I can't understand the logic behind this one. The Steeler haters at ESPN explain it by saying that 3 writers had Seattle #1 3 had Pittsburgh #1 and 1 had Indianapolis #1. How do you give the tie-breaker to the super bowl losers over the champs??
heres the link...shoud have attached it earlier http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking...son=2006&week=0
Power Rankings: 1. Seahawks 2. Superbowl Officiating Crew 3. Steelers That looks about right... As an aside, I can't believe these guys have the Lions rated higher than the Packers. *laughs* Riiiiiiiiight...
Two thoughts. 1) Its not how you start but how you finish. 2) The writer is just trying to generate controversy to increase sales/circulation. Speaking of controversy, Donkeys ranked #4? See thought 1.
Losing both the superbowl and one of the best offensive lineman in the game does not add up to a number one ranking in my book. As a side note...the Lions are on their way up and the Packers are on their way down, cant really argue that. I see a ton of talent on the Lions, they have more than one game changing player. The Packers dont really have any.
As for the Super Bowl officials, name me one bad call that actually changed the game? The push-off? it was a push off even if it is rarely called. The holding call? was ticky tacky but was still holding. or the goal line touchdown challenge? would have gotten it on 4th and 1 inch. Bottom line, the bad calls swing both ways. Every team withstands them now and then, just look at the Steelers in the Indianapolis game. If you are looking for someone to blame look at The TE Stevens who dropped how many passes? or Hasselback who made the bad throws. You might as well jump on the Steeler bandwagon now. Otherwise its gonna run your ass over......
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (manofsteel)</div><div class='quotemain'>Losing both the superbowl and one of the best offensive lineman in the game does not add up to a number one ranking in my book. As a side note...the Lions are on their way up and the Packers are on their way down, cant really argue that. I see a ton of talent on the Lions, they have more than one game changing player. The Packers dont really have any.</div> Seatle acquired Burleson (a legit #1 WR for them), Julian Peterson & retained S. Alexander. Lions have potential as of now but they also have Mike Martz.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (manofsteel)</div><div class='quotemain'>As for the Super Bowl officials, name me one bad call that actually changed the game? The push-off? it was a push off even if it is rarely called. The holding call? was ticky tacky but was still holding. or the goal line touchdown challenge? would have gotten it on 4th and 1 inch. Bottom line, the bad calls swing both ways.</div> I agree the Seahaws did not step up. As I mentioned, it wasn't the calls rather the timing IMO. This is a real old argument and hardly worth rehashing. Its history. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (manofsteel)</div><div class='quotemain'>You might as well jump on the Steeler bandwagon now. Otherwise its gonna run your ass over......</div> Whoa, chuckles! Lets try and get through the offseason w/o any more legal or traffic incidents. Then, we'll see if you are singing the same song on 9/8. After all, Bronco fans were quite confident this time last year.
I can't figure out how they managed to rank the Broncos higher than the Patriots. How many times do the Pats have to lose to the Broncos before they realize that the Patriots are the better team?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>I can't figure out how they managed to rank the Broncos higher than the Patriots. How many times do the Pats have to lose to the Broncos before they realize that the Patriots are the better team?</div> ZING!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (manofsteel)</div><div class='quotemain'>Losing both the superbowl and one of the best offensive lineman in the game does not add up to a number one ranking in my book. As a side note...the Lions are on their way up and the Packers are on their way down, cant really argue that. I see a ton of talent on the Lions, they have more than one game changing player. The Packers dont really have any.</div> Seatle acquired Burleson (a legit #1 WR for them), Julian Peterson & retained S. Alexander. Lions have potential as of now but they also have Mike Martz.</div> Doesn't help that Big Ben got hurt. IMO I would put them at #4. I'd probably put the Colts #1 with Seattle #2. Carolina #3 and Pitt #4. Denver is too high. Lions don't have much talent. GB has more. Lions have high draft picks, not talent.
Putting seahawks at #1 isnt even controversial. They are a good team, and his goal isnt to predict who won the title LAST SEASON but who will be the best this season based on where they are at now. It isnt that big of a reach to choose the seahawks. Pittsburgh in all reality wont repeat. They werent the best team last year. Arent the best team this year, and probably arent worthy of even a #2 ranking.
how do the NFC champs go down to 3 of 4 of their divisional teams, after they fill every hole. these guys are idiots, TO bandwagon ver 3.0, I hope he blows out his knee.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Putting seahawks at #1 isnt even controversial. They are a good team, and his goal isnt to predict who won the title LAST SEASON but who will be the best this season based on where they are at now. It isnt that big of a reach to choose the seahawks. Pittsburgh in all reality wont repeat. They werent the best team last year. Arent the best team this year, and probably arent worthy of even a #2 ranking.</div> Haven't we had this discussion before about the "best teams"? Pittsburgh won the Superbowl being the best team in the league. As for a repeat, they've got as good of a chance of winning it as any of the top 10 teams do. Now you're just being silly and trying to get the new Steeler fan's blood pressure up... The only thing you're really right about is that it's not controversial.... they can pick whoever they want... besides, 3 of the seven writers did pick Pittsburgh, so it's not like it wasn't considered.
I have to agree with SF. The Seahawks would have to lose to the Steelers again before I would consider the Seahawks a better team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>I have to agree with SF. The Seahawks would have to lose to the Steelers again before I would consider the Seahawks a better team.</div> So, same deal as Broncos and Pats. Eh?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>I have to agree with SF. The Seahawks would have to lose to the Steelers again before I would consider the Seahawks a better team.</div> So, same deal as Broncos and Pats. Eh?</div> What are you talking about. The Pats are still the better team. Denver can beat New England all they want but New England is still a better team. It is the will of Football Gods.
