Dan Gould Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 Cards 32-25. Pittsburgh 35-6 If the Cardinals score even one TD, it will be simply astonishing. You must have spent most of the second half with your jaw in your lap then. What an annoying game - the outcome decided by a fluke of a play. I mean, isn't any 100 yard interception return flukey? And the end really only serves to remind me why baseball will always be superior to any clock-based sport, but especially football. What would happen if, on the last possession, the team that is behind simply runs its offense. No clock. Stop them in four downs, force a turnover, or they score. If they're still behind, they can run an onside kick and if they recover, they get another four downs. Seriously, why should a clock determine the winner? Baseball is superior because you can't run out of time, and no one can run a clock out. As long as you've got an out left, you have a chance. So congrats Steelers fans, and what is it? Twelve days to Pitchers and Catchers? Thank God! Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Posted February 2, 2009 I enjoyed this Super Bowl. Cards made a game of it. Fitzgerald=beast. He gave some props to Randy Moss. Pats will dominate in '09. Quote
Dan Gould Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 Isn't it a little early to say that, Paul? I mean I hope you are right, but ... Quote
Free For All Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 Terrific game. One of the better ones I've seen (last year's was a great one too). Unbelievable clutch catch by Holmes (and a perfect throw by Big Ben). Warner played great too, but when the Cards scored and were only up by three (and there was still ample time left) I knew that the Steelers weren't done yet. I was expecting OT, but they got it done. A couple bad/non calls- several holds on Harrison's interception runback, but it was still a spectacular play and he sure earned the touchdown. That was a huge momentum swing. Also, I was surprised they didn't review Warner's fumble at the end- it could have gone either way. I thought Jennifer Hudson did a great job on the National Anthem (nice arrangement, too). She's got a hell of a voice. The commercials were nothing special this year IMHO. I had a couple people over and made fajitas, queso & margaritas. Big fun. Quote
Aggie87 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 When it was 20-7 I was about to give up on it, glad I didn't. Great ending to the game! I think Warner's fumble at the end was an incompletion. They should have had one last chance after that. They claimed that the replay officials reviewed it and confirmed it was a fumble, but if they did review it sure was quick, and no on-field announcement was made, which is the norm. Jennifer Hudson did a fine job, though according to the show producer (here) she lip-synced at his request. I enjoyed Bruce at half time too - don't think there was lip-syncing going on there. Funny watching him slide right into the camera. Quote
papsrus Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 Cards 32-25. Pittsburgh 35-6 If the Cardinals score even one TD, it will be simply astonishing. You must have spent most of the second half with your jaw in your lap then. What an annoying game - the outcome decided by a fluke of a play. I mean, isn't any 100 yard interception return flukey? And the end really only serves to remind me why baseball will always be superior to any clock-based sport, but especially football. What would happen if, on the last possession, the team that is behind simply runs its offense. No clock. Stop them in four downs, force a turnover, or they score. If they're still behind, they can run an onside kick and if they recover, they get another four downs. Seriously, why should a clock determine the winner? Baseball is superior because you can't run out of time, and no one can run a clock out. As long as you've got an out left, you have a chance. So congrats Steelers fans, and what is it? Twelve days to Pitchers and Catchers? Thank God! I tend to agree with you on the clock thing, Dan. The absolute worst example is basketball, where the end of close games are often nothing more than a series of fouls and free throws. A fatal flaw in the game, for me. At least with games like football you have the potential for frenzied finishes, which last night definitely qualifies. I found the first half somewhat sloppy and disappointing (until the last play of the half, when it suddenly turned into a "holy crap" game). The second half might be one of the best in SB history. While Warner played valiantly and put up great numbers -- MVP numbers if the Cards had won -- Roethlisberger was clearly the superior QB, and probably should have won the MVP. If somebody else catches the winning TD, I think he probably would have. His pocket presence is unbelievable. There's not a defensive lineman in the league this guy fears. He just throws 'em off, dances around in the pocket and does his thing. Quote
WorldB3 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 I don't think you can have asked for a better game. Overall it was better than last years where the first half was a dud, not that I don't like a good defensive game but game didn't really define itself until the fourth quarter, this one had a lot of twists and turns through out. The game winning TD pass to Holmes was a thing of beauty and perfection. Even better than Montana to Taylor, and this coming from a huge Niner fan. After so many years of boring Super Bowls were are lucky to have back to back great ones. Quote
Dan Gould Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 And the end really only serves to remind me why baseball will always be superior to any clock-based sport, but especially football. What would happen if, on the last possession, the team that is behind simply runs its offense. No clock. Stop them in four downs, force a turnover, or they score. If they're still behind, they can run an onside kick and if they recover, they get another four downs. Seriously, why should a clock determine the winner? Baseball is superior because you can't run out of time, and no one can run a clock out. As long as you've got an out left, you have a chance. I tend to agree with you on the clock thing, Dan. The absolute worst example is basketball, where the end of close games are often nothing more than a series of fouls and free throws. A fatal flaw in the game, for me. At least with games like football you have the potential for frenzied finishes, which last night definitely qualifies. My view is that in the case of basketball time running out still allows for a strategy (tiresome as fouls and free throws are) that allows for some chance of a comeback from a small deficit. But since the offenses change possession so rapidly, it doesn't really matter that the clock decides the result - clock expiration is as good a reason as any to end it. But in football, you have a strategy, an offensive game plan that has to be forgotten in that "frenzied finish". It would be a different game at the end if the teams could simply play without regard to a clock. I've also always preferred the college football method of playing OT. Quote
