totally outplayed." "The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY." Wow, that's cute! Come up with that one all by yourself? Did it occur to you that perhaps the Cards were forced to commit so many penalties because they were faced with the #1 defense in the league? Don't really have to hold or chop block when facing the crappy defenses they faced during the regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 the steelers should officially make their motto, "it's better to be lucky than good" Thats just it. I have been watching the Steelers since I was 7. They broke my heart regularly as a kid when they beat Dallas in those superbowls. With the exception of the Jackie Smith drop which didnt ice the game but favors your little bit of luck argument., I have seen that team win the old fashioned way for a long time. Always a big running game and solid D and always well coached. I just dont see this fraud of a franchise that a lot of people on these boards make them out to be ever since the Seattle superbowl. I know Wiegie was looking to mix it up a bit but just look at the title of the thread. It was a heavy theme going in to this game that the refs were going to help Pitt and people were just dying to take credit away from them based on the officiating. When all was said and done they drove down the field when they had to and punched one in as champions do. I wanted the Cards but they didnt finish it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 How the hell does a Dallas fan make such perfect sense of it all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 i've never seen anyone so pissy as Squeggie after their team wins a super bowl. Pittsburgh is due for 3 years of misfortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 i've never seen anyone so pissy as Squeggie after their team wins a super bowl. You forgot about the meltdown of "steeler" after XL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Did it occur to you that perhaps the Cards were forced to commit so many penalties because they were faced with the #1 defense in the league? you mean the one that gave up 400+ yards? the one that folded like a cheap tent in the 4th quarter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Thats just it. I have been watching the Steelers since I was 7. They broke my heart regularly as a kid when they beat Dallas in those superbowls. With the exception of the Jackie Smith drop which didnt ice the game but favors your little bit of luck argument., I have seen that team win the old fashioned way for a long time. Always a big running game and solid D and always well coached. I just dont see this fraud of a franchise that a lot of people on these boards make them out to be ever since the Seattle superbowl. I know as a Dallas Cowboys fan you have a natural tendency to live in the past and want to ignore the present, but I was really referring to the current steelers team that has somehow lucked into winning 2 of the last 4 super bowls despite being outplayed in both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I know as a Dallas Cowboys fan you have a natural tendency to live in the past and want to ignore the present, but I was really referring to the current steelers team that has somehow lucked into winning 2 of the last 4 super bowls despite being outplayed in both. I guess we have our differences in what outplayed means. You can throw stats at me if you would like showing a difference in yardage but I dont consider a 4th Q rally outplaying someone. I think the Cards had 1 Possesion in the 1st Q and Big Ben had over 100 yards passing or close to it. Did that Q not count ? The play at the end of the half was the key and that play was indicitave of what the Steelers do IMO. Big plays on D when they need it. How many times have you seen Polamalu seal a game with a pic or that team end the other teams hopes with a hugh play on D . Why is that play any different ? My post was not meant to live in the past in regards to superbowls at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 you mean the one that gave up 400+ yards? the one that folded like a cheap tent in the 4th quarter? Oh, they outplayed them in the 4th quarter and much of the second half. But the game is 60 minutes, and the Cards did not outplay them overall. You might have a point if the time of posession were in Arizona's favor, but it wasn't, and they didn't outplay them if you actually look at the whole game and not just what your short memory allows you to recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.