justcoz

"That's the way [the officials] called them," Hasselbeck continued. "The Steelers played well enough to win tonight, and we didn't. They should get credit. It's disappointing, it's hard, but what are you going to do?"

I didn't have to type a one page paper to justify the win but rather you being blind to the fact that some bad calls didn't cost Seattle this game, Seattle cost themselves this game. Nice cheap heat desperation with the Pittsburgh teams don't win very often comment but it sounds pretty ridiculous when they just won their fifth Super Bowl. And may I refer you to the Penguins of the 90's, the Pirates of the 60's and 70's, Bruno Sammartino and freakin' Kurt Angle.

Yes, there were some horrible calls in that game....but the fact is that, after all these bad calls, Seattle was only down 14-10 at the start of the 4th quarter and had a whole 15 minutes to score just once to take the lead, but they played like shit and got nothing. Seattle lost that game, no one else lost it for them. I don't disagree with you, but the phantom hold that took back a play that would have got the ball at the Pittsburgh 2 happened in the 4th quarter if I remember correctly. Hasselbeck promptly threw a pick a couple of plays later on 3rd and long. If Seattle scores and goes up 17-14, or even kicks a field goal it's a one possession game. In any case, Seattle didn't deserve to win, but then again neither did Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh deserved to win because they successfully made the big plays that win football games. They showed more character. Seattle had some bad breaks (although overexaggerated by some here) but if they made the two field goals, caught passes in bounds, didn't drop passes, managed the clock better and had better play calling, they could've won too. They didn't. Pittsburgh didn't let opportunities escape them despite a sub par performance overall. its hard to let opportunities escape when u are handed a 21 pt swing and ya opponent had 161 yards taking away in penalties and callbacks Wow. Let me ask you this. If Pittsburgh overcame bad officiating in Indy to win, why couldn't Seattle??? My answer. Pittsburgh played their best football against Indy and Seattle didn't play their best against Pittsburgh. This is the reason they lost the game. How many times does someone have to call attention to the missed field goals, dropped passes, no running game, routine punts into the endzone when they could have pinned a struggling Steelers offense deep in their own territory and just overall terrible coaching and clock management? The Steelers didn't play great football but those big plays that the offense executed won the game and their defense didn't blow big plays like the Parker run and the Randel El - Ward reverse. And where are you coming up with Pittsburgh being handed 21 points? 14 of those 21 Pittsburgh points were because Seattle's defense dropped the ball on coverages, had nothing to do with officiating. A 75 yard running play that had they watched the tapes they would have seen Parker break against Cleveland I believe. A reverse pass using Randel El with Hines off to himself that they pretty much ran fairly similar in the Cinci playoff game. And Cowher would have likely went for the seven on the fourth and inches whether the Ben TD was called back or not so that likely would have been another a TD. I would have preferred a Steeler victory where there were no blown calls and no excuses. The NFL has a problem with their officiating and it needs to be addressed and taken care of, no argument from me there. Turning a blind eye to what really cost Seattle this game will get an argument from me. the OPI on Jackson=7 pts holding on Locklear=possible 7pts Roethlisberger TD=7 pts and im not even mentioning the horse collar..the 15 yd penalty on Hasselbeck for 'blocking' that set up the Randle El pass..the horrible spot on the Mack Strong run...the 34 yard punt return called back, etc every single questionable call went against Seattle..if it were just bad refs...there woulda been bad calls both ways..this deserves federal investigation..seriously....I remember listening to Jay and Michelle on 97.1 last week and a brother of a ref said that the NFL wanted the Steelers to win...they hung up on him..he doesnt look so crazy today the OPI on Jackson=7 pts: the right call, he pushed him off holding on Locklear=possible 7pts: possible being the key word, could have easily been three Roethlisberger TD=7 pts: and had