PDA

View Full Version : XLIII ring


SteelerNut91
02-14-2009, 11:30 PM
Anyone else looking forward to seeing the design?

:tt:

NEPAsteeler
02-14-2009, 11:41 PM
I am! I can't wait to see how they incorporate the sixth trophy!

Stu Pidasso
02-15-2009, 12:32 AM
Gonna be a big ass ring...

Steel_Bus_24
02-15-2009, 01:32 AM
ahh can't wait

chucoblack&gold
02-15-2009, 01:43 AM
:excited: cant wait

Steelcitygal87
02-15-2009, 06:50 AM
When are they going to let us know what the design is? :tt03:

Galax Steeler
02-15-2009, 07:08 AM
When are they going to let us know what the design is? :tt03:

I don't know but I think we need to purchase one.:chuckle:

StainlessStill
02-15-2009, 08:17 AM
I'm excited for it. After all this celebration I kind of looked passed the design of the ring. Now I am fired up. Can't wait to see 6 trophy's:tt02: on that S.O.B

HometownGal
02-15-2009, 08:35 AM
I don't know but I think we need to purchase one.:chuckle:

Hey Galax - you gonna buy me one too? :hug::chuckle:

Galax Steeler
02-15-2009, 08:41 AM
Hey Galax - you gonna buy me one too? :hug::chuckle:

Sure why not I am in a giving mood.:thumbsup:

stillers4me
02-15-2009, 08:43 AM
I'd love to have a necklace pendant to commemorate the sixth win.

You know.......with 6 big 'ole diamonds in it. :wink02:

HometownGal
02-15-2009, 08:48 AM
I'd love to have a necklace pendant to commemorate the sixth win.

You know.......with 6 big 'ole diamonds in it. :wink02:

V-Day was yesterday, stillers - should have hit the hubby up for one! :thumbsup:

stillers4me
02-15-2009, 08:50 AM
V-Day was yesterday, stillers - should have hit the hubby up for one! :thumbsup:

I did get a silver bracelet. I'm working on the other idea. :drink:

lilyoder6
02-15-2009, 10:53 AM
i hope they make this 6th ring sick as ----..... ppl need 2 know who was the 1st team 2 get 6

fansince'76
02-15-2009, 10:58 AM
When are they going to let us know what the design is?

I was looking back through old threads and it seemed like the design for the SB XL ring wasn't made public until June of '06, unfortunately.

CPanther95
02-15-2009, 11:12 AM
A good design is well worth the wait.

Steelcitygal87
02-15-2009, 11:19 AM
I was looking back through old threads and it seemed like the design for the SB XL ring wasn't made public until June of '06, unfortunately.

Oh okay, thank you. Time goes by so quickly anymore, Summer will be here before we know it. I am anxious to see what the designer comes up with! :tt03:

KeiselPower99
02-15-2009, 11:59 AM
Im sure itll be nice and expensive.

MaidenIndiana
02-15-2009, 12:38 PM
I'm sure the ring will be a nice piece of bling bling. Even though I hate the Patriots, the Steelers ought to do what they did after their last SB win. They held a lottery and one fan actually won a SB ring. Now that would be sweet

fansince'76
02-15-2009, 12:41 PM
I'm thinking six diamonds in the shape of Lombardi trophies in a six-pointed star configuration of some sort, but we'll see.

stillers4me
02-15-2009, 12:42 PM
If I remember correctly, Ben and Jerome were in on the design of that last ring. I wonder who is doing it this time?

WWIIOwheelz
02-15-2009, 01:11 PM
If I remember correctly, Ben and Jerome were in on the design of that last ring. I wonder who is doing it this time?

I'll bet Hines is one of the parties this time.

Dino 6 Rings
02-15-2009, 01:35 PM
I know I can't wait, I need a new avatar something bad!

devilsdancefloor
02-15-2009, 01:40 PM
I know I can't wait, I need a new avatar something bad!

lol yes you do!! but i thnk it will be intersting to see what it looks like i cant wait!!

Stylez1877
02-15-2009, 10:22 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it should only have two trophies?? The start of a NEW dynasty??
In fact, I recall Ben saying that after the 2005 one, about 5 trophies, and how when they win another they can seperate from the old dynasties and go with 2 on the ring.

FredScott
02-15-2009, 10:32 PM
Yea it's gonna be a nice piece of hardware for sure, I want to see it for sure.

fansince'76
02-15-2009, 10:37 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it should only have two trophies?? The start of a NEW dynasty??
In fact, I recall Ben saying that after the 2005 one, about 5 trophies, and how when they win another they can seperate from the old dynasties and go with 2 on the ring.

I don't know - to me that would be like disrespecting the memory of the '70s teams that won the first four. I hope they don't go that route. It wouldn't be known as "Sixburgh" without those first four, after all.

stillers4me
02-15-2009, 11:05 PM
I don't know - to me that would be like disrespecting the memory of the '70s teams that won the first four. I hope they don't go that route. It wouldn't be known as "Sixburgh" without those first four, after all.

I agree. Why in the world would they not include the first four? Just because most of the team and some of the fans weren't even born then doesn't mean they didn't happen. I remember them ( and so do many, many fans.......and I'm sure Dan Rooney has fond memories from them ) and they are the foundation of the heritage the current group is building on. And if you ask them, I'm sure they will tell you that they only dream of being as great the 70's teams were.

