Like it was already mentioned in a post by motownsteeler, this game was not that bad of a game. Actually, I am extremely pleased with the outcome and components of the game.  Why? Because of the experience the offense gained from it. 

This offense is young, as evident that BB, 29, is the second oldest on the offense behind Ward. We just went and played a desperate, talented team whose strength is our weakness on the road in a hostile environment on primetime television. And won. It's not only the fact that we won that I'm pleased with, its the fashion. We have finally went on a drive that started on the 20 with 2 minutes remaining, soaked up the entire playclock and kicked the winning field goal with maybe 8 seconds left? Lets look at the games last year that we had potential GW drives.

Continue reading this post »

This is not a post about some Steeler fan who is terrified of Santonio Holmes making a remarkable game winning catch to beat the Steelers in either the regular season nor the playoffs. Although I am not doubting his ability, this is just a post about him actually returning to the Steelers. I mean, I don't think we exactly NEED him in our WR corps but the addition of him probably wouldn't hurt. I mean I read an article here on ESPN talking about Santonio not wanting his story to be called a redemption story or whatever. But I did notice that the jets players said he keeps to himself and doesn't talk much. That led me to recall I think LeMarr Woodley was doing something for the Jim Rome is Burning show and let cameras into the Steeler locker room back in '08 and you could see Santonio enjoying his teammates and having fun. The article on ESPN also stated he was less than excited about leaving pittsburgh and going to NY. So mix that with the fact that this is his last year of his contract, and he will be a free agent in 2011. So if he isn't all that happy in NY, which seems to be the case, he may be satisfied but not enjoying NY like he did Pittsburgh, am I crazy for thinking that there is a slight possibility that as a free agent we could re-sign him?

Keep in mind that yes he had an ego while he was here in Pittsburgh but then again so does Big Ben. I know BB is the franchise quarterback but it seems to me that trading holmes opened his eyes and this whole NY experience is making him realize that he needs to grow up and so far it looks like he has done that. So that being said, along with the fact that I know we don't NEED him, could a reunion still happen? Randle El came back...

I don't know about you but these fines levied against our own James Harrison are getting pretty ridiculous. I wish the Steelers organization would just pay for them to allow him to play how he wants but if they won't, I want to try. How many of yall would give up a $1 to see Harrison continue his fearless play against the hated Ravens and onward? Someone have an address to James Harrison's residence? I'd send him at least $1 and if enough people did he probably wouldn't care much about getting fined and would have the green light to knock out some of the Ravens this Sunday....not that he needs any extra cash but just thought I'd show Harrison that Steeler Nation got his back! Maybe I just need to sleep...I really can't wait for this game

For the third time we will be playing your Baltimore Ravens and hosting you guys for the second time. Both games were classic and we should be in for another treat come next Sunday.

Over the curent year I went from hating you guys, to feeling sorry for you guys, to hating you guys, to rooting for you guys, and I am back to hating you guys. BUT I will say I have grown some respect for you guys in this course.

BUT having said that, I have got to like our chances as that you will carry your rookie QB into TRUE hostile conditions. That LP Field is hardly hostile compared to the snowy frigid conditions Flacco will have to perform in at Heinz Field next Sunday. Throw in some injuries on some key players that I saw on Saturday and you guys might be in trouble. Any word on McClain, Suggs, and Reed? I heard they were all pretty hurt. Oh and I think an offensive lineman was hurt too?

But its tough beating a team three times and I know you and your team are fired up to get one last crack at us, probably to try and kill as many as players on our team as possible even if you can't win. But hey that's how these games go! I am happy it comes down to the AFC North to show the AFC how to play physical football, the way it is meant to be played!

Good Luck! and break a leg (one of your own, literally)!

P.S. Thanks for taking out the ten-teeth ignorant titans, even our worst enemy (you) have never sunk low enough to stomp on a (fake) terrible towel (at least during the game), and i appluad you guys on having the class not to and give thanks to you for knocking those punks out.

P.S.S. People claim Flacco is not a rookie anymore but he still is. Yeah he has played 18 games but look at BR performance in the AFC championship game and how he performed in the reg. season. But who knows maybe he can make history again? Not.

Sorry to be a little off topic from the upcoming game against the Chargers but I was just wondering what everyone's hate list is looking like right now. Does anyone have the chargers on their list? Right now this is my list:

Baltimore
Dallas
New England
Tennessee (you all should know why)
Jacksonville
Cleveland
Cincinatti (only because of 05)

Now I know I am leaving off some notables and some old classic rivals aren't as high but i just started watching the steelers in 95 so i'm not that old school guy. BUT i see that we are 0-2 against the chargers in the postseason......is that enough to be put on a hate list somewhere?

Sorry guys to keep talking about this touchdown but I just thought I would make this post to try and clear some things up. I know we need to focus on Tennessee now and that we still could have won the game even if the touchdown was overturned but I thought this would be a good post to clarify some of the ruling's that was made before the head official takes all the glory away from my hard work.