the call been reversed, it would have either been 3 points or a fairly easy QB sneak or Bettis push over the goal line for 7 the 15 yd penalty on Hasselbeck for 'blocking' that set up the Randle El pass: The interception set up the Randle El pass, the block gave them better field position but so would 15 yds accumulated with some run or passing plays. not to mention that Hines was open by about ten yards. I remember listening to Jay and Michelle on 97.1 last week and a brother of a ref said that the NFL wanted the Steelers to win...they hung up on him..he doesnt look so crazy today: Yes, the league officials made sure that Josh Brown couldn't make two field goal attempts, Shaun Alexander's presence amounted to nothing (i was shocked to see he had 95 yds total rushing), four punts went for touchbacks, big pass plays were dropped and the Hawks couldn't get their offensive play calling together to get some additional points at the end of the first half or at the end of the 4th quarter. Jackson did not push off...yes he placed his hands on the guy but they were touching each other the whole route...the corner didnt budge and it was a ticky tack call at best and no way Cowher would have tried that trick play at his own 28...starting at the 43 instead made it much easier...and what makes u think ben or bettis would have gotten in from the 1 when seattle stopped them 3 times earlier?...it would have been 4th and goal....the seahawks had 1st and goal from the 2...big difference..my main point is that...sure Seattle could have overcome the descrepancy...but why would they have to?...the game is at travesty on every level and it fucked up the legitimacy of the NFL in my eyes You just said that Jackson placed his hands on the guy. That's interference. Cowher wouldn't have tried that trick play on his own 28 but what makes you think they wouldn't have got the ball down to 43 and then tried the trick play? Better yet, had that Seattle fumble not been overturned (how dare those officials keep Seattle in the game), Pittsburgh would have had the ball in Seattle territory and they could have run the trick play then or scored an additional seven points which probably still wouldn't shut you and the other 'we were robbed' people up. How do I know that Pittsburgh would have got in on 4th and goal? I've watched them do it in the pass, whether it was Ben, Bettis, Staley or freakin' Kordell Stewart. I'm thinking Cowher would have played it safe and went for three though but if you can play this, "well, if that didn't happen, this would've happened' game, I can too. You are assmuming that Ben wouldn't have got a TD on 4th down, they wouldn't have scored seven points if Pittsburgh didn't get fifteen yards on the chop block and Seattle's offense could have easily got seven on three downs within the 2yd line had it not been for that holding call. But Pittsburgh did make the big plays and Seattle did make the mistakes they made outside of the questionable officiating. How about this, if Seattle would have made the same big plays that Pittsburgh made, had competency on all levels of their play from their receivers, kicker, special teams, etc. they would have STILL won the game even with questionable calls. You say, why did they have to, they had it won but those biased officials! Because it's football. It's the NFL and the officials are morons for the most part. Why did Pittsburgh have to play so hard in Indianapolis when they outplayed them the entire game? The NFL officials are bad. No doubt about it. But the Seahawks lost this game because they imploded and made too many mistakes, penalties are mistakes too. The refs made some mistakes but not as many as the Seahawks who had every opportunity to win this game and couldn't. I could sit here and say that Pittsburgh's offense wouldn't have had such a terrible start had those lousy officials not called false starts on their first possession. I could put it in slo-mo and analyze whether someone on the defensive line motioned or if Heath Miller had a muscle spasm that looked like a movement when it wasn't. I could speculate that had that call not been called Ben would have connected 80 yards for a TD to Hines Ward. I could replay the Seattle fumble and argue that Pittsburgh's defender barely grazed his shirt and that he wasn't down by contact, just as you do with the OPI call. But as a Steeler fan, I don't have to do that because Pittsburgh didn't f*ck up despite not performing at the level they should've. Seattle did.