Van Basten II Posted February 2, 2009 Report Posted February 2, 2009 As a Steelers fan, i don't enjoy exciting games i will make an exception this time. Arizona showed guts coming back despite what could have been the heartbreaker at the end of the second quarter. Generally care little about halftime entertainment but i did enjoy Bruce, he looked like a guy having a ball out there. Quote
Free For All Posted February 3, 2009 Report Posted February 3, 2009 i did enjoy Bruce, he looked like a guy having a ball out there. Yes, and he showed them both to us when he slid into the camera. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Doesn't Stealers Coach Mike Tomlin look like hë is related to Omar Epps? How in the hell will the Browns win 7 super bowl before i die? Quote
Aggie87 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Doesn't Stealers Coach Mike Tomlin look like hë is related to Omar Epps? Quote
Free For All Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 How in the hell will the Browns win 7 super bowl before i die? Better start taking better care of yourself. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 If a team signs Michael Vick will he be on a short leash??? Quote
Soulstation1 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 Not looking good for those two NFL Players and their friend out in the gulf They were about 50 miles out Quote
Chalupa Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Cowboys cut T.O. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3953647 Good move for Dallas. Addition by subtraction. Question for Dallas fans - Why didn't Jones cut him before March 1st?? Doesn't he have to pay him the roster bonus now?? Quote
Aggie87 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Cowboys cut T.O. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3953647 Good move for Dallas. Addition by subtraction. Question for Dallas fans - Why didn't Jones cut him before March 1st?? Doesn't he have to pay him the roster bonus now?? I'm not sure about the financial thing - they're taking a big hit on the salary cap. I think $9M? But they've done quite a bit of cutting of the bad eggs this off season - Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, and now T.O. Plus they traded starting cornerback Anthony Henry to Detroit for backup QB John Kitna. Zach Thomas was let go, and it's looking like SS Roy Williams may be on his way out, too. They've got alot of holes to plug suddenly, and no 1st round draft pick, thanks to the overpaying for WR Roy Williams. Edited March 5, 2009 by Aggie87 Quote
Big Al Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Cowboys cut T.O. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3953647 Good move for Dallas. Addition by subtraction. Question for Dallas fans - Why didn't Jones cut him before March 1st?? Because he didn't want to let his star player go unless and not a second before he absolutely had to. This is so completely out-of-character for Jones (listening to others' advice, doing the right thing, using common sense) that I'm not entirely convinced Jones was of sound mind and body when this happened, much less present at the firing. For all I know, it might've been as big a shock to him as it was to us! Quote
Shawn Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 They've got alot of holes to plug suddenly... Well, some holes to fill is better than having a roster full of a-holes. Quote
Chalupa Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 I got my dates messed up. March 1 is the date teams have to be under the salary cap. June 1 is the roster bonus date. Shamelessly stolen from some Cowboys' blog.... Cowboys | Salary cap ramifications of Owens’ release Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:59:04 -0800 Clarence E. Hill, Jr., of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reports WR Terrell Owens will count $9.675 million in dead money against the Dallas Cowboys’ salary cap in 2009, but they will only lose $680,000 in actual cap money. The team saves $3.1 million in real dollars because he will not receive a June 1 roster bonus. He was previously set to cost the team $8.995 million against the cap Again I like the move (and cutting Roy Williams too). I think they will better off for it. Quote
Aggie87 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Posted March 6, 2009 I'm not entirely convinced Jones was of sound mind and body when this happened Surely a man who hangs out with Urkel is of sound mind! Quote
papsrus Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not aware, but why didn't/couldn't they trade him? Maybe the Chiefs have a third-round pick they can part with. Does it have something to do with the way the cap is figured maybe? In other words, would it have cost them more to trade him than to just release him? Edited March 7, 2009 by papsrus Quote
Chalupa Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not aware, but why didn't/couldn't they trade him? Maybe the Chiefs have a third-round pick they can part with. Does it have something to do with the way the cap is figured maybe? In other words, would it have cost them more to trade him than to just release him? He was due 9 million this season and the Cowboys would have had to pay a significant amount of his salary if they found someone dumb enough to take him. If some team does sign him it will probably be near or at the league minimum. I don't think even Al Davis is foolish enough to pay him more than that. Quote
papsrus Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not aware, but why didn't/couldn't they trade him? Maybe the Chiefs have a third-round pick they can part with. Does it have something to do with the way the cap is figured maybe? In other words, would it have cost them more to trade him than to just release him? He was due 9 million this season and the Cowboys would have had to pay a significant amount of his salary if they found someone dumb enough to take him. If some team does sign him it will probably be near or at the league minimum. I don't think even Al Davis is foolish enough to pay him more than that. Thanks. Makes some sense now. But it's still extremely rare for a player with his skills to be outright released. Heck, the Falcons even held on to Vick, didn't they? It'll be interesting to see where Owens lands. I wonder if the Pats would be interested? They don't seem to shy away from players with troublesome reputations. And they wouldn't hesitate to cut him if he didn't fall into line. ... And they do have some cap room, I think, after their deft trade with KC. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
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.