ESPN ticker all this morning... (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

 

[Football Critic]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

Classic bandwagon behavior. Rodgers is getting all the attention because Ben's been there and done that and Rodgers has arrived on the playoff scene in a big way.Or maybe they are tired of the Steelers, just like everyone else.

 

[DoubleG]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

They'll run Big Ben's stats in that game tommorow - they've got 2 weeks. They're trying to stretch it out.Or, they just did it to make you mad.Or, they really want the Steelers to win and did it to make them mad.Or, they knew if they did it, Steeler fans would be complaining all over football message boards and posting links to the article as proof, thus increasing ESPN's click through traffic and then turning around and spinning that into advertising revenue for their website.Or, they've got 2 weeks and they're trying to stretch it out.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Thank God the Packers won because they wouldn't have had any Cutler highlights to show.

 

[DoubleG]

Thank God the Packers won because they wouldn't have had any Cutler highlights to show.

I'm sure they could have come up with an Urlacher highlight or two...at least that LB lived up to the hype.

 

[Road Dogg]

c'mon man

steelers whining is too much to bear

you guys are a tough team, not a crybaby team

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

 

[Road Dogg]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

they like to hype QBNsAaron Rodgers is a good story, Ben is not

He's the darling this week, you'll see him a lot more than Ben. It's not disrespect or pulling for the packers or anything of that nature, it is taking the temperature of the stories that interest the public.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

Classic bandwagon behavior. Rodgers is getting all the attention because Ben's been there and done that and Rodgers has arrived on the playoff scene in a big way.Or maybe they are tired of the Steelers, just like everyone else.

I was actually wondering if they're just planning on focusing on Rodgers' possible ascent to the elite as a primary story line. Or many of the execs want to bet some scratch on Pittsburgh and are trying to inflate the point spread.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

They'll run Big Ben's stats in that game tommorow - they've got 2 weeks. They're trying to stretch it out.Or, they just did it to make you mad.

Or, they really want the Steelers to win and did it to make them mad.

Or, they knew if they did it, Steeler fans would be complaining all over football message boards and posting links to the article as proof, thus increasing ESPN's click through traffic and then turning around and spinning that into advertising revenue for their website.

Or, they've got 2 weeks and they're trying to stretch it out.

I figured the bolded was probably the case, that's why I was wondering if someone who might have access to a TV right now can look and see if it's still the same "story"

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

they like to hype QBNsAaron Rodgers is a good story, Ben is not

He's the darling this week, you'll see him a lot more than Ben. It's not disrespect or pulling for the packers or anything of that nature, it is taking the temperature of the stories that interest the public.

Bolded is what I thought was the case if they aren't just trying to stretch out the "tidbits" over the course of the next two weeks. I fully expect to see way more Rodgers coverage than Roethlisberger, and that's just fine. Ben's going to have enough to deal with deflecting 8,000 questions about his schvantz at Media Day.

 

[DoubleG]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

they like to hype QBNsAaron Rodgers is a good story, Ben is not

He's the darling this week, you'll see him a lot more than Ben. It's not disrespect or pulling for the packers or anything of that nature, it is taking the temperature of the stories that interest the public.

Bolded is what I thought was the case if they aren't just trying to stretch out the "tidbits" over the course of the next two weeks. I fully expect to see way more Rodgers coverage than Roethlisberger, and that's just fine. Ben's going to have enough to deal with deflecting 8,000 questions about his schvantz why his RB likes to hump him at Media Day.

FYP.

 

[Road Dogg]

has anyone asked that question?

the hump question

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Bolded is what I thought was the case if they aren't just trying to stretch out the "tidbits" over the course of the next two weeks. I fully expect to see way more Rodgers coverage than Roethlisberger, and that's just fine. Ben's going to have enough to deal with deflecting 8,000 questions about his schvantz why his RB likes to hump him at Media Day.

FYP.

"Ben ? BEN ??!!!...one quic- great, thanks.... Hi.... Jennifer Adams from KIRO 710 AM in Seattle. Has your position on what you do/don't consider "forced sex" changed since Rashard Mendenhall helped himself to a hearty portion of your tuchus at the end of the Jets game?"

 

[Evilgrin 72]

has anyone asked that question?the hump question

Why bother? You already know what the answer will be..."Well, things were getting chippy at the end of the game there, understandably, there's a lot of frustration when you get that far and come up short, and Rashard was protecting his quarterback. Just shows you what kind of guy he is, and what kind of teammate.. you know, like we've said all year, we're like a family, we got each other's backs(ides)........."