Yes, there were some horrible calls in that game....but the fact is that, after all these bad calls, Seattle was only down 14-10 at the start of the 4th quarter and had a whole 15 minutes to score just once to take the lead, but they played like shit and got nothing. Seattle lost that game, no one else lost it for them. I don't disagree with you, but the phantom hold that took back a play that would have got the ball at the Pittsburgh 2 happened in the 4th quarter if I remember correctly. Hasselbeck promptly threw a pick a couple of plays later on 3rd and long. If Seattle scores and goes up 17-14, or even kicks a field goal it's a one possession game. In any case, Seattle didn't deserve to win, but then again neither did Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh deserved to win because they successfully made the big plays that win football games. They showed more character. Seattle had some bad breaks (although overexaggerated by some here) but if they made the two field goals, caught passes in bounds, didn't drop passes, managed the clock better and had better play calling, they could've won too. They didn't. Pittsburgh didn't let opportunities escape them despite a sub par performance overall. its hard to let opportunities escape when u are handed a 21 pt swing and ya opponent had 161 yards taking away in penalties and callbacks Wow. Let me ask you this. If Pittsburgh overcame bad officiating in Indy to win, why couldn't Seattle??? My answer. Pittsburgh played their best football against Indy and Seattle didn't play their best against Pittsburgh. This is the reason they lost the game. How many times does someone have to call attention to the missed field goals, dropped passes, no running game, routine punts into the endzone when they could have pinned a struggling Steelers offense deep in their own territory and just overall terrible coaching and clock management? The Steelers didn't play great football but those big plays that the offense executed won the game and their defense didn't blow big plays like the Parker run and the Randel El - Ward reverse. And where are you coming up with Pittsburgh being handed 21 points? 14 of those 21 Pittsburgh points were because Seattle's defense dropped the ball on coverages, had nothing to do with officiating. A 75 yard running play that had they watched the tapes they would have seen Parker break against Cleveland I believe. A reverse pass using Randel El with Hines off to himself that they pretty much ran fairly similar in the Cinci playoff game. And Cowher would have likely went for the seven on the fourth and inches whether the Ben TD was called back or not so that likely would have been another a TD. I would have preferred a Steeler victory where there were no blown calls and no excuses. The NFL has a problem with their officiating and it needs to be addressed and taken care of, no argument from me there. Turning a blind eye to what really cost Seattle this game will get an argument from me. the OPI on Jackson=7 pts holding on Locklear=possible 7pts Roethlisberger TD=7 pts and im not even mentioning the horse collar..the 15 yd penalty on Hasselbeck for 'blocking' that set up the Randle El pass..the horrible spot on the Mack Strong run...the 34 yard punt return called back, etc every single questionable call went against Seattle..if it were just bad refs...there woulda been bad calls both ways..this deserves federal investigation..seriously....I remember listening to Jay and Michelle on 97.1 last week and a brother of a ref said that the NFL wanted the Steelers to win...they hung up on him..he doesnt look so crazy today the OPI on Jackson=7 pts: the right call, he pushed him off holding on Locklear=possible 7pts: possible being the key word, could have easily been three Roethlisberger TD=7 pts: and had the call been reversed, it would have either been 3 points or a fairly easy QB sneak or Bettis push over the goal line for 7 the 15 yd penalty on Hasselbeck for 'blocking' that set up the Randle El pass: The interception set up the Randle El pass, the block gave them better field position but so would 15 yds accumulated with some run or passing plays. not to mention that Hines was open by about ten yards. I remember listening to Jay and Michelle on 97.1 last week and a brother of a ref said that the NFL wanted the Steelers to win...they hung up on him..he doesnt look so crazy today: Yes, the league officials made sure that Josh Brown couldn't make two field goal attempts, Shaun Alexander's presence amounted to nothing (i was shocked to see he had 95 yds total rushing), four punts went for touchbacks, big pass plays were dropped and the Hawks couldn't get their offensive play calling together to get some additional points at the end of the first half or at the end of the 4th quarter.