:banging:

bratsinmybelly
02-16-2009, 12:49 AM
I think it should be one of those across the knuckle jobbies from the early nineties rap videos.:chuckle:

CPanther95
02-16-2009, 08:11 AM
You gotta represent all 6.

Steelers are all about Organization>Team>Individual. That's what makes the Steelers play beyond themselves frequently.

SteelMember
02-16-2009, 09:38 AM
I'm thinking six diamonds in the shape of Lombardi trophies in a six-pointed star configuration of some sort, but we'll see.

That'd be nice. A little like the XL.

How about 5 stones surrounding a giant 6 ct. diamond.

Realistically, I'm thinking two rows of three stones about 1ct. each.

CPanther95
02-16-2009, 11:06 AM
A single massive hexagonal diamond with the SB roman numerals on each side of the hex.

With a small shout out to Steeler Nation on one of the 2 sides - maybe a small TT with a "MC" in the middle as a Cope tribute.

steelfanman
02-17-2009, 01:17 AM
Speculate no more, fellow members of the Steeler Nation...behold...the RING!!!

SteelersMongol
02-17-2009, 03:12 AM
Speculate no more, fellow members of the Steeler Nation...behold...the RING!!!

http://forums.steelersfever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=798&d=1234851449



:rofl:

Jackal
02-17-2009, 11:26 AM
I think it should be one of those across the knuckle jobbies from the early nineties rap videos.:chuckle:

Diamond brass knuckles perhaps?

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w37/BreWay2007/GraphicsPicsIconsQuotes007/diamondbrassknuckles.jpg


Now THAT would make a statement.

FingBEN
02-17-2009, 02:53 PM
Ha Ha....that's a great ring picture! I have the same one. Picked up a pack of cupcakes in Tampa at Publix with those on it.

Steelersfanforlife
02-17-2009, 04:43 PM
can't wait for the ring really want to see it.

Cordlisberger
02-17-2009, 04:53 PM
Speculate no more, fellow members of the Steeler Nation...behold...the RING!!!

Wow the economy is bad ....Pittsburgh Steelers first to Six ... and the first with a plastic ring

SteelersMongol
02-17-2009, 08:25 PM
Wow the economy is bad ....Pittsburgh Steelers first to Six ... and the first with a plastic ring

:laughing:

janstett
05-22-2009, 10:15 AM
Hey guys, GIants fan here, I joined because I'm curious to see what the XLIII ring looks like. I wish we got to play you in XLIII, I'd love to see our two storied franchises hook up in the SB. If I weren't a Giants fan, I've always said I'd go for the Packers or the Steelers because they're old school defense-oriented franchises.

I congratulate you on the XL and XLIII wins. But I do want to take a moment to comment on the "first to 6" thing as it seems to be all I've seen coming out of Pittsburgh (recently drove through on the way to the football Hall of Fame). Since most of you seem like true NFL fans, I'd just like to remind you that while you are the first to 6 Super Bowl championships, you are not the first to 6 NFL championships. The Packers have 12, the Bears have 9, the Giants have 7 (including Super Bowls). Don't get so hung up on this being the 6th, it takes away what was special about your run this year and reduces it to a commodity.

Since your team started play in 1933, the whole "NFL championships don't count" argument the Cowboys use doesn't hold as much water, despite not making the playoffs once until 1972 <ducks>.

And I'm jealous that you guys are getting the Blu-Ray treatment for your "Road to the Superbowl" and championship videos, we got stuck with DVD only last year.

fansince'76
05-22-2009, 11:05 AM
I congratulate you on the XL and XLIII wins. But I do want to take a moment to comment on the "first to 6" thing as it seems to be all I've seen coming out of Pittsburgh (recently drove through on the way to the football Hall of Fame). Since most of you seem like true NFL fans, I'd just like to remind you that while you are the first to 6 Super Bowl championships, you are not the first to 6 NFL championships.

I think most of us are aware of that.

The Packers have 12, the Bears have 9, the Giants have 7 (including Super Bowls)....Since your team started play in 1933, the whole "NFL championships don't count" argument the Cowboys use doesn't hold as much water, despite not making the playoffs once until 1972 <ducks>.

....and the Browns have 8, etc., etc.... :blah: :blah: :blah:

http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/0/v/4/greenbay_XXXI.jpg

Where are the 12 trophies on this ring?

http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/5/t/4/chicago_XX.jpg

Where are the 9 trophies on this ring?

http://www.innerspaeth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ring.jpg

Where are the 7 trophies on this ring?

Seriously, do you really think we haven't heard this argument already ad nauseam from Browns fans? Or do our fans really have to preface it with "in the Super Bowl era" every time someone says "first to 6?"

Steel Head
05-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Super Bowl Championships mean a crapload more than a NFL championship. There are far more teams now and more competition

Some of those early NFL championships that Chicago and GB won only had like half a dozen teams in the NFL.....more similar to a division championship

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
05-22-2009, 03:30 PM
Just heard on ESPN 1250 the Drive that the Steelers will be getting their rings the evening of June 9th !!!:thumbsup::tt02:

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Super Bowl Championships mean a crapload more than a NFL championship. There are far more teams now and more competition

Some of those early NFL championships that Chicago and GB won only had like half a dozen teams in the NFL.....more similar to a division championship

I completely disagree. Even though the Steelers stature might take a hit by yielding to some of the other old teams, I think the NFL should have already taken steps to boost the value of those earlier championships.

