PDA

View Full Version : Peter King:The steelers are in the bottom third of the league


coachspeak33
01-17-2007, 08:43 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/01/14/playoffs/2.html

What the hell is this guy smoking.... the titans AND the rams are better than the steelers!!!

I hope the national media keeps piling on the black and gold... then we will stick it to em in 07

Infamix
01-17-2007, 08:56 AM
Peter King is generally one of the less knowledgable writers when it comes to football....so this does not surprise me.

Big D
01-17-2007, 08:58 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/01/14/playoffs/2.html

What the hell is this guy smoking.... the titans AND the rams are better than the steelers!!!

I hope the national media keeps piling on the black and gold... then we will stick it to em in 07

dont sweat it. We are talking about peter pumpkin head king. This is a guy who said danny wuerfull would be a pro bowler under steve spurrier in washington. He is also another reason why art monk isnt in the hall of fame.

fansince'76
01-17-2007, 09:43 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/01/14/playoffs/2.html

What the hell is this guy smoking.... the titans AND the rams are better than the steelers!!!

He also seems to think the NY Giants, who damn near imploded at the end of the season (and only made the playoffs by virtue of being in the NFC), are better than we are as well. NY Giants > Steelers = ZERO credibility.

Mosca
01-17-2007, 09:49 AM
Phhhhht. If you look at the whole season, I don't see how you could rank the Steelers any HIGHER. Sure, we COULD HAVE BEEN better; or, based on talent, sure we have more talent than some of those teams.

But, we lost to Oakland. We gave away games we should have won. I remember my Dad calling during the middle of the first half of the San Diego game, and I told him we were pushing them all over the field (we were)... and then we self-destructed.

And, when it came right down to needing a win to get into the playoffs, we got hammered by Baltimore (who got knocked out of the playoffs by the so-so Colts).

We'll be better next year. But getting better has to start with admitting just how bad we played this year. Lack of talent wasn't an excuse, and might even highlight the following truth: you had to play pretty bad football to lose with that much talent.


Tom

Elvis
01-17-2007, 10:00 AM
:tt02: Peter who?
Peter King... hmmm Enough Said:cheer: :wave:

memphissteelergirl
01-17-2007, 10:02 AM
Phhhhht. If you look at the whole season, I don't see how you could rank the Steelers any HIGHER. Sure, we COULD HAVE BEEN better; or, based on talent, sure we have more talent than some of those teams.

But, we lost to Oakland. We gave away games we should have won. I remember my Dad calling during the middle of the first half of the San Diego game, and I told him we were pushing them all over the field (we were)... and then we self-destructed.

And, when it came right down to needing a win to get into the playoffs, we got hammered by Baltimore (who got knocked out of the playoffs by the so-so Colts).

We'll be better next year. But getting better has to start with admitting just how bad we played this year. Lack of talent wasn't an excuse, and might even highlight the following truth: you had to play pretty bad football to lose with that much talent.


Tom


You are so right....after the amazing SB run we ended a mediocre 8-8 with essentially the same team. While we had the physical personnel to be sure, but we just got so settled and complacent...and it showed on the field with mental errors and overall bad decision making.
But I think the players are painfully aware of this, and are going to work harder next season. I like to believe they know what they have to do.

2007...the journey to XLII starts
:tt02: :tt02:

tony hipchest
01-17-2007, 10:02 AM
i see everyone is gonna pile on peter king who is one of the best, most knowledgable sportwriters covering the nfl :rolleyes: just because he doesnt put the steelers in the top 20. you got to think about it. the steelers o-line and lb's seemed to get old quick, and it seems like the whole coaching staff is being replaced for one 8-8 season. theres no reason to put them in the top 20.

my only real disagreement with reading his "fine 15" every week is as soon as the steelers lost to the ravens, he placed the panthers above the steelers. panthers are definitely in as bad of shape or worse than the steelers and we crushed them.

83-Steelers-43
01-17-2007, 10:10 AM
You earn your praise/rankings. We did not earn a damn thing this year besides an early vacation.

I have no problem with his rankings. It's our job to prove him/them wrong next year.