Not when you are only up by a very slight margin, with time on the clock, against an Indy-Peyton Manning offense. The Polamalu call put the ball back in Indy's possession so the pressure was on the Steeler defense and they came through, along with the Gods intervening with the missed field goal. Seattle had seven points taken away from them with the defensive PI call - a call which was technically the right call, isn't called that much but happened to be called in the biggest game of the year. It wasn't as if the official made up the receiver taking his arm to push the defender away. It was clearly evident, right in front of him and not even necessary because I think he would've broke open anyway. You can moan that 'he didn't push him that hard' but it was a push regardless of the force. The holding call after the completion to the 2 yd line was the only call I'm in agreement with as being a bad call. Perhaps the chop block too but Pittsburgh had the momentum with the pick by that time. That call didn't take points away from Seattle. They would have had the ball down to the 2 yd line without the holding call but there is no guarantee that they would have scored seven on that drive - the way their offense had no run and dropped passes on big plays. Three would have made it 14-13 game but that reverse pass was in the Steelers play book to be called and I have every reason to believe that Seattle's D would have still fallen for it, making it a one possession and necessary two point conversion to even tie the game at 21-21. The biggest difference maker was the six points Seattle should have had had they made those field goals. Nothing to do with officiating.

Yes, there were some horrible calls in that game....but the fact is that, after all these bad calls, Seattle was only down 14-10 at the start of the 4th quarter and had a whole 15 minutes to score just once to take the lead, but they played like shit and got nothing. Seattle lost that game, no one else lost it for them. I don't disagree with you, but the phantom hold that took back a play that would have got the ball at the Pittsburgh 2 happened in the 4th quarter if I remember correctly. Hasselbeck promptly threw a pick a couple of plays later on 3rd and long. If Seattle scores and goes up 17-14, or even kicks a field goal it's a one possession game. In any case, Seattle didn't deserve to win, but then again neither did Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh deserved to win because they successfully made the big plays that win football games. They showed more character. Seattle had some bad breaks (although overexaggerated by some here) but if they made the two field goals, caught passes in bounds, didn't drop passes, managed the clock better and had better play calling, they could've won too. They didn't. Pittsburgh didn't let opportunities escape them despite a sub par performance overall. its hard to let opportunities escape when u are handed a 21 pt swing and ya opponent had 161 yards taking away in penalties and callbacks Wow. Let me ask you this. If Pittsburgh overcame bad officiating in Indy to win, why couldn't Seattle??? My answer. Pittsburgh played their best football against Indy and Seattle didn't play their best against Pittsburgh. This is the reason they lost the game. How many times does someone have to call attention to the missed field goals, dropped passes, no running game, routine punts into the endzone when they could have pinned a struggling Steelers offense deep in their own territory and just overall terrible coaching and clock management? The Steelers didn't play great football but those big plays that the offense executed won the game and their defense didn't blow big plays like the Parker run and the Randel El - Ward reverse. And where are you coming up with Pittsburgh being handed 21 points? 14 of those 21 Pittsburgh points were because Seattle's defense dropped the ball on coverages, had nothing to do with officiating. A 75 yard running play that had they watched the tapes they would have seen Parker break against Cleveland I believe. A reverse pass using Randel El with Hines off to himself that they pretty much ran fairly similar in the Cinci playoff game. And Cowher would have likely went for the seven on the fourth and inches whether the Ben TD was called back or not so that likely would have been another a TD. I would have preferred a Steeler victory where there were no blown calls and no excuses. The NFL has a problem with their officiating and it needs to be addressed and taken care of, no argument from me there. Turning a blind eye to what really cost Seattle this game will get an argument from me.

Yes, there were some horrible calls in that game....but the fact is that, after all these bad calls, Seattle was only down 14-10 at the start of the 4th quarter and had a whole 15 minutes to score just once to take the lead, but they played like shit and got nothing. Seattle lost that game, no one else lost it for them. I don't disagree with you, but the phantom hold that took back a play that would have got the ball at the Pittsburgh 2 happened in the 4th quarter if I remember correctly. Hasselbeck promptly threw a pick a couple of plays later on 3rd and long. If Seattle scores and goes up 17-14, or even kicks a field goal it's a one possession game. In any case, Seattle didn't deserve to win, but then again neither did Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh deserved to win because they successfully made the big plays that win football games. They showed more character. Seattle had some bad breaks (although overexaggerated by some here) but if they made the two field goals, caught passes in bounds, didn't drop passes, managed the clock better and had better play calling, they could've won too. They didn't. Pittsburgh didn't let opportunities escape them despite a sub par performance overall.

