Rate the quality of play between Pittsburgh and Seattle. Put aside whether your team won or loss.

Good, it could have been a closer game, and there could have been more scoring and turnovers to make it interesting but other than that i stayed on my seat the whole game

The quality of play is the worst I've ever seen in a Super Bowl. The game itself was ok in terms of not being a blowout, but both teams played horrible all game, and Pittsburgh prevailed due to being a bit less horrible and getting a couple calls, as well as making 2 big plays.

It wasn't nearly as bad as ravens-giants, but it wasn't up to the high calibur we've seen the past few years.

I haven't a clue which team would have won had the refs actually done their jobs. I haven't a clue which was the better team. Poor.

I haven't a clue which team would have won had the refs actually done their jobs.  I haven't a clue which was the better team.  Poor.

 

^^What he said.

I still find it funny that the worst-ranked team from the AFC playoffs beat the top seed from the NFC. There's just a huge gap between the AFC and NFC.

This was the 16th Super Bowl I remember watching, the first was Super Bowl XXV. I'd have to say this is easily one of the bottom 3 Super Bowls I watched.

I still find it funny that the worst-ranked team from the AFC playoffs beat the top seed from the NFC.  There's just a huge gap between the AFC and NFC.

 

That same team beat the top 3 ranked teams in the AFC as well

That same team beat the top 3 ranked teams in the AFC as well 

 

Yeah, but think about it. What does it say when the six seed in one conference beats the one seed in the other? We all know that the AFC is a whole lot tougher than the NFC, and this just seems like another way of showing it.

Yeah, but think about it.  What does it say when the six seed in one conference beats the one seed in the other?  We all know that the AFC is a whole lot tougher than the NFC, and this just seems like another way of showing it.

It says that the AFC was the one bribing the refs?

Yeah, but think about it.  What does it say when the six seed in one conference beats the one seed in the other?  We all know that the AFC is a whole lot tougher than the NFC, and this just seems like another way of showing it.

 

Ok but when you think about it that six seed also beat the one seed of the AFC so what is there to think about?

 

Also the Steelers are a much tougher team with Big Ben.... because of being hurt they lost some games with Maddux.

Ok but when you think about it that six seed also beat the one seed of the AFC so what is there to think about?

 

Also the Steelers are a much tougher team with Big Ben.... because of being hurt they lost some games with Maddox.

 

Oy, I'm not trying to get into an argument about the actual strength of the Steelers. I said that it was funny that the six seed beat the one seed. Everyone knew that the NFC was much weaker, and this just makes it look worse for them. It is funny to me. I'm sorry that it wasn't to you.

It gets a total F. Thanks zebra's

As a Steelers fan, I had to even rate it as only fair. Ben played very poorly, especially compared to his previous playoff games. Steelers defense backed off of the blitz early, and it cost them yardage. It was like watching a completely different Steelers team early in the game, not sure what was going on. Neither team brought their "A" game, and it showed on TV. But a championship is a championship if you are a fan of the winning team, it just wasn't nearly as fun for the other teams fans to watch.

Oy, I'm not trying to get into an argument about the actual strength of the Steelers.  I said that it was funny that the six seed beat the one seed.  Everyone knew that the NFC was much weaker, and this just makes it look worse for them.  It is funny to me.  I'm sorry that it wasn't to you.

 

How does it show the strength of the AFC being much better than the NFC? If the calls were right, this game is completely different with Seattle possibly winning it. That 6 seed also beat those "super strong" 1, 2, and 3 teams in the AFC. Plus they blew out the 1st and 3rd team and the 2nd team if the calls weren't horrid in that game too. Just shows me that the AFC is full of pretenders.

 

Seattle came closer than all those teams and would've had a great chance of winning if the zebra's weren't so horrible. And no one can say they weren't, because talk shows and ourselves wouldn't be so wrapped up in talking about it.

