"Neither quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger or Matt Hasselbeck, was much good. Oh, they made plays every now and then, but there was no consistency to their game. Neither one of them could get the ball to go where they wanted it to go. You were just as likely to see an interception in a big moment as a turnover."

Wow. This guy mocks Madden for losing it as he gets older. Hey pot meet kettle.

Hasselbeck played his arse off out there. Other then playing safety and punting I don't know what else Matt could have done to help win the bag.

Just a ridiculously absurd comment lumping Matt in with Ben.

Actually, I think this is where "galactically stupid" applies.......

To be fair, Matt played badly in a different way than Ben. He was awful on the two-minute drill. I mean come on, especially at the end of the first half when he spent 25 seconds audibling when they only had 48 seconds left to begin with?

Of course I think Ben played worse but both quarterbacks did not play on a Super Bowl level

I was a little disappointed he didn't talk about the holding penalty, seeing as how he closely watches the line. Perhaps in a later mailbag.

Other than the comment against Captain Hasselbeck, I think his analysis is sport on. Hasselbeck had maybe 4 bad throws?

Of course the Hasselbeck hater club will tout all of the drops as incompletions.

This was the worst SB for both King and DR. Z? Did SI cut back on expense accounts?

Let's put the blame for this game where it belongs - the bye week. Both teams looked tight for much of the beginning of the game. The two weeks is a killer - the media runs around creating fake hype, the players have a hard time losing focus. It's time to end this once and for all.

I think the 2 week break is good, in that it allows injured players a better chance to play in the game. It's (generally) a better game if more starters are playing. For example, last year's superbowl was better as a result of having TO play and he probably needed the extra week.

Whether the Steelers and Seahawks would have played better with 1 week off is speculation. There's no way to tell if that's true or not.

This column gives me the feeling that Dr. Z really did not care about the game or that article.

As for #1, Hasselbeck did not play well at all. He botched the end of both halves, had that horrible interception, and I remember a couple of the drops being the result of inaccurate passes. He looked good by comparison to Roethlisberger but compared to how Hasselbeck has played all season this game was not played well at all.

#6: this makes me oddly giddy.

As a Seahawks fan, this looked a lot more like a 2004 vintage Hasselbeck than the current year's model. Yeah, some of it could be that his best long throws were called back by penalties, and some Stevens drops, but he didn't play with the same rhythm that he has this year. He wasn't good. It wasn't his worst game, but it was his worst game in a while. Remember that five of his completions were out routes to Jackson to set up things that he was never able to really take advantage of. And the double audibles in the two minute offense were *horrible*.

It's funny that this superbowl is getting the "worst ever" title, especially considering how well it did ratings wise. I think it was the highest rated since 2000. In a sense it goes to show you how biased the media is. Maybe its East Coast bias or being Pat's homers, but it seems that they are just acting like the Pat's in the Superbowl are the only one's worth watching.

Let me guess this straight. The man throws 49 passes (one picked, one should have been), has a myriad of drops, has a receiver not manage his position relative to the sideline, throws on the run, runs for first downs, and because of a few minutes of the game where things are not as fluid as fans would like Hasselbeck is termed "mediocre" or "not good"?

Folks, that is just a ridiculously unfair standard.

In the biggest game of the year against a defense with a sterling reputation Hasselbeck REPEATEDLY put the ball where his guy could make a play. Too many of his guys did NOT.

The two minute stuff was a group meltdown. To pin that all on Hasselbeck is just wrong. Holmgren has the rep of being an offensive genius and his QB a tool of said artistry. To then dump all the blame on the instrument instead of the guy wielding the tool is pretty bizarre.

"Um, Doctor, you just plunged the scalpel into his femoral artery."

"Ah, stupid scalpel. What did you do that for?"

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh coaching staff was so enthralled with their QB they refused to let him throw a pass beyond the line of scrimmage in the 4th quarter. Why? Because previously he had tossed a hideous interception that sabotaged a scoring drive. And before that his receivers were having to either scrape the ball off the ground or contort themselves like Houdini to catch his errant passes.