I'm in agreement with the Ben TD clearly not being a touchdown but that drive would have still resulted in at least three points if not an easy QB sneak into the end zone on 4th. With just the field goal the game would have been 3-3 going into the half. The Seattle touchdown pass in the first half was pass interference and I have no problem with that call. He stiff armed the defender pushing him off, if the defensive corner would have done that, it would have been defensive pass interference with no argument from anyone. The fact that the roles were reversed, along with a touchdown being reversed and everyone thinks it's a bad call. I didn't agree with the holding call against Seattle in the second half and it's possible that Seattle would have got into the endzone to make it 17-14 but not a guarantee. It could have just been another opportunity that they couldn't take full advantage of as with their other drives during the game. It could have easily ended up a field goal and a 14-13 Pittsburgh lead. Take away the Ben TD and it would have been Seattle 13-10 or Seattle 17-10 if they did score a TD on that particular drive. The Steelers would have scored another TD either leading 17-13 or a 17-17 tie. So Seattle still wouldn't have necessarily won the game. I'm happy about the Pittsburgh win and the celebration here has been awesome. This city really needed this. I agree that the officiating was bad, just as it was bad in previous games and not-in-favor of Pittsburgh. The bottom line is despite the bad officiating Seattle could have easily won the game had it not been for the missed field goals and the terrible coaching and time management at the end of the first half and then again on their 4th quarter drive. They couldn't capitalize and Pittsburgh created opportunities like the big Ben-Ward improv pass, the big Parker run and the gadget Randel El - Ward TD.

I'm not at all confident in the Steelers at this point in time and I'm agreement that we were given a few calls there and got very lucky. Needless to say, GO STEELERS!!!!!! Here's hoping they step it up in the 2nd half and it's games like today which is why I was only quietly upset when Polamalu's interception was reversed in the Indy game. Bad calls happen all the time to every team and it sucks when it's your team. I still think the Super Bowl however should be void of these situations.

Why didn't Pat Patterson give him a push?!!! Use that homosexuality Kanyon.