CPanther95
05-22-2009, 04:14 PM
I completely disagree. Even though the Steelers stature might take a hit by yielding to some of the other old teams, I think the NFL should have already taken steps to boost the value of those earlier championships.


Not until they first return the Championship that the Bidwells stole from Pottsville.

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 04:32 PM
I'm sorry but if the forward pass hadn't been invented yet... It doesn't count as a championship

If there were 8-12 teams in the league... It doesn't count as a championship

We have 6. It's the most. Stop pouting and suck it.

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 04:48 PM
I'm sorry but if the forward pass hadn't been invented yet... It doesn't count as a championship

If there were 8-12 teams in the league... It doesn't count as a championship

We have 6. It's the most. Stop pouting and suck it.

I am a Steelers fan and have nothing to pout about, so you can shut yer newb man-pleaser. Got it?

Second, I don't give shit if the forward pass had been invented yet. The game has evolved and will continue to evolve. Players from that era are inducted into the HOF just like players from this era. The championships should mean just as much. If the Steelers had five championships from that period there is no question that every fan in this forum would be making some of these same arguments. I'll still tell fans who say their franchise is better to stick just because it hasn't happened lately, but their teams should still be given credit for their championship history.

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 05:06 PM
The only thing that matters are Superbowls. NFL championships then are equivalent to AFC and NFC championships now.

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 05:10 PM
The only thing that matters is Superbowls. NFL championships then are equivalentt to AFC and NFC champions now.

No, they're not. It was the last game in the NFL played between the two best teams. And again, if we only had a SB or two but 5 or 6 championships, I'm sure you'd be whistling a different tune. How can anyone discount half of the history of the NFL???? Just because it doesn't concern your team? Or because it was just a different era? I don't get it.

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 05:29 PM
There where separate leagues each had their championship game. NFL and AFL Championships games. The first Superbowl was the winner of those two games. Making that NFL and AFL championship games our NFC and AFC games today. I'm not sure where you got lost at.

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 05:34 PM
I am a Steelers fan and have nothing to pout about, so you can shut yer newb man-pleaser. Got it?

Second, I don't give shit if the forward pass had been invented yet. The game has evolved and will continue to evolve. Players from that era are inducted into the HOF just like players from this era. The championships should mean just as much. If the Steelers had five championships from that period there is no question that every fan in this forum would be making some of these same arguments. I'll still tell fans who say their franchise is better to stick just because it hasn't happened lately, but their teams should still be given credit for their championship history.

Hey, I wasn't really talking to you. You can tell by the the lack of quotations in my post. So, stop nerd raging all over the place and get a clue.

Effectively when the merger took place it created a different organization, and in fact almost a completely different sport. I'll give them credit they won NFL championships, but they didn't win a superbowl. It's not the same damn thing get it through your skull. It's odd how we aren't counting AFL champions or Arena champions. Oh how about European champions.

There is a reason we don't count these championships, and it's because it is retarded to do so.


Edit: There where separate leagues each had their championship game. NFL and AFL Championships games. The first Superbowl was the winner of those two games. Making that NFL and AFL championship games our NFC and AFC games today. I'm not sure where you got lost at.

this is correct, take note.

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 05:40 PM
There where separate leagues each had their championship game. NFL and AFL Championships games. The first Superbowl was the winner of those two games. Making that NFL and AFL championship games our NFC and AFC games today. I'm not sure where you got lost at.

I'm afraid it's not that simple smart ass. The NFL's last game of the year WAS the championship game and IS the equivelent to todays super bowl. The AFL was nothing back then. Are you saying that they just played up to your version of the Conference games and then decided not to go any further???? :doh:
Where I get confused is when people like you think the NFL started when the super bowl started. According to NFL history, the Green Bay packers DID win those championships.

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 05:45 PM
Hey, I wasn't really talking to you. You can tell by the the lack of quotations in my post. So, stop nerd raging all over the place and get a clue.

Effectively when the merger took place it created a different organization, and in fact almost a completely different sport. I'll give them credit they won NFL championships, but they didn't win a superbowl. It's not the same damn thing get it through your skull. It's odd how we aren't counting AFL champions or Arena champions. Oh how about European champions.

There is a reason we don't count these championships, and it's because it is retarded to do so.


Edit:

this is correct, take note.
Don't come in here like you own the place new boy. I've been here a whole hell of a lot longer than you and I'll be damned if I'm putting up with any crap of yours.

If it's a different organization then why are those championships in the NFL history books??? Why are those players in the same HOF???

The AFL was absorbed by the larger more popular NFL. The Arena IS a different sport numbnuts and NFL Europe is the equivelent to "minor league" FB. Damn you're dumb.

Why don't you shut your man-pleaser for a minute and do some reading little fella.

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 05:50 PM
No, I dont think the NFL started in the when the Superbowl Era. But your love of old timey leatherhead football leads me to believe your are 60 years old or Al Davis.

P.S. War you forgot to mention XFL championships lol :applaudit::applaudit:

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 05:57 PM
No, I dont think the NFL started in the when the Superbowl Era. But your love of old timey leatherhead football leads me to believe your are 60 years old or Al Davis.

P.S. War you forgot to mention XFL championships lol :applaudit::applaudit:

I didn't say I loved it, but I do respect them and what they did for the game. The XFL was started by the powers that be in the world of "professional wrestling." And it was you who forgot to mention them in your weakass argument...., until now of course. :rolleyes:

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 06:07 PM
Don't come in here like you own the place new boy. I've been here a whole hell of a lot longer than you and I'll be damned if I'm putting up with any crap of yours.

If it's a different organization then why are those championships in the NFL history books??? Why are those players in the same HOF???

The AFL was absorbed by the larger more popular NFL. The Arena IS a different sport numbnuts and NFL Europe is the equivelent to "minor league" FB. Damn you're dumb.

Why don't you shut your man-pleaser for a minute and do some reading little fella.

For some reason you think that forum experience denotes knowledge, it doesn't (clearly). John Madden has never posted here, but I'm sure he has more football intelligence than both of us.

Anyway, the championships are kept in the record books SEPARATE of the superbowl. This is done for a reason. There is a distinct difference between the two respective championship games, and so they are kept differently. Technically, they are both NFL championship games, but they aren't recorded as the same thing.

Clearly you have never seen a pre-merger NFL game, but I think that wikipedia says it best:

Although the AFL's identity was subsumed by the NFL, the American Football League's innovations: the on-field game clock; names on player jerseys; recruiting at small and predominantly black colleges; gate and television revenue-sharing; establishment of southern franchises; and more wide-open offensive rules, all eventually adopted by the ultra-conservative NFL, permanently changed the face of Professional Football in America.

And about the NFL being more popular than the AFL. That is true to and extent, but what you fail to considered (because you are clearly short minded) that the AFL was signing player away from the NFL and was growing substantially. At the rate it was growing, it would have surpassed the NFL.

Now that we have established that it was a different game I will address that the Arena League is a different sport, and (duh) it is. So was the NFL pre-merger. Also, the NFL Europe is way closer to the actual game of football that we know and love than the NFL pre-merger was.

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 06:14 PM
Hey you know that the Los Angeles Dream won the Lingerie Bowl VI. Would that count as a championship for The Rams or The Raiders?:noidea::noidea:

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 06:21 PM
For some reason you think that forum experience denotes knowledge, it doesn't (clearly). John Madden has never posted here, but I'm sure he has more football intelligence than both of us.

Knowledge? No. But how many new guys are welcomed with open arms when they walk into a new place bumping their gums? Is that what you call smart?

Anyway, the championships are kept in the record books SEPARATE of the superbowl. This is done for a reason. There is a distinct difference between the two respective championship games, and so they are kept differently. Technically, they are both NFL championship games, but they aren't recorded as the same thing.
What a crock of unsubstantiated bullshit. Link (OTHER than Wikipedia)?

Clearly you have never seen a pre-merger NFL game, but I think that wikipedia says it best:

Get all your information from Wikipedia do ya? Figures. If you were as intelligent as you think you are then you would know that wikipedia IS NOT a credible source. But that said, I don't necessarily dispute what's written here. This is because it really doesn't support your arguement or dispute mine.

And about the NFL being more popular than the AFL. That is true to and extent, but what you fail to considered (because you are clearly short minded) that the AFL was signing player away from the NFL and was growing substantially. At the rate it was growing, it would have surpassed the NFL.

SAYS WHO??? You're just making this shit up as you go.....aren't you. :coffee:


Now that we have established that it was a different game I will address that the Arena League is a different sport, and (duh) it is. So was the NFL pre-merger. Also, the NFL Europe is way closer to the actual game of football that we know and love than the NFL pre-merger was.

That it was a "different game" I never disputed. You mentioned that it was a "different sport." Try to keep track of your bs will ya? Thanks.

From here, it doesn't look like you've established much of anything actually. Kudos though for the condescending sarcasm. Don't ever lose that sense of humor..., It's just precious. :thumbsup:

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 06:23 PM
Hey you know that the Los Angeles Dream won the Lingerie Bowl VI. Would that count as a championship for The Rams or The Raiders?:noidea::noidea:

It's cute..., how stupid you are skip. Here's to you buddy. :drink:

Are you sure you're a Steelers fan? Because I have my doubts.

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 06:32 PM
I don't need to prove my loyalty to Steeler Nation to some 55 year old cyber douce bag. I think ESPN classic is showing a George Gipp tribute that you can go beat off to.

NJarhead
05-22-2009, 06:35 PM
I don't need to prove my loyalty to Steeler Nation to some 55 year old cyber douce bag. I think ESPN classic is showing a George Gipp tribute that you can go beat off too.

HA!!! :rofl: That's all you got? The funny thing is that I'M the "cyber douche bag."
You can dish it out smart ass but you can't take it. No shit! That's fine with me as it wasn't much of an argument anyway. Now go put on your cartoons, finish your homework and enjoy your piping hot cup of STFU!

:coffee:

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 06:37 PM
I love this site.

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 07:02 PM
Well, I'll humor you and perform what you are asking. I didn't know I was writing an essay for a University here. I wasn't aware that you needed a Works Cited quote at the end of every post. But, if I am going to do this, why don't you cite some of your statements with concrete evidence.

Knowledge? No. But how many new guys are welcomed with open arms when they walk into a new place bumping their gums? Is that what you call smart?

I was never talking shit to you. You flipped your shit on me because I disagreed with you. You were "bumping the gums" sir. Then I bring facts into the debate, and you again were so thrown off that the facts didn't agree with your views that you did it again. I'm not going to back down because your post-count its higher. The quality of my posts will determine if I am welcomed to the forum.

What a crock of unsubstantiated bullshit. Link (OTHER than Wikipedia)?

Here is the link to championships: http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships

Here is the link to Superbowls;
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records/superbowls/team/games

Edit: Link not working, I don't know why. so we'll try again.
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records/superbowls/team/games

(THEY HAVE THE STEELERS STILL AT 5 SUPERBOWLS :mad:)

Get all your information from Wikipedia do ya? Figures. If you were as intelligent as you think you are then you would know that wikipedia IS NOT a credible source. But that said, I don't necessarily dispute what's written here. This is because it really doesn't support your arguement or dispute mine.

You're a moron. It certainly supports my claim that it was a different game pre-merger.

SAYS WHO??? You're just making this shit up as you go.....aren't you. :coffee:

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/254221

After the AFL's Los Angeles team moved to San Diego (in 1961) and the Dallas team moved to Kansas City (in 1963), the league began to prosper. The New York team (rechristened the Jets) began to draw record crowds, aided by the signing of quarterback Joe Namath to an unprecedented $427,000 contract. NBC paid the AFL $36 million in 1965 to televise its games, ensuring the league's financial survival.

As the rivalry between the leagues intensified, both leagues entered into a massive bidding war over the top college prospects, paying huge amounts of money to unproven rookies in order to outbid each other for the best players coming out of college.The leagues resorted to aggressive tactics to sign players, and carefully monitored prospective draft picks to keep them away from the other league's representatives.

This probably doesn't satisfy your hunger for the EXACT wording ("At the rate it was growing, it would have surpassed the NFL.") but it atleast proves that the AFL was competing and that NFL was not "larger (and) more popular"


That it was a "different game" I never disputed. You mentioned that it was a "different sport." Try to keep track of your bs will ya? Thanks.

Unnecessary Semantics

From here, it doesn't look like you've established much of anything actually. Kudos though for the condescending sarcasm. Don't ever lose that sense of humor..., It's just precious. :thumbsup:

Are you done?

The Definiti0n
05-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Hey Cmd I don't think War can respond. He head is stuck up George Halas's ass

Pi Kapp Steeler
05-22-2009, 07:10 PM
Now this is entertaining :popcorn:

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 07:17 PM
Here is the link to Superbowls;
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records...wls/team/games

(THEY HAVE THE STEELERS STILL AT 5 SUPERBOWLS ) :mad:

This is actually my biggest concern now !:sign01:

Cmdurand21
05-22-2009, 07:33 PM
Mispost sorry

Steel Head
05-22-2009, 07:59 PM
I think the NFL should have already taken steps to boost the value of those earlier championships.

LMAO

what steps? a special ribbon? :rofl:

gimme a break

HometownGal
05-22-2009, 08:26 PM
Me thinks we're getting miles beyond the intent of the OP in this thread.

My trigger finger is getting a little itchy and I just might be inclined to give a few vacations if the name-calling and chest thumping don't stop. We pride ourselves here in being able to debate (most times) respectfully.

In plain English - knock it the hell off please.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-22-2009, 10:25 PM
I cant wait to see it

devilsdancefloor
05-22-2009, 11:09 PM
i think a few people are gonna get floor checked soon :popcorn:

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:02 AM
http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/0/v/4/greenbay_XXXI.jpg

Where are the 12 trophies on this ring?

Count diamonds around the outer circumference of the "G" logo, you'll find 12. The Packers made a point of it when they won in 1996.

Also count the diamonds in this Super Bowl II ring. How can there be three diamonds if it's only Super Bowl II? Hint: Lombardi's 1967 Packers were the last team to win 3 straight championships.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee91/torit8/Picture2-11.png

Need more? This comes straight from the Packers' official site:

http://images.packers.com/images/history_2004/champions_top.jpg

And this comes directly from the NFL.com site under "records for most championship seasons": (http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships):

Team Records: ChampionshipsRecords updated through the 2007 season
Most Seasons League Champion
12 Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996
9 Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985
7 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007

The arguments you've heard from Browns fans are half-true. The Browns did win championships but only 4 of them are in the NFL, the other four came when they were in the AAFC, a separate league that folded, and the NFL absorbed the Browns and the 49ers from it. As opposed to the Packers, Bears, and Giants whose titles were all as members of the NFL. The Packers and Bears were founding members in 1920 and the Giants came along in 1925.

Regarding trophies, I learned a lot on a recent trip to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Until the AFL-NFL championship game (which later became the super bowl) they didn't hand out trophies. Teams usually made their own. Lots of interesting things -- took a picture of the Giants' 1934 trophy it's about 3 feet tall and very ornate. One team had a football made out of polished anthracite for a trophy. Lots of bronze engraved footballs were used as trophies.

Even the tradition of rings doesn't start until the 1950s. Here's our 1956 Championship ring. The Steelers existed back then, didn't they? I'm sure the players back then were dreaming of winning a championship. Are you saying they weren't playing to win a championship? Did the Steelers play for free beer back then or what?

http://www.championship-rings.net/image.php?object_type=detailed&image_id=1695

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:08 AM
Super Bowl Championships mean a crapload more than a NFL championship. There are far more teams now and more competition

Some of those early NFL championships that Chicago and GB won only had like half a dozen teams in the NFL.....more similar to a division championship

Hmmm, yet the Steelers were playing since 1933 and didn't even manage to make the playoffs for their first 40 years. If you had managed to win one I'm sure your tune would be different.

Which World Series titles do we take away because there was "less teams and less competition"? I'd like to know which of the Yankees 26 titles don't count. Do we start at the dead ball era? Do we cut off before the introduction of the League Championship games in 1969?

Can I take away the Pirates' World Series titles from the dead-ball era or before the 1969 playoff system?

The NFL existed, they played for championships. To say these championships somehow "don't mean as much" is stupid. I'd expect casual frontrunning fans to only understand Super Bowls. But I expect true hard-core NFL fans to know about league history starting in 1920.

Cause if we're going to do start cutting off championships because the league was different when they were won, then I can argue the Steelers Dynasty of the 1970s doesn't count because there were 6 fewer teams (no Seahawks, Buccaneers, Panthers, Jaguars, new Browns, Texans), fewer teams made the playoffs and there were fewer divisions, and the first two SBs came when the season was only 14 games instead of 16, and there was no wildcard round.

So how do you want to play the game? League titles count or they don't.

fansince'76
05-23-2009, 09:30 AM
The arguments you've heard from Browns fans are half-true. The Browns did win championships but only 4 of them are in the NFL, the other four came when they were in the AAFC, a separate league that folded, and the NFL absorbed the Browns and the 49ers from it.

Yeah, I realize that:

The Browns still have more championships then the Steelers, no matter how you try and twist history.

If you want to count those AAFC championships (which are about as relevant as a USFL championship), I guess. By my count, it's still 5-4 in our favor. :coffee:

I'd expect casual frontrunning fans to only understand Super Bowls. But I expect true hard-core NFL fans to know about league history starting in 1920.

Yeah, so do I. For instance, the NFL didn't even have a championship game until 1933. Thanks, but once again, I don't really need a history lesson. Fact remains we're the first 6-time Super Bowl winner. I also don't think we really need to "qualify" saying "first to six" by saying "in the Super Bowl era." :coffee:

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:32 AM
I'm sorry but if the forward pass hadn't been invented yet... It doesn't count as a championship

If there were 8-12 teams in the league... It doesn't count as a championship


Really? The league disagrees. http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships

Team Records: Championships
Records updated through the 2007 season
Most Seasons League Champion
12 Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996
9 Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985
7 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007

I say if there were only 26 teams in the league it doesn't count as a championship. Oops, you're down to 2.

I say if there were only 14 games in the regular season it doesn't count as a championship. Ooops, you're down to 4.

I say if there was no wildcard round, it doesn't count as a championship. Oops, you're down to 2.

And let me remind you the Steelers didn't come along in 1960 as an expansion team. They played since 1933. Just because they didn't even qualify for the playoffs until 1972, you dishonor all those Steeler teams that struggled by saying they played for nothing.

Let's cut the B.S. If the league played that year, chances are they had a championship or else why did they play the season?

If you want to start the semantics game, let's start talking about which Steelers SBs don't count, which Pirates WS don't count, etc.

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:36 AM
The only thing that matters are Superbowls. NFL championships then are equivalent to AFC and NFC championships now.

So all those great players in the Hall of Fame who played from 1920-1966, what did they play for, free beer?

You dishonor the NFL's legacy by pretending it started in 1966.

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:38 AM
Yeah, so do I. For instance, the NFL didn't even have a championship game until 1933. Thanks, but once again, I don't really need a history lesson. Fact remains we're the first 6-time Super Bowl winner. I also don't think we really need to "qualify" saying "first to six" by saying "in the Super Bowl era." :coffee:

At least with you, fansince'76, I feel we have some common ground :drink: and I give your team props for its success.

My only point is that when you step back and look at the total league history, Green Bay is far and away ahead of everybody at 12. Some of those titles came early, but everybody has to admit Lombardi's Packers had an awesome run in the 1960s winning 5 titles including being the last team to win 3 in a row. It really irritates me when people want to throw out important league history like that. I expect Cowboy fans to do that but I am shocked to see so many Steelers fans feeling that way, I expect more from Steeler fans.

fansince'76
05-23-2009, 09:40 AM
At least with you, fansince'76, I feel we have some common ground :drink: and I give your team props for its success.

Likewise - IMO, ALL NFL championships count (unless they're championships from another league entirely). The Giants have an extremely rich history and one to be envied as well. :drink:

EDIT: And thanks for pointing out the "12-diamonds" thing on the Packers' SB XXXI ring - I didn't realize that. :cheers:

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:44 AM
There is a reason we don't count these championships, and it's because it is retarded to do so.


Right road wrong stop. Those championships aren't counted because they aren't NFL Championships, they came from other leagues that were absorbed into the NFL. The NFL was always the bigger, dominant league.

Being a Steeler fan, I would think you would KNOW that since you, the Browns, and the Colts switched to the weaker AFC after the merger.

Once again, the NFL officially counts NFL championships:

Team Records: Championships
Records updated through the 2007 season
Most Seasons League Champion
12 Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996
9 Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985
7 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007

And once again, the Super Bowl II ring with three diamonds.

http://www.cnnsi.com/football/nfl/features/rings/1/ring24.jpg

fansince'76
05-23-2009, 09:47 AM
My only point is that when you step back and look at the total league history, Green Bay is far and away ahead of everybody at 12. Some of those titles came early, but everybody has to admit Lombardi's Packers had an awesome run in the 1960s winning 5 titles including being the last team to win 3 in a row. It really irritates me when people want to throw out important league history like that. I expect Cowboy fans to do that but I am shocked to see so many Steelers fans feeling that way, I expect more from Steeler fans.

I agree - I certainly don't discount any of that. I wish I had been around for the Ice Bowl game, for instance. :drink:

janstett
05-23-2009, 09:49 AM
Anyway, the championships are kept in the record books SEPARATE of the superbowl.


Wrong. Not to belabor the point, but...

http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships

Team Records: Championships
Records updated through the 2007 season
Most Seasons League Champion
12 Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996
9 Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985
7 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007

And in the "other leagues" discussion, did we miss the USFL, which survived for 6 years and also signed big players away from the NFL such as Steve Young, Warren Moon, Jim Kelley, Herschel Walker, and Reggie White.

fansince'76
05-23-2009, 09:58 AM
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee91/torit8/Picture2-11.png

Maybe it's just me, but I like the old championship rings better than the new fist-sized gaudy things they have nowadays. There's something to be said for understated elegance.

janstett
05-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I like the old championship rings better than the new fist-sized gaudy things they have nowadays. There's something to be said for understated elegance.

Agreed. Another brewski :drink:

Before I hijacked the thread I was noticing some talk about Big Ben suggesting they "start over" and I'm starting to agree with him.

When I was at the HoF I took meticulous pictures of all (then) 42 rings on display (let me know if you want hi-res pics of the Steelers rings), and not only have they gotten bigger and gaudier, but the repeat winners start stacking all the Lombardis on the rings. At one point it was just diamonds (like the above Packer ring) but then it became little Lombardis. My memory is fuzzy on who started it (probably you or Dallas) but now everybody does it. I can see it for a real dynasty like you guys had in the 1970s or the recent Patriot dynasty, but like in our case for our 3rd, the team has almost no connection to the two Parcells SB winners so why are those two Lombardis there? It becomes a franchise bragging tool instead of something special for the players.

That's kind of why I wanted to see what the Steelers would do and I ended up here.

I think just piling up on top of the past starts to diminish what the team did that year and it becomes lost in a collection with the team's past, when in my opinion every championship is precious and deserves to be remembered on its own. That's what irritates me about all the "six pack", "first to six" stuff.

The Yankees have piled up 26 championships and stopped caring too much about the sum total in their rings, and I completely agree with it. These are the rings from the last Dynasty (96-2000).

http://www.kenbranchart.com/272/worldchampionrings.jpg

More old-school and not obsessed with championship counts, I like that philosophy... Granted they did make note of the 25th because of the significance of that number and the ring is silver because of the "silver anniversary".

CPanther95
05-23-2009, 10:47 AM
A fair compromise would be to count all NFL Championships since the end of WWII.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 10:54 AM
A fair compromise would be to count all NFL Championships since the end of WWII.

Why not count what the NFL counts? Regardless, 6 SB trophies puts your current organization in a great light. At this time, you are the best run franchise in the NFL. Saying that, doesn't take anything away from anybody, past or present.

You had a deep history of losing...followed by a lengthy history of success.

CPanther95
05-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Why not count what the NFL counts? Regardless, 6 SB trophies puts your current organization in a great light. At this time, you are the best run franchise in the NFL. Saying that, doesn't take anything away from anybody, past or present.

You had a deep history of losing...followed by a lengthy history of success.

When Pottsville gets their Championship back, I'll start counting the WWII years and earlier. Until then, I'll still consider the early NFL years as ones rife with corruption and influenced more by internal politics than on field performance.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 11:09 AM
When Pottsville gets their Championship back, I'll start counting the WWII years and earlier. Until then, I'll still consider the early NFL years as ones rife with corruption and influenced more by internal politics than on field performance.

Were you alive during the Pottsville controversy? Seems to me it was a long time ago. Which NFL team claims credit for that championship? The Cardinals refused the championship...because they felt like it wasn't right to be awarded the 'ship when they were soundly (and fairly) beaten.

Yes, there are a lot of issues with that story...but at the end of the day, no current team claims credit for the 1925 championship.

CPanther95
05-23-2009, 11:52 AM
Were you alive during the Pottsville controversy? Seems to me it was a long time ago. Which NFL team claims credit for that championship? The Cardinals refused the championship...because they felt like it wasn't right to be awarded the 'ship when they were soundly (and fairly) beaten.

Yes, there are a lot of issues with that story...but at the end of the day, no current team claims credit for the 1925 championship.

Bull crap. The first part is right, Chicago turned it down - but Bidwell later claimed the Championship for the Cardinals after he bought the franchise in 1933. They still claim that Championship to this day.

Under new Head Coach Norman Barry, the Cardinals outdistanced a field of 20 teams to win their first NFL championship in 1925 by virtue of the league's best record. (NFL postseason play began in 1933.).