Edited February 6, 200620 yr by nitetrain8601

As a Steelers fan, I had to even rate it as only fair. Ben played very poorly, especially compared to his previous playoff games. Steelers defense backed off of the blitz early, and it cost them yardage. It was like watching a completely different Steelers team early in the game, not sure what was going on. Neither team brought their "A" game, and it showed on TV. But a championship is a championship if you are a fan of the winning team, it just wasn't nearly as fun for the other teams fans to watch.

If the Bears were in this game I'd have been going nuts too. When its your team you could care less if its boring, especially when you end up winning.

To show how bad the officiating was is that other fans are seeing it big time. On ESPN's SportsNation poll, 63% of people think the bad officiating cost Seattle the game across the Nation. Only 2 states who didn't think so were Pennslyvania and West Virginia, and even in those states, the results are 44%-Yes, 56%-No in Penn, and 47%-Yes, 53%-No in WV.

 

So even those states aren't sure if Pitt would've won without the officiating.

How does it show the strength of the AFC being much better than the NFC? If the calls were right, this game is completely different with Seattle possibly winning it. That 6 seed also beat those "super strong" 1, 2, and 3 teams in the AFC. Plus they blew out the 1st and 3rd team and the 2nd team if the calls weren't horrid in that game too. Just shows me that the AFC is full of pretenders.

 

Seattle came closer than all those teams and would've had a great chance of winning if the zebra's weren't so horrible. And no one can say they weren't, because talk shows and ourselves wouldn't be so wrapped up in talking about it.

 

It was a joke. The "supposed" worst team in the AFC beat the best team in the NFC. I'm sorry that you're still too busy crying about the officiating to laugh.

It was a joke.  The "supposed" worst team in the AFC beat the best team in the NFC.  I'm sorry that you're still too busy crying about the officiating to laugh.

So wait, the Texans beat the Seahawks?

It was a joke.  The "supposed" worst team in the AFC beat the best team in the NFC.  I'm sorry that you're still too busy crying about the officiating to laugh.

 

Yes but your 2 dumb to look at other stuff obviously... how about the worse team in the AFC beating the 3 best teams in the AFC? Or how about that worse team was a year removed from a 15-1 season and they prob would of won 2 more games if Big Ben wasnt hurt.

Listen, I've been trying to say this in my last three posts. I was poking fun (that means I was making a joke, being light-hearted, etc.) at the fact that the 6th seed beat the 1st seed. With the AFC being heralded as the much stronger conference, it is still funny to see the lowest seed beating the highest. It's like rubbing salt in the NFC's wounds. For some reason, you are not getting the point that I think the situation is comical.

 

Yes but your 2 dumb to look at other stuff obviously... how about the worse team in the AFC beating the 3 best teams in the AFC?  Or how about that worse team was a year removed from a 15-1 season and they prob would of won 2 more games if Big Ben wasnt hurt.

 

You also missed a few punctuation marks in there. And your calling me dumb?

Gimme a break with this #6 seed nonsense. It's not like they were some s***ty 9-7 team beating up on 15-1 teams. They were a tiebreaker away from being the #3 seed.

Gimme a break with this #6 seed nonsense.  It's not like they were some s***ty 9-7 team beating up on 15-1 teams.  They were a tiebreaker away from being the #3 seed.

 

Once more, I am not saying the Steelers were a weak team or that they belonged as the 6th seed. What I said repeatedly is that I find it humorous that the 6th seed (although they are stronger than any other prior 6th seeds) beat the 1st seed, especially when considering that the NFC has been catching s*** for a while about being a much weaker division.

You also missed a few punctuation marks in there.  And your calling me dumb?

 

Im sorry that I didnt check my grammar first on a message board about sports.......

 

The point is whatever humor your getting from it is pointless and no one else gets where your coming from.... everyone knows the AFC is stronger than the NFC but to say oh its so funny the worse playoff team in the AFC beat the best in the NFC is just dumb...... Especially when that supposed worse AFC team also beat the top 3 seeds in the AFC.....