PDA

View Full Version : Super Bowl Team Rankings From ESPN


SteelerFanInCA
01-24-2007, 02:59 PM
Ranking 80 different Super Bowl teams from the past years.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/80-61

polamalufan43
01-24-2007, 03:04 PM
that was pretty cool

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Atlanta Dan
01-24-2007, 03:17 PM
I do not believe I am being a homer in saying that 1975 Steelers team is ranked way too low at #13. The '78 team scored more but that '75 team was a lot stronger defensively - a gap of #3 to #13 between the 2 teams does not add up.

I would not be surprised by a fans poll with these rankings, but the rankings show a clear bias favoring 80s and 90s SB winners, with 3 49ers teams in the top 11 and the '86 Giants being a lower shelf version of the 75 Steelers that is ranked higher at #8.

And then there is this gem - The '70s Steelers have their own wing at Canton, but it's hard to argue that the early '90s Cowboys aren't the most talented team of all time :dang: Hard to argue??!!

But definitely a way to start a lot of debates.

stlrtruck
01-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Let's face it we know that all 5 Winning Super Bowl Steelers teams belong in the top 5 and the losing Super Bowl team belongs in the top 10!

If it ain't Black and Gold - who cares!

sumo
01-24-2007, 03:33 PM
I read that page earlier today - is anybody else disturbed that the Dallas team that lost to the Steelers in 78 is rated in the top 20? - that team is just like the Seahawks from last year -- oh yeah - if it wasn't for the bad call against Benny Barnes and Jackie Smith dropping the Td pass..blah, blah, blah - give me a break - what's a losing team doing in the top 20? and the Steelers from last year at 41? COME ON!!

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 03:52 PM
I read that page earlier today - is anybody else disturbed that the Dallas team that lost to the Steelers in 78 is rated in the top 20?

Not really, as it justifies my position that the Cowboys teams we had to beat were better than the teams the '80s 49ers had to beat to win the SB. What does bother me is the '85 Bears, which were a one-shot wonder, being ranked #2. That one I disagree with.

Atlanta Dan
01-24-2007, 04:55 PM
I read that page earlier today - is anybody else disturbed that the Dallas team that lost to the Steelers in 78 is rated in the top 20? - that team is just like the Seahawks from last year -- oh yeah - if it wasn't for the bad call against Benny Barnes and Jackie Smith dropping the Td pass..blah, blah, blah - give me a break - what's a losing team doing in the top 20? and the Steelers from last year at 41? COME ON!!

That '78 Cowboys team was loaded.

If the Cowboys would have won XIII they probably would be regarded as the team of the '70s - but, of course, they lost:flap:

That they are ranked that high indicates how talented the really top teams (Dolphins, Raiders, Cowboys, Steelers) were in the 70s and how impressive winning 4 SBs in that era is.

SteelerFanInCA
01-24-2007, 04:57 PM
I do not believe I am being a homer in saying that 1975 Steelers team is ranked way too low at #13. The '78 team scored more but that '75 team was a lot stronger defensively - a gap of #3 to #13 between the 2 teams does not add up.

I would not be surprised by a fans poll with these rankings, but the rankings show a clear bias favoring 80s and 90s SB winners, with 3 49ers teams in the top 11 and the '86 Giants being a lower shelf version of the 75 Steelers that is ranked higher at #8.

And then there is this gem - The '70s Steelers have their own wing at Canton, but it's hard to argue that the early '90s Cowboys aren't the most talented team of all time :dang: Hard to argue??!!

But definitely a way to start a lot of debates.

Yeah I have to agree with you on that one. The 1975 team was a powerhouse and should have made at least the top ten in my book as well.

Atlanta Dan
01-24-2007, 07:04 PM
In addition to ranking the 80 SB participants, ESPN has a sidebar list of the top 10 teams not to make the Super Bowl.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/leftovers

The 2004 Steelers are on the list but the 1976 Steelers are not. Given that the 70s Steelers pretty much unanimously say (as did Art Rooney Sr.) the '76 edition of the Steelers was the best team they ever had, that omission confirms my view these rankings are an entertaining read but in contradiction of some pretty compelling contrary opinions.