Everyone in Pittsburgh loves Myron Cope who popularized the terrible towel. He retired from the broadcast booth this year and is in bad health. The tradition here was to always turn down the network announcers on the television and listen to the radio broadcast team, specifically because of Myron's colorful Pittsburghese color commentary. Is this customary in other cities too, listening to the radio announcers instead of tv commentators? So Myron popularized the Terrible Towel during the 70's and proceeds from the official towels sold in stores go to local charities. Here's a brief run down of the towel's story. I'm nausiated about this game. This is going to be one sad city if the Steelers don't pull it off. It's been a non-stop party here since the Denver win. Everyone is walking around pleasant and happy just like Christmas. Hopefully it doesn't turn into a nightmare, I'm more worried about the Seahawks than most people in Pittsburgh. You Had to Ask 2/2/2006 I know Myron Cope invented the Terrible Towel. But why a towel? Question submitted by: Mary Sullivan, Point Breeze Writer: CHRIS POTTER According to Myron Cope’s memoir, Double Yoi!, he’s been asked this question more than any other. Cope cites this as proof that “I have led a trivial life -- a piece of terrycloth will be the monument to my career.” As Cope tells the story, prior to the December 1975 AFC Championship, his radio station’s general manager called him into the office and asked Cope to “come up with some sort of gimmick for the playoffs -- something that will involve the people.” Cope’s initial response: “I’m not a gimmick guy. Never have been a gimmick guy.” A sales rep at the meeting explained that if there were “some kind of object the fans could wave or wear,” advertisers would see Cope’s influence, and rush to sponsor his show. “Besides,” the sales rep told him, “your contract with us expires in three months.” “I’m a gimmick guy,” Cope replied. Indeed, Cope came up with the towel soon after. A towel had several advantages: It was “lightweight and portable and already owned by just about every fan,” Cope writes. It was also practical: Fans could wipe their seats with it, “use it as a muffler against the cold” or “drape it over their heads if it rains.” As the book concedes, the towel had some precedent. Three years before, Cope writes, the Miami Dolphins, who were “charging through the 1972 season undefeated, had encouraged their fans to cheer big plays and touchdowns by waving white handkerchiefs. Tens of thousands of fluttering hankies made for a nice show of enthusiasm, but came across too dainty for the game of football.” Some 30,000 fans brought towels to the Towel’s championship debut -- a Dec. 27, 1975 victory over the Baltimore Colts -- and the Towel became one of the most recognized symbols in football. As Cope wrote with typical restraint in a 1979 newspaper account, “Verily did infidels cast aside their skepticism” when they saw the towels “whirling against the bitter December sky like the swords of 50,000 Cossacks.” In those early days, claims a 1995 Tribune-Review newspaper story, local department stores were vexed when fans bought only the hand-towel size of black, white, and gold towels: The habit threw off inventory managers who’d bought towels in full sets. Later, Cope introduced an official version of the Terrible Towel, with the proceeds benefiting local charities. The Towel did have doubters early on. Cope writes that famed linebacker Jack Ham told him, “I think your idea sinks.” Another defensive standout, Andy Russell, informed Cope, “We’re not a gimmick team. We’ve never been a gimmick team.” “His words had a ring of familiarity,” Cope admits in Double Yoi! Media outlets were wary of the Towel as well. On the day of the Towel’s debut, Post-Gazette sports reporter Vito Stellino opined that between the Colts and the Steelers, “It’s difficult to figure out which side is cornier, what with the Colts coming up with rhymes and nicknames, and Steelers fans threatening to bring enough towels to make the stadium look like a tenement district.” But what did Stellino know about Steelers hype? Back then, journalists actually believed in restraint when writing about football. Including Stellino’s article, the P-G’s game-day coverage for the 1975 AFC Championship involved less than one-half of one page. By comparison, I count more than three full pages of Steelers material in my copy of today’s P-G -- printed six days before the Super Bowl. (The same issue, incidentally, includes an editorial cartoon mocking TV reporters for being Steelers cheerleaders. Cartoonist, lampoon thyself.) That’s not to say Steelers fans were less intense back then. They were just goaded less. Rooting sections such as Franco’s Italian Army and Gerela’s Gorillas (anybody? anybody?) were largely homegrown, with accessories purchased from war-surplus stores and costume shops. Fans made do without special pull-out sections and Big Ben barbecue sauce. For today’s sports marketers, by contrast, a gimmick that was “already owned by just about every fan” would be unthinkable. In fact, perhaps the reason the Terrible Towel endures is precisely because it retains that purity. It’s a symbol everyone can afford: You can still use a plain old hand towel from home, and in a world of $150 jerseys, the licensed version is cheap (under $10 in most places I’ve seen it). Started as a marketing “gimmick,” the Towel is perhaps the least commercialized accessory in football fandom. That’s yet another reason to be proud of waving it.

I just don't understand everyone saying there is no story or angle with this game. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I'm in Pittsburgh but you have Jerome Bettis coming back for another season, just to get to this game, getting there, in his hometown none the less. And oh yeah, he's #36 and this is the 36th day of 2006. You have a second year starting quarterback, the youngest to get there next to Dan Marino, and he could become one of the greats with a lot riding on tonight's performance. You have the longest running tenured coach in the NFL who may never be considered a 'great coach' or a Hall of Fame coach unless he gets a Super Bowl ring. The #6 seed in the AFC playoffs that overcame all odds to get there. Another coach on the opposite side of the field trying to prove himself a winner without Bret Favre as he takes a team to Detroit for the franchise's first Super Bowl. I just can't believe that people outside of their hometowns are upset that it's not the Colts or Patriots or feel there is no backstory to this game because there isn't a 'marquee player'. Not enough trash talking beyond Joey Porter. I couldn't take the Patriots in this game AGAIN. Had Tony Dungy and the Colts got to the big game - I just have a feeling there would be an uncomfortable emphasis on Dungy's personal tragedy bordering the WWE-Eddie Guerrero situation in turning a real-life tragedy into something for NFL storybooks and ratings.