Good grief. Matt was heroic. To think otherwise defies understanding.

Whoa there NFCCF, maybe "heroic" is going a little overboard. I'm not saying Hasselbeck had a bad game, he definitely played pretty well, certainly well enough to win if he hadn't been let down by the refs and his receivers.

But compare how he played in this game with the NFCCG. Clearly that was a very good game, even by Hasselbeck's pretty high standards, but this game was more than just a small step down from that level of play. Hasselbeck can and has played much better than he did in the SB.

#6: Does that mean all the arguing about officiating can move to that thread and we can actually talk about what the other 22 guys on the field did?

ABW:

Well, the coaching staff wasn't calling Alexander's number nearly enough. So it wasn't the MVP moving the team up and down the field.

And it wasn't the number one receiver doing anything of note after the first quarter except forgetting where the sideline was located.

I could have sworn it was somebody making plays while others did not. Thought it was the bald-headed dude.

Guess my old eyes deceive me.

Y'all are getting downright ridiculous. The ref s*cks, the punter stinks, the running backs were dreadful, blah, blah, blah.

You know, it's entirely possible that SOMEBODY played pretty well when the walls were crashing down around this Super Bowl.

I happen to think it was the QB for the Seahawks.

This wasn't Hasselbeck's best game, but this stuff often comes from momentum, at least with Seattle, and we simply couldn't get any momentum. When the passes were made, they were often dropped. When the passes were caught, they were called back. Whether the penalties are valid or not, he wasn't in the end zone with DJ, and he wasn't lining up next to Locklear. He did make the block on the interception, but whatever, call it a mulligan. If he pulls up, he's getting trampled, and it's going back for a TD, so I'll take that, too.

It's hard to have a good game when your tight end keeps dropping first down catches on third down.

Re #4 This was the worst SB for both King and DR. Z?

From the LEAD sentence of the article:
The people who called this Super Bowl the worst ever have short memories. Super Bowl V, for instance...

Later...
So I'm not saying this Seattle-Pittsburgh thing was the worst of all time. Among the worst five, maybe, but after covering, live, all but the first Super Bowl, I can honestly say this was the one I disliked the most.

Most disliked worst

I grew up a Colts fan - until they abandoned Baltimore - and thoroughly enjoyed them winning, over "America's Team" no less. And it WAS the worst SB ever. (IMO, and I've watched'em all except the PIT-DAL one some people say was the best.) Not only was it bad - the Colts got a TD on a disputed call (google Mel Renfro rule or look at the link I posted an this site last week on rules named after players). Unitas played one of the worst SB's ever (right, Aaron?). Morrall was no better. And you know what: it doesn't matter a bit. I'm still thrilled the Colts won.

Sorry used html symbols by ignorance: should read "most disliked" does not equal "worst"

Actually, I thought FO's stats summed up Hasselbeck's passing performance pretty well: 1.5 points above replacement.

#20,

DPAR didn't account for drops by Stevens, or Darrell Jackson losing track of where he was, I don't think.

An interesting thing i saw in this article was about Craig Morton tanking SB XII, not the first time I have heard this.

I met a high roller at a sports book in Vegas years ago who told me that Morton tanked the game. This guy said he made a lot of money on it. BTW this guy was laying a 10k bet on the point spread for the 2nd half of a game when I talked to him, to show how big of a player he was.

putnamp:

At least one of Jackson's out of bounds catches was at least partly Hasselbeck's fault - the ball was only catchable out of bounds.

Pat, true but the 1st one should have been a TD. Jackson seems to have a lack of respect for the sideline. Twice this year he was called for an illegal touch after going out of bounds unassisted and coming back in to make a catch.

I'd like to say that if there is only one thing to like about this Super Bowl, it was the Randle El Pass. Who else thinks that play was a sort of vindication of his entire career up to this point? It was also the mother of all playoff football trick plays.

I agree, the trick play was sweet, and especially so considering that Randle El appeared to have been broken in half earlier in the game. I don't know about vindicating his career, but it was a great play.

Also agreed with putnamp and others that Jackson should have gotten both feet in bounds on the "pylon" catch. IMO, Jackson played a big part in Seattle's poor performance on offense - he just wasn't into the game. That happens sometimes with Jackson.

During one of the plays late in the 4th, when Hasselbeck was frantically directing the final, doomed drive, Jackson can be seen jogging leisurely back to the line of scrimmage - from the defense's side - and arriving a couple of seconds after everyone else is set. You could tell right there he'd given up on the game, and as a Seahawk fan that really pissed me off.

As far as Hasselbeck is concerned, he undoubtedly left it all out on the field, and played more than well enough to win. It was a drop in performance from what he'd done from December on, but when the egregious drops and penalties are factored out, it was still a very solid game. But he tried to do too much . Part of this is on him - he's improving, but still gets too excited when the pressure is really on - and part on Holmgren, who once again failed to pound the ball with Alexander in the 3rd and early 4th.

RE: 26

I think Randle El definatly deserved some bad-ass points for that. Broken in half was a great way to put what happened. Tough little dude.

Let's not forget that Randle El ran all the way back across the field to tackle Kelly Herndon on the INT --- almost Ben Watson-like hustle.

Hasselbeck played pretty well, I thought. Dr. Z is right though that LeBeau came up with looks that clearly frustrated Hasselbeck and the Seattle passing offense after the 1st quarter --- how many series did they end with idiotic long throws that had zero chance of completion? Merril Hoge mentioned something like Hasselbeck and the Seattle offense are poor on deep routes, and he was confused why Seattle was calling so many. Part of this was Holmgren, and part of it LeBeau, but Hasselbeck also failed to convert a lot of these with his inability to throw accurately downfield.

#27 - Stupid is what I'd call it...Randel El unnecessarily did a somersault on that return, and paid the price for his idiocy.

Hasselbeck didn't have a horrible game. But at the same time it wasn't close to 'heroic'. It was okay, but an 'okay' game in the Superbowl is below expectations. I remember Hasselbeck missing open recievers, especially on long passes. It wasn't ALL his fault, but some of it was. Yeah he was good in comparison to Roethisberger, but he didn't exactly look elite either.

#26,

From the perspective that it was the perfect storm (3rd-string safety covering Ward.. how that happens in the first place, I don't know), yeah, it really was a beautiful play.

From the perspective of a Seattle fan who swears to his dying breath that Hamlin or even Manuel wouldn't have bit on that, it seriously sucked. Of course, the truth for us bitter Seattle fans is that that play may not get called at that point if Pruitt isn't in. Or, even more distressing, is the possibility that Hamlin or Manuel still would've bit on it.

i agree with harry (#5). the bye week really is unnecessary. the players looked tight, and the game had little flow to it, though you could attribute this to the defense. also, the refs missed two other calls. first, stevens caught a pass, turned around, took two or three steps, and it was ruled incomplete. also, rothlisberger was clearly blocked in the back during the interception return. a bad pass, and a poorly officiated game.

Putnamp, don't get me wrong. That play brought back the exact same sinking feeling of every Bierria Special from 2004. (Same for the 3rd and forever completion.) I also agree with you that no way Manuel bites on the fake. I truly believe had he not been injured, Seattle would have won the game handily - the drop-off to Pruitt was that big.

But from the perspective of a football fan, it was a sweet play: a perfectly executed fake, and a beautifully thrown pass by a player who came back from a devastating hit earlier in the game.

underthebus, high ratings don't necessarily have anything to do with game quality, and I certainly don't think the comments about quality of play reflect media bias. I can understand Steelers or Seahawks fans enjoying it, but it certainly wasn't the best football I've seen all season.