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 07:24 PM
In addition to ranking the 80 SB participants, ESPN has a sidebar list of the top 10 teams not to make the Super Bowl.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/leftovers

The 2004 Steelers are on the list but the 1976 Steelers are not. Given that the 70s Steelers pretty much unanimously say (as did Art Rooney Sr.) the '76 edition of the Steelers was the best team they ever had, that omission confirms my view these rankings are an entertaining read but in contradiction of some pretty compelling contrary opinions.

Agreed, Dan. One must keep in mind that that list is just that, opinion. My personal opinion is that the Steel Curtain would have chewed up and spit out the West Coast Offense of the '80s 49ers. Lambert and Ham would have feasted on those nice little dink-n-dunk passes Montana made a career out of throwing, assuming L.C. wouldn't have wound up swatting them out of the air. But again, this is just opinion.

CantStop85
01-24-2007, 07:38 PM
How's it feel to have a Bengals superbowl team ranked higher than a Steelers one? lol

3 to be 4
01-24-2007, 07:39 PM
the 1978 Cowboys were an awesome team, the best of the teams that lost the SB.
the 1976 Steelers were not only the best team to not play in the Super Bowl, they were at least in the top 10 of best teams ever, and an arguement could be made that for the 10 game stretch where they went from 1-4 to 10-4 plus blasted the Colts in the playoffs, they were the best team in NFL history.

btw, from a Patriots perspective, there is NO WAY the 1996 Packers are better than the 2004 Patriots. For cry eye, if it wasnt for Desmond Howard, the flawed 1996 Patriots might have beaten them.

Newzfoxjr
01-24-2007, 07:43 PM
How's it feel to have a Bengals superbowl team ranked higher than a Steelers one? lol


How's it feel to have to cling to that as a Bengals fan ?_?

Atlanta Dan
01-24-2007, 07:44 PM
How's it feel to have a Bengals superbowl team ranked higher than a Steelers one? lol

A lot better than it must feel to never have seen your favorite team win a Super Bowl:flap:

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 07:44 PM
btw, from a Patriots perspective, there is NO WAY the 1996 Packers are better than the 2004 Patriots. For cry eye, if it wasnt for Desmond Howard, the flawed 1996 Patriots might have beaten them.

Like I said earlier, all just opinion, but I agree completely. When a KR is named SB MVP, it generally means nobody else on the team (including Favre) played well enough to deserve it.

Hawk Believer
01-24-2007, 08:12 PM
What does it say about Seattle that it became the only team to outgain and commit fewer turnovers than its Super Bowl opponent and still lose? It means the Seahawks either (A) got screwed, or (B) easily could be ranked ahead of the Steelers. Alas, we stick them here, because (A) they did lose just three games, including one in OT and the season finale in which Shaun Alexander and Matt Hasselback sat the second half, but (B) benefited from a very easy schedule, and (C) featured the NFL MVP in Alexander, but (D) still managed to mess up the Super Bowl by dropping several passes and allowing two big plays to Pittsburgh.

It still hurts....:banging:

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 08:16 PM
What does it say about Seattle that it became the only team to outgain and commit fewer turnovers than its Super Bowl opponent and still lose?

Bullshit.

http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxxvi

http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxx

Hawk Believer
01-24-2007, 08:25 PM
Bullshit.

http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxxvi

http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxx

Its a semantic debate I guess. If you read the sentence as having the two variables being paired, the author is correct (as far as I know). If you read it as two stand alone issues then you have proven him otherwise. I am sure if you pointed this out to the author he would say he meant the former.

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 08:30 PM
Its a semantic debate I guess. If you read the sentence as having the two variables being paired, the author is correct (as far as I know). If you read it as two stand alone issues then you have proven him otherwise. I am sure if you pointed this out to the author he would say he meant the former.

Yep, I looked at them as two stand alone issues - you could read it either way, really. And the curt one-word response was not directed at you, but the author of the article. ESPN was the main culprit that fed the officiating "controversy" last year, and I still have a standing boycott against that network because of it. Never mind that their talking heads later reviewed every "questionable" call and concluded that all but the penalty on Hasselbeck (which had no effect whatsoever on the game's outcome) were correct. I also like how the author "conveniently" neglected to mention that one of those dropped passes was a fumble by Stevens which was incorrectly ruled an incomplete pass.

meanjoecoop
01-24-2007, 09:10 PM
How's it feel to have a Bengals superbowl team ranked higher than a Steelers one? lol

Considering that one Bungal fan has been quoted elsewhere saying that even though they lost the 88' team "was in their glory"...I'd say it's hillarious.

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 09:13 PM
Considering that one Bungal fan has been quoted elsewhere saying that even though they lost the 88' team "was in their glory"...I'd say it's hillarious.

I kinda miss the "Ickey Shuffle." :chuckle:

Hawk Believer
01-24-2007, 09:25 PM
I kinda miss the "Ickey Shuffle." :chuckle:

That guy is a perfect example of how quicly the NFL can giveth and taketh away. He went from being one of the most recognized players in the game that year to falling off the face of the Earth. VH1 could do a good After the Music special on him....

Atlanta Dan
01-24-2007, 09:55 PM
That guy is a perfect example of how quicly the NFL can giveth and taketh away. He went from being one of the most recognized players in the game that year to falling off the face of the Earth. VH1 could do a good After the Music special on him....


:toofunny: Wasn't there some pregame show nonsense before the Steelers-Bengals playoff game where Ickey had some sort of Ickey brand concession he was selling at Paul Brown Stadium?

I guess Ickey was from around the last generation of players before free agency where you still might end up parking cars somewhere if you did not manage your money and were out of the league several years later (e.g. - I recall reading that Glen "Knotty Pine" Edwards, starting safety on the first 2 SB winners, ended up working -not supervising -construction and Ernie Holmes was a buildling security guard somewhere in California). Not everyone gets to spend Sundays with JB and Terry doing the pregame show after they retire from the league.

hardwork
01-24-2007, 11:20 PM
1. '89 49ers
2. '85 Bears vs. Patriots
3. '78 Steelers*
4. '92 Cowboys
5. '84 49ers
6. '96 Packers vs. Patriots
7. '72 Dolphins*
8. '86 Giants
9. '04 Patriots
10. '91 Redskins

*Nullified due to performance enhancing drugs.

So, two of the teams that were good enough to be in the top 6 were opponents of the Patriots. Meaning, that when the Patriots lost in a Super Bowl it was only to the most elite teams. The Patriots also are ranked in the top ten at #9, while the #3 ranked Steeler team is eliminated due to Steroid abuse.

So, contrary to what Steeler fans would have you believe, the Steelers have nothing to crow about when talking SB appearances.

fansince'76
01-24-2007, 11:33 PM
1. '89 49ers
2. '85 Bears vs. Patriots
3. '78 Steelers*
4. '92 Cowboys
5. '84 49ers
6. '96 Packers vs. Patriots
7. '72 Dolphins*
8. '86 Giants
9. '04 Patriots
10. '91 Redskins

*Nullified due to performance enhancing drugs.

So, two of the teams that were good enough to be in the top 6 were opponents of the Patriots. Meaning, that when the Patriots lost in a Super Bowl it was only to the most elite teams. The Patriots also are ranked in the top ten at #9, while the #3 ranked Steeler team is eliminated due to Steroid abuse.

So, contrary to what Steeler fans would have you believe, the Steelers have nothing to crow about when talking SB appearances.

BALCO Brady. Todd Sauerbrun. 'Nuff said.