Why not Monday from 8 till 9pm with an overrun into the start of Raw? I'm sure Vince could turn around and do a 3 hour Raw but how would he without killing the brand extension? They won't do that because of Smackdown now having new life. He could do a 3 hour show here and there like Homecoming but look how desperate they were to fill those 3 hours? They couldn't do that week in and week out unless they (GASP) make some serious creative changes. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about Spike finally giving TNA a prime time spot and I know that we will forever speak of the negatives of TNA opposing Raw at this point. I just think Monday will forever be considered a 'wrestling night' for a lot of people, particularly when MNF isn't airing. Plus, with the move to ESPN, MNF doesn't even seem to be the marquee prime-time NFL game anymore. If they are going to do one hour on Thursdays I hope they at least consider an 11:00 or 11:30 Monday night replay. Especially since it seems like the replay numbers for Mondays have picked up with more people seemingly finding TNA after Raw and UFC.

I really wish that they'd realize their own business cycles. The ratings upswing has absolutely nothing to do with "Live Sex", Cena losing the title or Edge's popularity. People are tuning in because every year at this time, going back to the late 80's, viewers are anticipating the Wrestlemania build, starting with this month's Rumble. These are almost like sweeps weeks for the McMahon's - they are wanting ratings to generate buyrates and those viewers are expecting the company to be in full gear to build to Mania to determine if the annual event is worth ordering. The rest of these PPV's each month are meaningless to most casual viewers.

The PWInsider elite section have been right about a number of things as of late. They were discussing the Boogieman biting off Jillian Hall's mole weeks ago. My level of faith in whatever they report is pretty high. There is no reason to doubt this story.

They were saying on the pwinsider.com hotline that Kurt Angle was extremely upset on Sunday night when the last minute decision was made to give the WWE championship to Edge. Angle reportedly voiced his displeasure with the decision noting the sacrifices he's made, how hard he has worked within the past year and not having all that many years left. Then two nights later they give Kurt the World Championship on Smackdown. I don't buy into the "Kurt death list" stories although I don't think he has that many years left career wise. This is also the same company that put him in roles like the GM and the hometown challenge angle to limit his wrestling time just to basically make him slow down his pace. Has anybody noticed the changes in his physique since Eddie's passing though?

He came from a family of pro wrestlers so chances are this is a much bigger blow to him personally than any of us will ever understand. Possibly the only thing he ever wanted to do. He was also injured in an attempt to entertain a bunch of ungrateful bastards like us who would only care about him being injured if his workmanship was that of Chris Benoit's. Let the people who give two shits about the dude being dealt some bad luck express that sentiment. And there was never any Dupree/Patterson connection, that was Sylvan. Dupree was a prospect from OVW, multi generation wrestler like Orton and The Rock, who was rushed to the main roster entirely too soon. Sylvan's spot was a favor to Patterson from everything that I've read.

Potential Spoiler according to pwinsider elite hotline: Possible storyline for JBL-Boogeyman

The problem with Cena "being edgy" is that it primarily consists of him telling other wrestlers in a not too sublte way that they take it up the ass. Sure, it can be edgy, but only when your entire crowd is 15 year olds. That wasn't his shtick when he was heel though. When he was first starting to get over his raps weren't references to his opponent being a homo. They were actually intense promos that just happened to rhyme and Cena did them with a more edgier MOP-type delivery. You could actually be into hip hop and think, "this guy is good". The same NY crowd that was booing him last night was actually cheering then. Now his raps are just nursery rhymes with gay references done to be cute and the audience has turned on him. At this point, I don't even know if they could make him edgy again without a full-fledged heel turn. It would probably just be in their best interest to just let him drop the whole hip hop image and go a more serious intense route with the character.

Right, the girl is photographed with one cigarette, presumably from a night of a drinking at a bar and the moral police are all over her. Bad girls smoke. Bad girls do lots of things they aren't supposed to do. She has an oral fixation. Sorry, that's hot.