I hate-hate-hate the off week, just like I dislike the extra off days during the NBA Finals (where it seems like they play once every 4 or 5 days). The hype reaches an excruciating level after a few days and drags on after that. In retrospect, a Giants-Colts Super Bowl likely would have stopped the world from spinning:

"Day 6 of A House Divided: Two Weeks with the Mannings. As reported previously, the cat is still rooting for the Colts, although we see the dog is starting to edge toward the Giants. The house plant remains neutral."

Of course, it's not nearly as bad as the time between the conference championships and the BCS title game. I don't know how you can make a better argument for a playoff than by shoving four weeks of Texas-USC down our throats. That game was interesting to watch, but for the most part, as defensively inept as this Super Bowl was offensively.

I can't even imagine having my favorite teams exhaustively reviewed for two or four weeks, and no, I don't mean because the Lions will never win an NFC title game ...

Jake Brake:

It is telling that the only thing I ever remember Pruitt for is being called for Special Teams penalties during the playoffs.

Hey, let's start a thread comparing Hassleback to Brady and Manning!
And as a Pats fan, I'm worried that having Tommy at the coin flip has jinxed us for 2006 and beyond. That was awful.
The high rating mean that a lot of people tuned in, not that a lot of people liked what they saw. It was a completely mediocre game between two teams that didn't play very well. SB 38 wasn't very well played either, but it has a scoring frenzy and a dramatic ending. SB 34 was an awful game, but it was close. This was a bad game that was over when the Seahawks punted with 6 minutes left.

I was surprised that Dr. Z didn't praise and enjoy what I thought were two good defensive performance.

Part of it was sluggishness and jitters from the two week layoff, part of it was poor execution on offense, but I thought both defenses played a physical, discplined game. I thought Z would appreciate that more. Maybe it was that the defensive performances weren't really specacular: the game wasn't full of turnovers and sacks, just good coverage, good tackling, and very sound run defense by both teams.

I hope this isn't a representation of superbowls to come.. perhaps the salary cap will mean that the best teams we see in the superbowl are mediocre at best.
I guess that was the advantage of dynasties, without salary caps. Sure, it didn't do much for parity, but man were those teams good!

“Day 6 of A House Divided: Two Weeks with the Mannings. As reported previously, the cat is still rooting for the Colts, although we see the dog is starting to edge toward the Giants. The house plant remains neutral.�

People at work are now wondering why I have coffee all over my monitor and keyboard. Classic. :D

On the extra week:

From a hype point of view, I agree it's painful. However, I think it's good for the quality of the Super Bowl game and the championship games. For one, it allows injured players time to heal and full-strength teams make for a better game. For instance, for slight injuries, you could play someone in both the championship game, knowing that the player has an extra week to heal for the SB. With only 1 week, you may have to trade off playing in one or the other.

Also, it means that teams aren't stuck making logistical arrangements for the SB during the week of the championship games. One of the ESPN news guys (a former player, can't remember his name. Allen?) commented that potential SB arrangements took about half their time the week before the championship game. An extra week allows players sufficient time to prepare for both games. Yeah, it's more than in the regular season, but it's the biggest game of the season, so I have no problem allowing them extra time to sort out their family travel situations, etc.

I've heard the argument that the extra week is historically supposed to mean more blowouts, but I'm not sure that maximally distracting the teams/players for not just one, but two games necessarily results in higher quality competition.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of a team that I think has made very productive use of the extra time.

Putnamp - yeah, exactly. I follow the Seattle waiver wire acqusitions pretty closely, so was familiar with Pruitt's background beforehand. When I started hearing his name being called on the defensive side and not just on ST, my heart sank. He's a decent backup, but not on that stage, and with that little preparation.

Seriously, if one single factor (aside from the refs, of course) can be cited as the reason for Seattle's losing the game, a strong argument can be made for the Manuel injury. Pitt's offense never got rolling with any consistency until after he went out, and he'd done an excellent job at nullifying the big plays and providing solid coverage support ever since replacing Hamlin. With both him and Hamlin back next year, Seattle's depth at safety is looking good.