POLL: NFL - Contender or Pretender?

Remove all ads!

I didn't say anything because you would have laughed at me. You said it yourself that noone else expected the Steelers to get to the Super Bowl, and I wasn't exactly up for the ridicule, especially after what you said when I picked the Vikings as a wild card back at the beginning of the season. So you'll have to excuse me if I didn't speak up.

 

But aren't there just as many people who are Seahawks fans? If it was just based on fan interest, there should be just as many people pulling the other way. Granted, I don't know of any Seahawks fans beyond you, T2B, but I live on the east coast. I imagine in the pacific northwest, pretty much everyone who follows football is a Seahawks fan.

I would also hazard a guess that the number of people who live in and around the Seattle area far out-number the people living in and around the Pittsburgh area, and thus it is highly likely the Seahawks have a larger fan base. I say this because there is in-state competition for football in Pennsylvania (the Eagles) as well as every neighboring state having one or more teams. Ohio has the Bengals and Browns. Maryland has the Ravens (and if you want to count DC, the Redskins). New York has the Giants (technically New Jersey), Jets (again technically New Jersey), and Bills. With the Seahawks on the other hand, not only are they the only game in town when looking at the state of Washington, but there's no pro team in Oregon, Idaho, or northern California either. I mean the next closest team is what - San Francisco?

Yes, the Steelers have played exceedingly well the last few weeks, but the Seahawks also won in convincing fashion - so it seems like that can't be the whole of it either.

I agree on the silliness of using the term "we" when refering to your favorite team. I agree with you that if you don't play for them, work for them or are in some way tied to the team beyond a rooting interest, there's no reason to use "we". That having been said, with the Packers being owned by the city of Green Bay, I guess it's OK for them to say "we" - they own the team.

EDIT:

Oh, that was you? Sorry about that.

I wasn't really making fun of you regarding the Steelers comment either. I just thought you were claiming that you had publicly announced that you had them picked from the start, which would have been total bs. I can't claim to know what you thought of course, and if that's who you thought would go to the Super Bowl, then good for you.

 

I think that due to the Steelers run of Super Bowls in the 70's and the legends of Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swan, "Mean" Joe Green etc...they tend to have a nationwide fan base, probably third in popularity to the Dallas Cowboys and the San Francisco Forty Niners. Although the metropolitan Seattle population is larger than the Pittsburgh area, it hasn't always supported the Seahawks. There have been years when the Seahawks have played second fiddle to the Washington Huskies or the Washington State Cougars. All things considered, I'd think the Steelers have significantly more fans...fans who have a reputation of travelling with the team. I have a feeling that Detriot will almost look like a home game for the Steeluz...lots of yellow terrible towels.

Congrats to you and your Steelers, AFI. They looked awesome against the Broncos, especially in the first half. Big Ben has shaped up to be one of the finest quarterbacks in the league, and he's still developing.

I have a feeling that the Super Bowl may not be much of a contest. It's hard to judge the Seahawks because we can't really tell the quality of their opponents. They played the AFC South this season with victories over the Texans and Titans (hardly powerhouses) and a loss to the Jaquars (they're only quality AFC opponent)...I can't really count the game against Indy. If you extrapolate out the loss to the Jags, then factor in that the Jags where spanked by the Pats, who in turn were spanked by the Broncos, who in turn were spanked by the Steelers...that's a lot of cumulative spankings.

I just hope for a good game that survives the hype...and that they don't take any close-ups of Keith Richard during the halftime show. And there's always hope for some good, new commercials.

 

Pittsburg also lost to the Jaguars -- at home. Extrapolate that.

I didn't know any Seahawks fans when I lived in either Utah or Idaho. I have family in Oregon and they say there are not very many Seahawks fans around them either.

The fan base is small and fairly loyal. It took several consecutive losing seasons and a crumbling stadium to end the Kingdome's sell out streak -- which I believe was the second longest in NFL history (the longest was and is still the Redskins, every game played has been a sellout).

[ January 23, 2006, 23:07: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

OMG...I extrapolated and found out Jacksonville should be playing Jacksonville in the Super Bowl!!!!

 

I think that it will be a good game. Both teams won in convincing fashion throughout the playoffs, both teams like to run, although neither has shown it in the past couple of weeks, both can pass when necessary. The only differences are, I think, that the Seahawks have a better RB, and that Pittsburgh's defense is more solid.

As to amount of fans during the Superbowl fanbase becomse obsolete, or close to it. How many thousands do you think buy tickets to the Superbowl just because it IS the Superbowl.

and yes I concede that using "we" when talking about a pro team is stupid unless with the team, or working for them in a fashion, I slip it sometimes but most of the time I catch it.

 

I have a two word explanation as to why PittsburgH lost to the Jaguars - Tommy Maddox.

 

very true. Batch should have started over him after that first game.

 

Actually, one of the things that is being takled about now is how boring the Super Bowl will be. Based on what the media is saying, this Super Bowl will likely hold very little interest to people beyond the fans of the respective teams. As a long-time football fan, I find this concept surprising. I will grant that my interest in this Super Bowl is greater than in past years because the Steelers made it, but I don't see any reason why I wouldn't watch the Super Bowl if the Steelers were not involved.

The other argument I hear is that the Super Bowl matchup is anti-climatic. We were "supposed to" get Manning breaking through and finally winning the big game. Or conversely, we were "supposed to" see Tom Brady and the Patriots go for an unprecedented third straight Super Bowl victory. Neither of those things happen.

Instead we get the Steelers and Seahawks, and neither of those teams are as eye catching as the others I listed. The Steelers have a relatively small, but extremely loyal and well-traveled fan base. There are some that think this game will be virtually a home game for the Steelers, as Detroit is just a few hours away from Pittsburgh by car. Seattle, similarly has a relatively small and very loyal fan base, but they aren't nearly as well-traveled as the Steelers. Also, they don't get nearly the national coverage of other teams. I'm not saying that there is an east coast media bias (in the past, teams like the 49ers, Dallas, and Denver have gotten tons of press when their teams made the Super Bowl, and they can hardly be considered east coast), but perhaps a media bias exists against the Pacific Northwest. I'm a big football fan, and I can name exactly six members of the starting 22 of the Seahawks. That number is significantly smaller than what I can name for other teams.

 

@Aldeth: the same happened when Houston Rockets were champions in the NBA, no sport media seemed to care about it, and why? Because that team doesn't sell t-shirts and hats; same happened when Diamondbacks were champions in MLB, everyone expected the Yankees to win, because around the world, nobody buy D'backs shirts.

 

I bought a Diamondbacks shirt (I was at game 6...whould've given anything to have been at game 7).

I think the "football fan world" is still in a state of shock as we try to get our bearings. There's been a lot to soak in...

A post season that doesn't include the Colts...when we've been getting it pounded into our brain all season that this juggernaught of a team could run the table. I remember back in week 12 when Vegas was listing the Colts as a 10 point favorite against ANY NFC foe. It seemed like a lock...but it vaporized into nothing two weeks ago at the RCA dome (btw, is the roof of that thing a giant beach ball?).

A post season that doesn't include the Pats and Tom "Terrific". No chance to see a game winning Adam Vinatieri field goal. No third straight Super Bowl. No fourth in five years. No Bill Belichik keeping the same facial expression for 3 straight hours. No drunks on Boston Common...OK...there'll be drunks on Boston Common, regardless.

Face it...didn't you all think that the real Super Bowl was going to be the AFC Championship game between the those two titans?

There's no fabled NFC superpower. No Cowboys. No 49ers. No Eagles. No Vikings.

We've had a lot of illusions shattered as the playoffs unfolded. The Bears dominant defense was dominated. Plummer still can find ways to choke. One of the best young QB's in the game was gone in the first few minutes.

We don't seem to have any loud-mouth, angst ridden stars. There's no T.O. playing on a broken leg. There's no upstart braggart like Chad Johnson. There's no party boy like Jim McMahon. There's no "bad boy" like Michael Ervin. There's no superman like Joe Montana.

We've got a lot to accept in a relatively short period of time. Thank God for the bye week.

But I think as we get closer to the game the fans will begin to find things to get excited over. I think we're getting a chance to see one of the future elite QB's in the league hidden behind a scuffy beard. We're getting a chance to see the MVP of the league perform in the biggest game (roll tide). We're getting a chance to see two teams that are a captivating mix of veteran and youth. We're getting the chance to see one of the most electrifying young defensive backs in the game, and wonder if anyone will try to grab his hair if he's running back an interception. We're getting a chance to see a team who's NEVER been there before. We're getting a chance to see a veteran QB who's having the season of his career, and perhaps the season that'll define his career. We're getting a chance to see two teams who've gotten to this stage because that's exactly what they are...teams.