Heel Rock vs. John Cena w/Terrell Owens as Special Referee Shelton Benjamin vs. Shawn Michaels Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle (WWE title - World title Unification Match) HHH - Edge - Mr. McMahon vs. Hulk Hogan - Ric Flair - Mick Foley Rey Mysterio vs. Batista MNM vs. Kendrick/London vs. Super Crazy and Psycosis Undertaker vs. Boogeyman Juventud vs. Jamie Noble vs. Kid Kash for Cruiserweight Title JBL vs. Randy Orton Matt Hardy vs. Rob Van Dam ladder match

Considering his father died in the ring at a relatively young age, let's hope that it's nothing serious and it's treatable.

That's the 'Prince Of Punk' Shannon Moore. And it wouldn't be Joe killing Timmy, it would be Jeff Jarrett taking out the Coalition of Former WWF Referees in the main event of their next PPV, with Joe vs. AJ on the undercard.

I watch this stuff with a sense of humor and have come to expect absurd moments in wrestling. I like for them to have some sort of purpose however. The idea of them leaving the impression that a former referee just killed himself live on a PPV doesn't offend me. If there would have been some entertaining continuity. So Tim White walks off and we hear a gun shot, what's so hard about cutting back to the live arena in a state of disbelief rather than Josh Matthews making stupid faces. The announcers casually looking for updates from the Friendly Tap throughout the evening and not getting any response from the production team or Josh Matthews. Fearing that Tim White perhaps shot himself or worse yet took his frustrations out on the production team? A backup crew and police are sent to the bar to find the Friendly Tap closed with the Matthews gagged and the production crew tied up. Where is Tim White though? Then, during the HIAC match, Tim White makes an appearance, wielding a shotgun, headed to the ring screaming for Vince McMahon and how HIAC ruined his life. Security rush in and escort Tim White out of the arena as the announcers stress how bad HIAC affects people as the actual match goes on. All of this could have taken an extra ten minutes. Yes, it's stupid to give an ex referee that much PPV air time but at least it gets over that HIAC ruins lives, makes people crazy and we get an Oh My God moment when it appears a referee is going to ambush WWE talent. The whole mess would have at least been remotely entertaining rather than serving no purpose at all.

Worth it for Piper interrupting it and Jesse's two carps in the Mississippi comment. Hilarious to me. That was awesome! Don't remember that. Thankfully. Not good, but the other one with Sid in flip flops and Vader threatening Sting and Davey Boy at the beach while their evil midget sidekick snuck behind them and planted a bomb on their boat was the greatest wrestling vignette of all time. All fucking time. PETA loved it. Dude, Fuji Vice was hilarious. How could you not love Fuji Vice? I can still remember Muraco flubbing his lines and Fuji looking confused. Hey, you had Meat. I never had Meat. Gone in like two weeks or something. Preliminary comedy guys. No harm. Which rescued what might've been the first of these tasteless, uncomfortable, and just plain idiotic angles (Big Show's dad has cancer? He's dying? What the fuck is this crap?) and turned it into a comedy classic. Bossman interrupting the services with a megaphone and then dragging the coffin with Big Show on top of it was hysterical. Well, this is the big difference between all that other stuff and the current "comedy" - the only way Tim White's offscreen "suicide" is funny is because you can't believe anybody was stupid enough to think that people would want to pay money to watch this shit. WWE is dying-WCW funny now, as in not funny onscreen, but hilarious backstage. Hmmmm. I dunno, I already can't remember any of the Al Wilson shit, other than I think he died as well. Edit - I don't think the quote button likes me. I enjoyed a lot of that stuff too and appreciate them more in retrospect than I did when they aired. Let's face it, plenty of those scenarios were stupid, had nothing to do with making money, get somebody over or draw heat, didn't increase PPV buys or gates and were just the people behind the scenes getting their jollies and getting bad ideas on TV. The Tim White suicide could have been entertaining with more creativity. The announcers could have speculated if we just witnessed the first ever suicide on a WWE PPV only to have Tim White show up during HIC with his shotgun to a pop from the hometown crowd and a police escort out of the building during the match. But creative were instead lazy and it was just another bad ridiculous idea that served no purpose.