 

[DoubleG]

Bolded is what I thought was the case if they aren't just trying to stretch out the "tidbits" over the course of the next two weeks. I fully expect to see way more Rodgers coverage than Roethlisberger, and that's just fine. Ben's going to have enough to deal with deflecting 8,000 questions about his schvantz why his RB likes to hump him at Media Day.

FYP.

"Ben ? BEN ??!!!...one quic- great, thanks.... Hi.... Jennifer Adams from KIRO 710 AM in Seattle. Has your position on what you do/don't consider "forced sex" changed since Rashard Mendenhall helped himself to a hearty portion of your tuchus at the end of the Jets game?"

I was typing out a post about a hypothetical of Mendy pinning him in the locker room after the game, but there was no way to phrase it that wouldn't get me a timeout. So I won't post it.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Bolded is what I thought was the case if they aren't just trying to stretch out the "tidbits" over the course of the next two weeks. I fully expect to see way more Rodgers coverage than Roethlisberger, and that's just fine. Ben's going to have enough to deal with deflecting 8,000 questions about his schvantz why his RB likes to hump him at Media Day.

FYP.

"Ben ? BEN ??!!!...one quic- great, thanks.... Hi.... Jennifer Adams from KIRO 710 AM in Seattle. Has your position on what you do/don't consider "forced sex" changed since Rashard Mendenhall helped himself to a hearty portion of your tuchus at the end of the Jets game?"

I was typing out a post about a hypothetical of Mendy pinning him in the locker room after the game, but there was no way to phrase it that wouldn't get me a timeout. So I won't post it.

I've become a master of phrasing "delicate matters" in non-threatening ways. Working around kids and Mormons for the better part of a decade teaches you how to achieve this. Hence, my relatively pristine warn level here at FBG.

 

[Sarnoff]

They can only focus on one player, so, they focus on the good one. HTH.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

They can only focus on one player, so, they focus on the good one. HTH.

Not particularly. I'm pretty sure you're aware that they could theoretically show the stats for several players in a ticker feed. So, I'm assuming you posted this in a half-hearted attempt to be incendiary.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

It was an unreal game. Roethlisberger, on the final drive, did his best passing that I can ever remember. He had two or three passes that had to fit into the space no larger than a coffee can twenty and more yards down the field if they had any hope of being completed. He put them right on the money, and I recall him being under duress at the time. Then the Steelers recievers had to make very difficult catches, fully extended, where had they been one inch shorter they would necessarily have dragged their feet just out of bounds. Any other placement of the ball would have lead to drive ending incompletions or near certain interceptions. An all world performance as I recall.

In my memory it was the best passing display of last year absent what Warner did to eliminate the Packers from the playoffs. Warner's day was very similar. Only pinpoint passing would have been complete, yet he did it time and again.

I do recall a few games by Brees last year of similar magnitude and one or two by Manning and Brady. Other than those I believe Rodgers game in each referenced game was in the top ten best passing performances of last year.

We could potentially see extraordinary displays in the superbowl. Given the defenses we could also see less than extraordianry displays lead to huge turnovers.

As for the stats line running on ESPN i noticed that as well. I have seen similar dsplays in the past and have wondered at only getting half of the story. Just one more annoying thing they do in their so-called coverage.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

It dont bother you huh? Fooled me!

It really doesn't. In fact, if anything, I'd prefer that ALL the pre-game hype and accolades be heaped on Green Bay and I hope every talking head picks them to win. Not only are the Steelers almost always better when they're either "under the radar" or can play the "nobody believes we can win" card, but wins are even more enjoyable as an underdog. I just found it curious, that's all - could be misleading to someone who doesn't go see what went on in that game (it was a FANTASTIC game if you didn't see it.)

It was an unreal game. Roethlisberger, on the final drive, did his best passing that I can ever remember. He had two or three passes that had to fit into the space no larger than a coffee can twenty and more yards down the field if they had any hope of being completed. He put them right on the money, and I recall him being under duress at the time. Then the Steelers recievers had to make very difficult catches, fully extended, where had they been one inch shorter they would necessarily have dragged their feet just out of bounds. Any other placement of the ball would have lead to drive ending incompletions or near certain interceptions. An all world performance as I recall.

In my memory it was the best passing display of last year absent what Warner did to eliminate the Packers from the playoffs. Warner's day was very similar. Only pinpoint passing would have been complete, yet he did it time and again.

I do recall a few games by Brees last year of similar magnitude and one or two by Manning and Brady. Other than those I believe Rodgers game in each referenced game was in the top ten best passing performances of last year.

We could potentially see extraordinary displays in the superbowl. Given the defenses we could also see less than extraordianry displays lead to huge turnovers.

As for the stats line running on ESPN i noticed that as well. I have seen similar dsplays in the past and have wondered at only getting half of the story. Just one more annoying thing they do in their so-called coverage.