Now the official rulebook does not get too specific, it just says when a player is in bounds and catches the ball in possession while behind the opponents goal line. that it is deemed a touchdown. Now it does not get specific and say the ball does not have to cross the plane but it does not get specific and say it does either.

So in this case you must not assume that because the rule for a runner advancing the ball has to cross the goal line that the same rule applies.

Here is what the official rulebook says about scoring:

Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
(a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane); or
(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above,
or behind the opponents’ goal line.
(2) The Referee may award a touchdown when a palpably unfair act deprives the
offended team of one.
(3) For a foul after a touchdown (between downs), see 3-11-2-a and 14-5.

There is a reason why they separated the whole a vs. b matter is that they are showing that you can score in different ways, either a catch for a touchdown or advancing the ball for a touchdown.

These two different ways of scoring have two different rulings on what constitutes a score.

In section 2 article 1 it states that while inbounds any player catches the ball on or behind the
opponents’ goal line is a touchdown.

Now the subject at hand is the player because there is an action that the subject does, catches. So since the player is the subject at matter, the predicate is on or behind the opponents’ goal line. Since the ball is not the subject the predicate does not apply to the ball but instead the subject which is the player. The ball cannot be the subject because the player is doing something to the ball (catching, the verb)

Ask who or what the sentence is about.

Find the main person or thing in the sentence.

The subject is usually a noun (a person, place or thing) or pronoun (words like he, she or they that take the place of a noun).

The subject is usually at the beginning of a sentence, before the verb.

There may be more than one subject in a sentence.

The subject can never be the object of a preposition, words like with, from, under, over, and of.

They made it a point to specify what the ball has to do in part a because the ball in its sentence was a subject. when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane);

there is a reason why they specified in this situation and not the b situation. That is because it does not matter where the ball is in the b scenario, as long as while inbounds any player catches the ball on or behind the opponents’ goal line.

Now the rule book is very particular in its meaning and will specify what it means in all situations so nobody is left to assume anything, therefore you cannot assume that rule a is still in effect onto rule b because the rule book would say it is. The rule book does not state that the ball must cross the plane if the player is in bounds and catches the ball with possession in the end zone so therefore the ball does not have to cross the plane if the ball is caught by a player who is in bounds and in the end zone.

If the ball needed to break the plane in order for the touchdown to count,

1. the rulebook would state so in the event of a catch but it didn't. It could have easily done the same as rule a, and say (b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line; and the ball touches or crosses the opponents' goal line at some point during the possession of the receiver. But it didn't. There is no room for assumption as then that would defeat the purpose of the rulebook, and lead to a reforming of the rule book (which may happen if somehow the NFL apologizes and say that they got the call wrong).

2. the head official at the game would have stated that the ball broke the plane and it was a touchdown. He did not mention the ball breaking the plane at all but explained that Santonio got two feet in the end zone, with possession of the ball all the way through his fall. So ball crossing the plane is obviously not a factor.

3. Mike Pereira has confirmed from a source, an ESPN NFL analyst, has confirmed that the right call was made and that it was indeed a touchdown and will explain in Wednesday's edition of NFL Official Review.

Also when people think of indisputable evidence, they automatically assume that means that if you ask 20 people that most if not all of them will agree with you. In this case that is not what it means as it means that there is no question, in the mind of the head referee's view and opinion that there is evidence that suggests against the call on the field. The referee isn't thinking what other people will think but thinks to himself if it is indisputable evidence to show that they call on the field was wrong, and he obviously thinks there was indisputable evidence as he still backed up his decision later in an interview with ESPN. I am amazed that all of these commentators and analysts fail to see this rule but I guess it is the same as the tuck rule in that, nobody really looked into the rule until a situation happens like this. So as much as I hate the patriots, the right call was made in that dreadful playoff game vs. Oakland. and I really hate NE.

Some of you guys (steelguy) will probably disagree but this is my take on the whole matter and appears to be Mike Pereira's take also. I may be wrong but so far what I have found in the official rulebook has made sense and cleared things up for myself and hopefully will clear things up for you.

Sources used:

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006%20NFL%20RULEBOOK.pdf

http://www.harpercollege.edu/writ_ctr/ident_sv.htm

This is my first post so sorry if it is not very 'authentic' but I am in a little bit of hurry as I would like some sleep tonight but I can't stop rejoicing on today's win. But a question still remains in my head.

Which one is better? #1 or #2 seed?

If you look at past statistics, the #1 seed in the AFC rarely wins the SB if they even GET there. Only twice since 1990 has the top seeds won the superbowl. 1998 Broncos and 2003 patiots. Since then only 7/18 of the top seeds gotten past the 1st game, the divisional round.

We all know that the Steelers recently have never reached the Superbowl holding the #1 seed failing numerous times in our own backyard, no need to visualize those horrifying years.

BUT this has been a year of ending streaks AND we are in a new era, the Mike Tomlin era.

SO do we want the #1 seed and take the challenge of winning it all with a bullseye on our back, OR try to get the #2 seed and take care of business without worrying about history against us?

What do YOU think?

(of course i am not insuating that we should try to lose to Tennessee next week, just seeing what you guys think which seed is better or if it matters)