Buzz05
01-17-2007, 10:13 AM
I agree, the only thing is I think we are better then the Rams. The Titans ended the year on a mich hgher note with Vince Young emerging. Just because we were a mediocre team last year is no reason to jump all over a guy who I typicall feel has given Pittsburgh an edge in his rankings. I think he is a fair, knowledgeable writer. Frankly Im a fan. We, the Steelers, are the reason we are not ranked higher in some imaginary poll...not Peter King.

Indy_Steelers
01-17-2007, 11:53 AM
If he knew anything about sports he would not be writing for Sports Illustrated. With the internet, there are much better sources to get good info. I always find good sport blogs to read.

Steeldude
01-17-2007, 11:56 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/01/14/playoffs/2.html

What the hell is this guy smoking.... the titans AND the rams are better than the steelers!!!

I hope the national media keeps piling on the black and gold... then we will stick it to em in 07


did you see the steelers this year? they were horrible. getting beaten by the worst team in the NFL too. imagine, losing to the raiders who are coached by art shell. that is truly embarrassing.

MACH1
01-17-2007, 12:02 PM
did you see the steelers this year? they were horrible. getting beaten by the worst team in the NFL too. imagine, losing to the raiders who are coached by art shell. that is truly embarrassing.

Yep it is..especially when they couldnt score offensively.

58Lambert
01-17-2007, 12:20 PM
Hey,
Just remember one thing... we were ONLY 8 games away from going undefeated this past year :)

All kidding aside, even if the Steelers did become “fat cats” after the long-awaited SB win, we still could have made the playoffs if it weren’t for all the turnovers. That’s what killed us the most… not because of the coach, not because of no pass-rush and not because of a poor secondary.

stlrtruck
01-17-2007, 12:51 PM
We didn't get beat in at least 4 of our loses. We beat ourselves (as much of a cliche as that is).

As for Peter King, he's an idiot! The only thing worse than listening to him is listening to Chris Collinsworth! I'd rather listen to John Madden talk gibberish on Sunday than listen to Peter King or read his worthless insight!

Mosca
01-17-2007, 01:02 PM
If he knew anything about sports he would not be writing for Sports Illustrated. With the internet, there are much better sources to get good info. I always find good sport blogs to read.

Hmmmm, lets see. As a writer, would I rather:

Write for Sports Illustrated, and get total access to training cams, locker rooms; have the largest audience of any sports medium, with both print AND internet readership, and GET PAID REALLY WELL TO DO IT....

OR, write a sports blog and get read by a few hundred people and get paid NOTHING.

Now as a reader, would I rather:

Read someone good with whose opinion I disagree, even though the writer has resouces that allow him access to a lot of information I'd never know otherwise...

OR, search out some obscure sports blog where the author's opinions match my own, even though he knows nothing more about the subject than I do.


The guy writes for SI because he is a good writer with lots of good insight. I'll take Peter King over any other NFL writer out there, except maybe Greg Easterbrook. There isn't a blog writer out there who wouldn't kill to trade places with him.


Tom

Mosca
01-17-2007, 01:10 PM
We didn't get beat in at least 4 of our loses. We beat ourselves (as much of a cliche as that is).


Please explain to me what the difference is. Whether you didn't have the talent, or the talent didn't perform, in either case you can't count that as a win. And in neither case can you say that beating ones self means that a team deserves a higher ranking or rating.

King has often written that he could just as easily move a half a dozen teams around in the middle of the rankings, that the teams from 12 to 20 are almost interchangeable. Hey, we hammered the Saints pretty good. But we also lost to the Raiders pretty bad, and got hammered twice by one of the lesser playoff teams. Screw it, this season is over. But who could possibly rank the Steelers, at 8-8 with lots of disappointing losses, anywhere near the top 15 teams without using a seriously biased filter? I'd put us right around 17-18 or so.


Tom

stlrtruck
01-17-2007, 02:11 PM
The difference in getting beat and beating yourself is simple (IMHO). When a team beats you, they do the things that Baltimore did against us. The Oakland game was not based on the raiders performance but instead on individual player's inability to execute - and IMHO that means we beat ourselves.

As for Peter King, he's just another overrated sports writer who after he got where he got, he forgot how to do his job. He may have access to all those things but it doesn't make his ability to interpret and transpose onto paper those ideas, great or even good! He's just like Chris Berman (the Bills) - jump on a bandwagon and ride it into the ground, only to resurrect it later (with the look what I said mentality)!

I'm not saying that the Steelers deserve to be at the top of the list but I definitely fill that on paper and looking at the players on the roster, they deserve to be up around the top 12 (regardless of record - which Peter King obviously has thrown out in some of his placements).

But you are right, this season is over. The only thing we can do now is move forward to 2007. New coach, New attitude, Another trophy!

noto45
01-17-2007, 09:51 PM
this is coming from the same guy who picked miami to win the superbowl this year!

tony hipchest
01-17-2007, 09:53 PM
this is coming from the same guy who picked miami to win the superbowl this year!he picked dallas vs patriots.

my bad. he picked dallas over colts, with the colts beating the pats in the afcc game. he had the steelers at 10-6 and barely missing the playoffs

WWIIOwheelz
01-17-2007, 10:01 PM
I liken him to a Ron Borges who happened to get a fluke break.

Idiots, the both of them, with one being more recognizable.

Preacher
01-18-2007, 01:53 AM
Please explain to me what the difference is. Whether you didn't have the talent, or the talent didn't perform, in either case you can't count that as a win.
Tom

Your right on that...

but let me give it a shot at the difference.

When a team gets beat, the idea is that they simply can not perform at the same level as the other team... like us and the Ravens. If that happens too often, it takes a change of players, coaches, etc. to fix it.

When a team beats themselves, It not a matter of talent, but mistakes or coaching problems. It just takes tweaking and hard work to fix this.

The reason it makes a difference, is a team that beats themself to a 6-10 record could easily be 15-1 the next year and win the SB the next. A team that gets beat every year has to make much deeper and broader changes.

Just my thoughts... But in the record books... Your right. A loss is a loss.

SteelersWoman
01-18-2007, 09:28 AM
did you see the steelers this year? they were horrible. getting beaten by the worst team in the NFL too. imagine, losing to the raiders who are coached by art shell. that is truly embarrassing.

I saw our guys this year--every single game, right down to the bitter (or triumphant) last few seconds. Heck--I even watched most of the after game shows.

Our guys did NOT play to their potential this year. And yes, we got beaten by the Raiders, and I THOUGHT that was the most embarrassing thing to have happen--that is until we were beaten the SECOND time by the Ravens. And maybe it's just because it's a division rival, but I found that harder to swallow. I could've handled ONE loss to them, but BOTH games??? :dang:

However, our season coulda been worse--"horrible" (to me) is going 6-12 or less. That would put us in the league with the Browns, the Raiders, the Lions, the Buccs, etc, etc...and thank GOD we weren't THAT bad :thumbsup:

I'm not THRILLED with 8-8, but it ended up better than we all expected after our first half of the season--and we DID get to knock the Bengals out of the playoffs...again :smile:

Mosca
01-18-2007, 09:33 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's essentially no effective difference between not having the talent to do better than 8-8, and having the talent but not doing better than 8-8. It's two different ways of being mediocre. Neither one should get you a higher ranking than you deserve, and in King's system we didn't get that.

My opinion is that we had the talent to go 14-2; I could see losing to the Ravens once and to the Jags. We could have won every other game. But, it didn't happen that way and here we are. Crow sandwich.


Tom

coachspeak33
01-18-2007, 10:07 AM
did we bottom out this year.... YES.... losing to the Raiders marks the official, "its okay to panic day" ......but lets face it.... there are about 31 other NFL teams who would love to "bottom out" at an even .500 record..... look at what the pats did in 2002.... 9-7 missed the playoffs.

lotta work to do this offseason...but we should be right back in the hunt in 07

Stillers43
01-18-2007, 01:06 PM
Even though KC and NYG made the playoffs, they both suck!!! The Giants will be lucky to win 5 games next year. Coughlin will be fired before week 8. Also, we are better than the Rams and Titans. We are better than most of those teams, but WE DO HAVE TO PROVE IT. Too many errors and mental mistakes. There was only two teams ranked in the top 10 in both offense and defense. They were the CHargers and the STEELERS!

Stlrs4Life
01-18-2007, 09:26 PM
You earn your praise/rankings. We did not earn a damn thing this year besides an early vacation.

I have no problem with his rankings. It's our job to prove him/them wrong next year.

Good point 83, nut it is a little too far down for us. I'd say middle.