Hawk Believer
01-24-2007, 11:55 PM
1. '89 49ers
2. '85 Bears vs. Patriots
3. '78 Steelers*
4. '92 Cowboys
5. '84 49ers
6. '96 Packers vs. Patriots
7. '72 Dolphins*
8. '86 Giants
9. '04 Patriots
10. '91 Redskins

*Nullified due to performance enhancing drugs.

So, two of the teams that were good enough to be in the top 6 were opponents of the Patriots. Meaning, that when the Patriots lost in a Super Bowl it was only to the most elite teams. The Patriots also are ranked in the top ten at #9, while the #3 ranked Steeler team is eliminated due to Steroid abuse.

So, contrary to what Steeler fans would have you believe, the Steelers have nothing to crow about when talking SB appearances.

:popcorn:

tony hipchest
01-25-2007, 12:21 AM
So, two of the teams that were good enough to be in the top 6 were opponents of the Patriots. Meaning, that when the Patriots lost in a Super Bowl it was only to the most elite teams. The Patriots also are ranked in the top ten at #9, while the #3 ranked Steeler team is eliminated due to Steroid abuse.

So, contrary to what Steeler fans would have you believe, the Steelers have nothing to crow about when talking SB appearances.big drew bledsoe fan, are you?

steelers faced real oponents.

the packers and bears faced doormats. those patriots were the 94 chargers and the 00 giants of SB lore. everyone without their head up their ass knows the 4 steelers sb teams were the top 4. (76 steelers coming in at #5).


you should know this. even you were a huge steelerfan while the patriots were nobodies of the league during the 70's.

augustashark
01-25-2007, 12:34 AM
I don't care what anyone says or what views they have that 94 49ers team was one of the best I've ever seen. I will never say that we would'nt have beat them, but it would have taken our best game!

sumo
01-25-2007, 01:32 AM
I don't care what anyone says or what views they have that 94 49ers team was one of the best I've ever seen. I will never say that we would'nt have beat them, but it would have taken our best game!

I agree - IMO, Steve Young had the best year ever ('94) for a Qb in the history of the league and Jerry Rice had close to his best ever, Ricky Watters, Deon Sanders was on that team - all at their best ...that was one badass group!..

Atlanta Dan
01-25-2007, 07:41 AM
In his sports media column today, Smizik reports the top 10 SB teams on the NFL Network "America's Game" series are (final rankings not yet disclosed) as follows:

The 1975 and 1978 Steelers were among the 10 best Super Bowl champions as selected by a 53-person panel of experts assembled by the NFL Network. San Francisco (1984 and 1989) was the only other franchise to place two teams on the list. The other six: New England, 2004; Dallas, 1992; Chicago, 1985; Oakland, 1976; Miami, 1972; Green Bay, 1966. A countdown from 10 to one will begin Saturday on the NFL Network. The No. 1 team will be profiled Feb. 3

This top 10 gives a lot more weight to SB champs from the first 15 years of the game and IMHO reflects the broader cross-section of opinion the NFL pulled together than was used in the ESPN rankings.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 02:40 PM
In his sports media column today, Smizik reports the top 10 SB teams on the NFL Network "America's Game" series are (final rankings not yet disclosed) as follows:

The 1975 and 1978 Steelers were among the 10 best Super Bowl champions as selected by a 53-person panel of experts assembled by the NFL Network. San Francisco (1984 and 1989) was the only other franchise to place two teams on the list. The other six: New England, 2004; Dallas, 1992; Chicago, 1985; Oakland, 1976; Miami, 1972; Green Bay, 1966. A countdown from 10 to one will begin Saturday on the NFL Network. The No. 1 team will be profiled Feb. 3

This top 10 gives a lot more weight to SB champs from the first 15 years of the game and IMHO reflects the broader cross-section of opinion the NFL pulled together than was used in the ESPN rankings.



As should the HR stats in baseball, the NFL's best teams during the 70s should have an asterisk next to them pointing out that these teams aren't really legit due to steroid abuse. It's unfair not to educate the newer fans coming into the game, like many in here, about the deception of these records.

America is about fair play. America is not about a group of jacked up thugs pretending to be honest sports legends.

stlrtruck
01-25-2007, 02:48 PM
We could sit here all year long discussing the ins and outs of those decades in the NFL from a moral stand point and/or legal stand point. But some how, I get the feeling that it wouldn't matter.

I'll just settle to the fact that you're a bitter man because other than the past few years, your pansies have basically sucked, only reaching the Super Bowl one other time. Other than that, they were a doormat in the AFC.

Some franchises have storied pasts and fans world wide...and then there are 31 other teams!

fansince'76
01-25-2007, 02:48 PM
As should the HR stats in baseball, the NFL's best teams during the 70s should have an asterisk next to them pointing out that these teams aren't really legit due to steroid abuse. It's unfair not to educate the newer fans coming into the game, like many in here, about the deception of these records.

America is about fair play. America is not about a group of jacked up thugs pretending to be honest sports legends.

Yep, never mind all the designer roids available today that no blood or piss test can detect. But we all know the NFL of the present is clean, don't we? :wink02:

hardwork
01-25-2007, 03:03 PM
Yep, never mind all the designer roids available today that no blood or piss test can detect. But we all know the NFL of the present is clean, don't we? :wink02:

Oh no. You mean we have to discount last years Steeler SB victory also?

Like Diogenes I will be walking the NFLs streets during the day with my lantern.

fansince'76
01-25-2007, 03:05 PM
Oh no. You mean we have to discount last years Steeler SB victory also?

Like Diogenes I will be walking the NFLs streets during the day with my lantern.

If steroid abuse was so "rampant" 30 years ago, why are the players of today so much bigger, faster and stronger than they were then? Improved training only partially explains it.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 03:21 PM
If steroid abuse was so "rampant" 30 years ago, why are the players of today so much bigger, faster and stronger than they were then? Improved training only partially explains it.

Are the 6' 5" QBs of today that big because of steroids. I highly doubt it. Are the 350lb nose tackles of today that big due to steroids? I highly doubt it. I suspect they're that big because that big is accepted now.

You know what these guys do don't you. They work out, then eat. They work out, then eat. They work out some more, then eat some more. On and on and on. The training is better. The diets are better. The training goes on 12 months of the year. Etc, etc.

If you think the NFL today is just as roided up as it was during the 70s, show me something to indicate that besides just size. If there's something there I'll agree with you.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-25-2007, 03:48 PM
Are the 6' 5" QBs of today that big because of steroids. I highly doubt it. Are the 350lb nose tackles of today that big due to steroids? I highly doubt it. I suspect they're that big because that big is accepted now.



Wow...you can be 6'5 because its acceptable....I have read about Diogenes...I have studied Diogenes..and you sir...would be passed up by Diogenes.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 03:54 PM
Wow...you can be 6'5 because its acceptable....I have read about Diogenes...I have studied Diogenes..and you sir...would be passed up by Diogenes.

Just more personal attacks.

What a joke.

fansince'76
01-25-2007, 04:01 PM
Are the 6' 5" QBs of today that big because of steroids. I highly doubt it. Are the 350lb nose tackles of today that big due to steroids? I highly doubt it. I suspect they're that big because that big is accepted now.


Precisely. Back in the day, NFL linemen (especially) were subject to strict weight limits by teams and were subject to fines if they didn't stay within those limits. Kinda further discourages steroid abuse, does it not?

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-25-2007, 04:09 PM
Just more personal attacks.

What a joke.

so when you talk about it ..its enlightened thinking..and when anyone else hands it back...its an attack....exactly why you cant get along with anyone in the forum..

Like Diogenes I will be walking the NFLs streets during the day with my lantern.
[HardworkToday 02:48 PM]

sumo
01-25-2007, 04:10 PM
IMHO, this needs to become a separate steroids discussion thread instead of ranking the greatest SB teams ...I keep checking back because the topic of debating different teams and eras is interesting to me but it seems like the focus is instead on who used roids and who didn't ...