Typically That was probably the most fun-to-watch game of the past couple of years. The bomb to Wallace on something like the third play from scrimmage to give the Steelers the early lead, the Pack answering right back with the 83 yarder to Jennings. Tomlin kicking onside with 4 minutes left in the game because the defense could not contain Rodgers, the last-minute drive, the 35 4th quarter points. If the SB is even 1/2 as good as that game, America will be abuzz for days afterward.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

As for the stats line running on ESPN i noticed that as well. I have seen similar dsplays in the past and have wondered at only getting half of the story. Just one more annoying thing they do in their so-called coverage.

Glad I'm not the only one who was by that. I just figured, why not give people the whole story of that game? There's certainly enough to show, statistically...Roethlisberger 29-46, 503 yds, 3/0Jennings 5-118-1Ward 7-126Miller 7-118Wallace 2-79-2Finley 9-74-1No turnovers all game long, FOUR 4th quarter lead changes. Damn, it's fun just to even THINK back to it.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Last night they showed Ben's stats from that game (forgot he passed for that many yards). I can't recall seeing Rodger's stats.

 

[Sarnoff]

Your team is a bunch of bullies that nobody likes. America loves the Packers, ESPN is just catering to what the audience wants. No one rooted for Darth Vader in Star Wars.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Last night they showed Ben's stats from that game (forgot he passed for that many yards). I can't recall seeing Rodger's stats.

OK, then maybe they're just rolling it out day by day. No harm in that.

 

[Masked Vigilante]

It's because Rodgers has been tabbed by the NFL/ESPN as the next golden boy.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Your team is a bunch of bullies that nobody likes. America loves the Packers, ESPN is just catering to what the audience wants. No one rooted for Darth Vader in Star Wars.

And yet it was he who ultimately toppled the Empire and brought peace to the galaxy !!!

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Your team is a bunch of bullies that nobody likes. America loves the Packers, ESPN is just catering to what the audience wants. No one rooted for Darth Vader in Star Wars.

And yet it was he who ultimately toppled the Empire and brought peace to the galaxy !!!

Great reply.

 

[Jake22]

I saw that ticker last night and it did have Ben's stats from that game...500 yds, 3TD's, (5sacks)...not sure why it would add the 5 sacks but they did, maybe to show that although Ben had a great game the GB defense beat him up while doing it?...his stats have now been removed?

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Your team is a bunch of bullies that nobody likes. America loves the Packers, ESPN is just catering to what the audience wants. No one rooted for Darth Vader in Star Wars.

I thought we are loved so much by referees and the NFL that they fixed games for us. I am so confused right now.

 

[Fensalk]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

Probably because putting up those numbers on the Steelers defense is much more impressive to people than Ben putting up big numbers on the Packers defense.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Showing Rodgers' stats in the 2009 game vs. the Steelers - 383 yds, 4 TDs (1 rush), 83 yd TD to Jennings. And that's it. They don't mention Roethlisberger throwing for 500+ in the same game, nor the outcome of the game (Steelers win by 1 on a TD pass from Ben to Wallace with 0:00 on the clock.)

I want to make one thing very clear - I'm not griping about this, playing the "disrespect card" or any of that other crap. It doesn't bother me a whit. I did find it a bit odd, though... why would they, as they're cycling through all the scores and such, include a "PIT/GB" tab and then show ONLY Rodgers' stats from that game? I could see it if GB won the game 37-17 and Rodgers was the star of the game, and they were trying to illustrate that, but if you're going to run that all morning, at least mention what else went on in the game. Someone who didn't see or doesn't remember that game might see that stat line isolated and say - "damn, he lit them up last year, I'm unloading on the Pack...."

I'm wondering if they're changing that every so often and showing different stats or whether that nugget is still running (I'm at work and can't watch TV right now.) If they are still running just that, why?

Probably because putting up those numbers on the Steelers defense is much more impressive to people than Ben putting up big numbers on the Packers defense.

I think we've already established what's going on, but you really don't think 500 yards passing, no matter whom it's against, is more impressive? Jeez - the game log dominator here at FBG goes back to the 1995 season, and there have only been 3 other 500 yard passing games in the past 16 years.

 

[Fiddles]

Thank God the Packers won because they wouldn't have had any Cutler highlights to show.

I'm sure they could have come up with an Urlacher highlight or two...at least that LB lived up to the hype.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Your team is a bunch of bullies that nobody likes. America loves the Packers, ESPN is just catering to what the audience wants. No one rooted for Darth Vader in Star Wars.

And yet it was he who ultimately toppled the Empire and brought peace to the galaxy !!!

:terriblelightsaber: