Monday, February 2, 2009

The Better-Than-Expected But Still Not Super Bowl

Some quick final thoughts on the Steelers' win tonight:
  • The most obvious question is why didn't the refs review that last Warner fumble and why didn't Michaels and Madden talk about it? I think, in the coming days, that this (along with the defense's shoddy play) will diminish the Steelers' victory. Of course, they won and probably still would have if the play had been overturned.
  • Can we finally shut up about the Steelers' D being in the same galaxy as the Ravens' D in 2000? They gave up a million yards in the Super Bowl. Also, how come nobody talked about what a horrendous game Troy Polamalu turned in? He missed that one tackle badly, but he blew the coverage on that long Fitzgerald touchdown. They never mentioned it or broke it down. Polamalu jumped towards Boldin, who was already double-covered, leaving nobody behind to stop Fitzgerald when he grabbed the ball. Just another example of how bad broadcasting is as a whole when it comes to football.
  • Last, and most important, Costas said that this was one of the greatest Super Bowls ever. Yahoo called it one of the greatest games ever. That's just stupid. The last eight minutes were fantastic, but until that point each team had around forty yards in the second half. The third quarter was unwatchable, as was most of the first half. I can think of five Super Bowls off the top of my head that were better: Giants-Bills (wide right), Rams-Titans (one yard short), Broncos-Packers (Elway's first win), Rams-Patriots (the big upset), and Giants-Patriots (the bigger upset). I didn't even love last year's game so much, but it was better because of the historic implications. I didn't mention 49ers-Bengals, nor any game that happened before I began watching football, like Super Bowl III. So, just calm yourselves down there.


angie said...

Whoa, maybe you should sit down for this...but I agree with TWO of your three comments!! (don't disagree with the other; just not qualified to comment on it)

I thought the non-review of the fumble was crazy. Only a few seconds left in the game and you don't review a turnover? even if it wasn't close, I'd think you'd still review it. You know that if Arizona had a bigger national fanbase, the non-review plus the disparity in penalties would make for A LOT of suspicious people. (not saying the penalty calls were all bad, but that roughing the passer? no way.)

I also agree that this shouldn't even be discussed as a contender for greatest SB ever. ESPN was also talking about the Holmes catch as one of the greatest SB catches ever...putting it up against the Tyree catch last year and a Lynn Swann catch. they replayed all three in a row, and sorry, great catch, but no where near the other two, in my opinion. I think is something that happens everywhere, though -- people aren't able to put current events in historical context, especially when trying to compare to events they didn't see live.

Betsy said...

I think they did review it in the booth, they just didn't take as long to do so as they normally do. I know a lot of people think they should have looked at it longer and harder and maybe they should have, but does anyone honestly believe there was anything conclusive enough to overturn the ruling on the field? I am under the impression that in cases where it could go either way, they let the ruling on the field stand. If that is correct, then what happened, while controversial, was just a shorter path to the same result.

angie said...

But that's the whole point -- how do you even have time in what, 10-15 seconds? to review all the camera angles to make sure you can't overturn the call on the field? The announcers kept making such a big deal earlier in the game to point out that the officials can use composite images from different cameras to make the review decisions. That was potentially a game-changing/deciding call; it deserved more than a cursory review.