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-25-2007, 04:18 PM
IMHO, this needs to become a separate steroids discussion thread instead of ranking the greatest SB teams ...I keep checking back because the topic of debating different teams and eras is interesting to me but it seems like the focus is instead on who used roids and who didn't ...

Thread was hi-jacked in post #31 as a thinly-veiled slam agaisnt the 70's Steelers...Keep checking back...we may be able to get this back on track

tony hipchest
01-25-2007, 04:18 PM
If you think the NFL today is just as roided up as it was during the 70s, show me something to indicate that besides just size. If there's something there I'll agree with you.tom brady, tedi bruschi, todd saurbrun, to name a few.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 04:24 PM
Precisely. Back in the day, NFL linemen (especially) were subject to strict weight limits by teams and were subject to fines if they didn't stay within those limits. Kinda further discourages steroid abuse, does it not?

Apparently not, because back in the day was when steroid abuse was so rampant. Further, they didn't regulated your weight in order to discourage steroid use. They did it because they thought a 350lb man couldn't move well enough to play at any position. With some rare exceptions.

Look at Wilfork and compare him to say Brian Bosworth. Wilfork is a big man. Everything about him is big. Bosworth only had size 9 shoes. After he left football he went down to 160 lbs. He was all steroids. Wilfork has a huge frame that allows him to carry 75 to 100 extra pounds and still be able to move around.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 04:36 PM
tom brady, tedi bruschi, todd saurbrun, to name a few.


Yeah, well Brady and Bruschi better get refunds then. Brady is about as cut as a sumo wrestler, and if Bruschi bought them he must have forgot to take them.

tony hipchest
01-25-2007, 04:42 PM
Look at Wilfork and compare him to say Brian Bosworth. Wilfork is a big man. Everything about him is big. Bosworth only had size 9 shoes. After he left football he went down to 160 lbs. He was all steroids. Wilfork has a huge frame that allows him to carry 75 to 100 extra pounds and still be able to move around.bosworth didnt play in the 70's. sumo arm brady put on armstrength by getting fat? since his stroke, im sure theres alot bruschi has forgot.

fansince'76
01-25-2007, 04:44 PM
Apparently not, because back in the day was when steroid abuse was so rampant.

Proof, please, not hearsay. Show me a study that concludes that steroid abuse was a much bigger problem then in the league than it is now.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 05:34 PM
Proof, please, not hearsay. Show me a study that concludes that steroid abuse was a much bigger problem then in the league than it is now.

Read Courson's book, False Glory, for what the Steeler SB teams of the 70s were doing. As for now, I certainly know they're being used, but I doubt by as many players. You say they might be as rampant. Your claim, you prove it. Proof, please, not hearsay. Show me the study.

fansince'76
01-25-2007, 05:37 PM
Read Courson's book, False Glory, for what the Steeler SB teams of the 70s were doing. As for now, I certainly know they're being used, but I doubt by as many players. You say they might be as rampant. Your claim, you prove it. Proof, please, not hearsay. Show me the study.

Not an official study per se, but still pretty damn credible: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-te.sp.nflsteroids26apr26,1,6973612.story?coll=bal-sports-football

Besides, if steroid abuse was so widespread in the '70s as you claim, doesn't it kind of stand to reason it wasn't members of just one team doing it, but many teams?

hardwork
01-25-2007, 05:51 PM
Not an official study per se, but still pretty damn credible: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-te.sp.nflsteroids26apr26,1,6973612.story?coll=bal-sports-football

Besides, if steroid abuse was so widespread in the '70s as you claim, doesn't it kind of stand to reason it wasn't members of just one team doing it, but many teams?


Oh I'll give you that. Clearly the Steelers weren't alone. And, yes, therefore they were the best of that era. You'd have to be nuts not to know that those Steeler teams were GREAT. The LBers alone were almost enough to get them where they got.

HometownGal
01-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Read Courson's book, False Glory, for what the Steeler SB teams of the 70s were doing.

To use one of your words........hearsay. A player/writer's OPINION.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 06:01 PM
To use one of your words........hearsay. A player/writer's OPINION.

No, Denver brought that word to the thread first. So give him the credit. As for that being hearsay, not in terms of what he did, or did with others.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-25-2007, 06:08 PM
Oh I'll give you that. Clearly the Steelers weren't alone. And, yes, therefore they were the best of that era. You'd have to be nuts not to know that those Steeler teams were GREAT. The LBers alone were almost enough to get them where they got.

In Pittsburgh, Steelers President Art Rooney II yesterday quickly sought to distance the Steelers organization from any past illegal drug use, saying that neither executives nor coaches tolerated doping by players.

"Now, what Steve is saying about the fact that he knew people were using steroids, and maybe other people do, that may be true, I don't know," Rooney said. "But as I said before, I am absolutely certain, without equivocation, that at no time was there a position that steroids were to be condoned.

"In fact, I'm aware that Chuck Noll on many occasions said they were not to be used, and that the people that used them were endangering themselves, so I think that was the environment that existed

"So I'm glad we wound up in that place. But if there's any implication on Steve's part that they were being condoned, or people were looking the other way, I disagree with that strongly."

so his charges are said to be false by the organization
but IF you choose to believe them then there would STILL have been parity among the teams since he says that ALL teams were using them


Courson alleges the migration of substances designed to hike the performance of Soviet weightlifters to American gyms. By 1963, Courson wrote, steroids reached the San Diego Chargers through strength coach Alvin Roy, who worked before with the U.S. Olympic weightlifting team.

When Roy later joined the Chiefs, Cowboys and Raiders, steroid use followed in his wake, and allegedly eventually reaching the Steelers dynasty and every other NFL team, according to Courson.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 06:18 PM
so his charges are said to be false by the organization
but IF you choose to believe them then there would STILL have been parity among the teams since he says that ALL teams were using them

What difference does that make? If all of the top 10 HR hitters of the past 10 years used, does that mean their totals are more ligit? Of course not.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-25-2007, 06:48 PM
What difference does that make? If all of the top 10 HR hitters of the past 10 years used, does that mean their totals are more ligit? Of course not.

Gee..I guess we cannot ignore the FACT that everyone was allegedly using them..and the FACT that at the time in the nfl there was NOT a steroid policy...and the FACT that there WAS a steroid policy for baseball in the last 10 years.
Then this "point" that you are trying to make may fall into place.....but why let the facts stand in the way of disparaging the Steelers...right?

tony hipchest
01-25-2007, 07:10 PM
You'd have to be nuts not to know that those Steeler teams were GREAT. The LBers alone were almost enough to get them where they got.definitely agree. after all, the kicking team alone was almost enough to get the modern day patriots to where they got.

like i told LITP, who eroneously stated that it was the steel curtain who was juiced (in a post that has since mysteriously disappeared), it was the offensive linemen who were all alleged to be juicing back in the day. theres no way you could look at lambert or ham and think they were artificially pumped up. like your comparrison of wilfork, mean joe is just a big assed dude. even offensive players like franco harris or earl campbell look like theyre big enough to take the field today.

steroids didnt prevent bradshaw from enduring all the punishment he took, and it didnt cause franco to be one of the most powerful runners of the time. it didnt help swann to make all those circus catches. i cant discredit s. coursons book. then again the steelers main rival at the time had players like metuzac and alzado so no one cant say there wasnt a level playing field.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 09:38 PM
Gee..I guess we cannot ignore the FACT that everyone was allegedly using them..and the FACT that at the time in the nfl there was NOT a steroid policy...and the FACT that there WAS a steroid policy for baseball in the last 10 years.
Then this "point" that you are trying to make may fall into place.....but why let the facts stand in the way of disparaging the Steelers...right?



Wrong.