I think there's a lot to get excited over. We all just need to overcome our shock to be able to see it.

 

Some other story lines:

Bettis playing what is likely his final game in front of his home-town fans in Detroit.

Holmgren becoming the 3rd head coach to take 2 different teams to the super bowl, and having the chance to become just the 2nd head coach to win a Super Bowl with 2 different teams.

Cowher gets an opportunity to finally get a ring - he's been to the AFC title game 6 times in 14 years - a really impressive figure given parity, but he won't vaildate it without a SB win.

 

I'm going to take the points and Seattle. I may be crazy, but I think they have a shot to win the game.

 

@TGS - probably a smart straregy given the point spread. If the spread is under 7 points, it's usually only a good idea to take the points if you think the team getting the points can win the game outright. For spreads of 7 points or more, then it becomes more of a question of "can they keep it close"?

My reasoning here is simple: The smaller the point spread (and 3.5-4 is pretty small) the less of a chance you have of the winning score of the game falling within that point spread. A 4-point spread isn't enough for me to take a team if I only think they "can keep it close". You can play close and lose by more than 4. If I'm looking at only four points, the only way I'm taking them is if I believe the other team has a chance to win outright, and then the 4 points are a security blanket - just in case.

As an aside - we had the opposite situation in last year's game of Pats-Eagles. The Eagles were getting 7 points. Now it became a question of "Can the Eagles keep it close?" Given that the Patriots tend NOT to blow teams out (their first two SBs were both won by a field goal, and that trend continued in the 3rd SB), the 7 points was tempting.

 

I think it will be a nail biter to be honest. The two teams seem to be very evenly matched, and neither will have the edge since they didnt play each other during reg season.

 

I am so happy. Due to some reason, my cable company has cut the prices. well slashed it to pieces. Competition after two other systems got populair will do that. Live on NASN, that means they start at midnight here.

So the Steelers made it, after so many years. If they lose how will Bill Cowhur's face look the next morning. I think the pressure will get to them so they choke. Getting there is one thing, one goal, but that last step.

Thanks for the replies.

 

I think that this most likely Bettis' last game will give the team more intensity...Thats honestly the only reason I think that the Bronco's won the 'bowl back in Elways day...cuz they thought it was his last year.

 

I imagine Bill CowhEr will look just like he did when the Steelers lost to the Cowboys in Super Bowl XXX. He was the coach back then too. However, that year, the Cowboys were definitely the better team - not just that day, but pretty much the entire season. I think the Steelers gave them a better game than most people thought going in.

Yes, the Broncos certainly may have played with more intensity because of Elway. While they weren't positive it was going to be his last season (as it turned out he did play one more year in which they won another Super Bowl), they knew that time was running out, and that if this wasn't his last chance, there wouldn't be many more opportunities.

My personal opinion is that Bettis should hang them up after the Super Bowl, regardless of whether they win or lose. He is a certain Hall of Famer, and continuing to play on a part time basis will do nothing to further his credentials. Football is such a brutal game. There is a saying about when you should retire: "You can walk away now, or limp away later."

 

I read an interesting article on Yahoo.

Steelers Logo

It was interesting because I just couldn't believe that this reporter (and Steeler fans) did not know their logo was a corporate logo from the steel manufacturing industry -- the reporter sounded like it was news to him in the article. I always thought it was such a cool idea (I'd seen the US Steel logo when I was a kid).

Of course, even the most rabid fans do not seem to have an appreciation of their team's history. So many in Chicago do not know who the Decatur Staleys were or that the team in Arizona started in Chicago. In fact, the Decatur Staleys and Chicago Cardinals are the only two of the original professional football league that are still around (and are the two oldest teams in football).

Oh yeah -- Go Seahawks!

 

I did know that the emblem was from the steel industry, although I must admit that I was unfamiliar with all the details surrounding the story. For example, I didn't know that the first year they used it was 1962, nor what the emblem looked like before then, nor that the three different colors represented the materials used in making steel. The other unusual thing about the Steelers helmets is the logo is only on one side. All the other teams have symmetrical helmets with either the same symbol on both side (as they nearly always do) except in the rare cases where the helmet is devoid of any symbol (as is the case with the Cleveland Browns).