Fact: A steroid assisted athlete is cheating no matter the sports stance on the issue.

A sprinter runs an unassisted 9.2 100 meters that stands as a record. A week later, in the same venue, a sprinter breaks that record with a 9.1 but, was using steroids. That sprinter cheated no matter what the venues approach to steroid use was at the time. Athletic events are held to determine what individual, or group of individuals, is better at a certain sport or event. They are not held to see who has taken the more productive steroids.

Not surprising that some wouldn't even understand the most basic principles of athletic competition, but would instead concern themselves with the personality of a coach.

hardwork
01-25-2007, 09:45 PM
definitely agree. after all, the kicking team alone was almost enough to get the modern day patriots to where they got.

Really!?! The modern day Steelers are so bad that their old kicking team could beat 'em twice in AFCCGames? That is disheartening for you guys.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-26-2007, 02:18 PM
Wrong.

Fact: A steroid assisted athlete is cheating no matter the sports stance on the issue.

A sprinter runs an unassisted 9.2 100 meters that stands as a record. A week later, in the same venue, a sprinter breaks that record with a 9.1 but, was using steroids. That sprinter cheated no matter what the venues approach to steroid use was at the time. Athletic events are held to determine what individual, or group of individuals, is better at a certain sport or event. They are not held to see who has taken the more productive steroids.

Not surprising that some wouldn't even understand the most basic principles of athletic competition, but would instead concern themselves with the personality of a coach.

The next time one of your posts talks actual football will be the first time...you talk in circles and disrespect...you are known for nothing else here....but then again I guess a bad rep is better than no rep....right?

...and for the record....no athlete has broke the 9.77 mark in the 100 meter dash....so your example here is as informed as you using Brian Bosworth as an example of 70's steroid use.

Diogenes...keep walking.

hardwork
01-26-2007, 03:15 PM
...and for the record....no athlete has broke the 9.77 mark in the 100 meter dash....so your example here is as informed as you using Brian Bosworth as an example of 70's steroid use.

Lol, what difference does it make whether I used 9.1 or 9.8? And the use of Bosworth was to point out the difference between a man who is big by birth, and one who is big by steroid use. I said nothing about when Bosworth played.

If you don't know how to debate, just admit it, you'll feel better.

sumo
01-26-2007, 03:20 PM
Lol, what difference does it make whether I used 9.1 or 9.8? And the use of Bosworth was to point out the difference between a man who is big by birth, and one who is big by steroid use. I said nothing about when Bosworth played.

If you don't know how to debate, just admit it, you'll feel better.

I agree man - steroids and more steroids and then steroid his a** some more!

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-28-2007, 07:34 AM
Lol, what difference does it make whether I used 9.1 or 9.8? And the use of Bosworth was to point out the difference between a man who is big by birth, and one who is big by steroid use. I said nothing about when Bosworth played.

If you don't know how to debate, just admit it, you'll feel better.


You depate by using false facts and double talk....youre right...I dont depate that way. Everyone who saw your attempt to slam the 70's Steelers as drug-induced cheaters...saw you talk about 70 players in one sentence..and use Bosworth as an example....It was pointed out by several people. It has nothing to do with everyones elses failure to be able to debate you. Noone wants to debate you because your disrespectful to the forum and to its members.
We just all get a bit of joy out of watching you try and back up your arguements with baseless points and non-facts. You will excuse us if we just point these out everytime you post...then we will go back to actually having meaningful conversations with people who know football and are not using the forum as a means to try and present themselves as psuedo-intelectuals..and take out their obvious frustrations by being rude to people who come here for the reasons the forum was created.

I tell you what...I will offer you an olive branch if you can just...1) Not try and make yourself feel better by tearing others down...2) Refrain from disguising Steeler put-downs in every thread as actual football talk....3) Quit hijacking threads and stay on topic so that everyone else can actually keep a thread relevant for more than 5 posts.

That is all anyone in this forum has against you....Here is your opportunity to become a valued member of the forum.