Never mind the fact that they padded their season with two additional games against teams that had left for the year and had to fill the roster with high schoolers - so the league could claim they had more wins than Pottsville.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Bull crap. The first part is right, Chicago turned it down - but Bidwell later claimed the Championship for the Cardinals after he bought the franchise in 1933. They still claim that Championship to this day.



Never mind the fact that they padded their season with two additional games against teams that had left for the year and had to fill the roster with high schoolers - so the league could claim they had more wins than Pottsville.

See, I didn't know that Bidwell claimed that championship. That's just wrong. As for the rest, Pottsville did play an unsactioned game. Not saying it's fair, nor do I agree with what the Cardinals did, because they were equally as culpable in this. However, just because one team from 1925 is jacked up...doesn't mean that you should discount everything since before WWII. That's 14 more years of history that you are discounting after the Pottsville issue.

CPanther95
05-23-2009, 12:09 PM
However, just because one team from 1925 is jacked up...doesn't mean that you should discount everything since before WWII. That's 14 more years of history that you are discounting after the Pottsville issue.

But it wipes out a bunch of Chicago, GB and NY Championships and puts the Steelers back (in a tie with GB) in the lead.

Pottsville was just a way to justify it. I'm sure there's some war related reasons that can be used - I'll just have to think of them first.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 12:15 PM
But it wipes out a bunch of Chicago, GB and NY Championships and puts the Steelers back (in a tie with GB) in the lead.

Pottsville was just a way to justify it. I'm sure there's some war related reasons that can be used - I'll just have to think of them first.

ROFLMAO Too funny bro!

Pi Kapp Steeler
05-23-2009, 01:41 PM
The fact of the matter is that if you compare any sport from the current to the old days they wouldnt match up. The modern era of athletes would dominate the people in the past.

Im am NOT discrediting any orginazations that have won before the superbowl era because their championships were well deserved and it would be moronic to say it did not happen. Plus the blueprints of the league were still being altered with .

But we can be PROUD to say that our Steelers have won 6 Championships in times when competition was at its finest with a fully intact National Football League. I beleive the last two we won are more remarkable for the fact of free agency and trades.

I am a steelers fan and I am proud of my team! :tt03:



.....So did anyone end up finding a picture of the new ring?

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 01:52 PM
New ring is supposed to be unveiled 9 June (at least that's what I thought was said earlier in this thread.)

For all the rest, well said bro. Hate your team and it's victories, but very well said!

Cmdurand21
05-23-2009, 02:07 PM
Wrong. Not to belabor the point, but...

http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships



And in the "other leagues" discussion, did we miss the USFL, which survived for 6 years and also signed big players away from the NFL such as Steve Young, Warren Moon, Jim Kelley, Herschel Walker, and Reggie White.

What you have done here is no better than the Daily show of FoxNews. You have taken something so far out of context and posted it to try and make a point without showing the rest of the post.

He asked to see where superbowls and championships were kept separate on the record, and i posted the separate respective links. If you would have bothered to read it all you would have realized that, but you even posted the link i posted to try and prove your point.

This topic of championships is over because it's obviously a subjective opinion that can be argued on both sides. The threads Op had no intention of bringing it to this so we need to discuss how much more awesome the Steelers' (the only team to win 6 superbowls) 6th superbowl ring will be (it will be mindblowing).

Imo you are kind of trolling.

xfl2001fan
05-23-2009, 02:12 PM
Imo you are kind of trolling.

Since when do logical arguments/discussions = "kind of "trolling?

Janstett made a valid point that the NFL recognizes 12 championships for the Packers. Then a link was provided to validate the argument made. If you dont' like the fact that the NFL recognizes their 12 championships (which predates your 6 SBs) that's not Janstett's problem.

Cmdurand21
05-23-2009, 06:10 PM
Since when do logical arguments/discussions = "kind of "trolling?

Janstett made a valid point that the NFL recognizes 12 championships for the Packers. Then a link was provided to validate the argument made. If you dont' like the fact that the NFL recognizes their 12 championships (which predates your 6 SBs) that's not Janstett's problem.

The trolling is constantly switching off the topic of the thread.

The reason it's not a valid point is because (like i explained before) he cut out half of the explanation behind the post. I was asked where the championship and super bowl records were kept. I posted the Superbowl records link and the championship records link (the same link he posted). Please read the thread.

janstett
05-24-2009, 10:17 AM
The trolling is constantly switching off the topic of the thread.

The reason it's not a valid point is because (like i explained before) he cut out half of the explanation behind the post. I was asked where the championship and super bowl records were kept. I posted the Superbowl records link and the championship records link (the same link he posted). Please read the thread.

Your argument is invalid because Super Bowls are counted in that championship record link I posted... No distinction between championships there. Super Bowls are counted as championships but at worst not vice-versa. And no, I'm not trying to troll, just having a discussion and glad to see so many people who know NFL history. I am a Giants fan first, a fan of other old-school classy organizations like yours second, and a fan of the whole NFL third. And I still want to see how you guys go with your ring.

paw-n-maul-u
05-24-2009, 10:44 AM
you can nit pick all you want at this league and that back in the ages ... but the simple fact is that since the modern NFL era started, steelers are the best.

The first SuperBowl" was won by the green bay packers ... and since that first superbowl, the steelers have won the most.

It is most definitely trolling when fans of opposing teams try and more or less discredit the legitimacy of the number of championships in accordance with the NFL greatness hierarchy.

... IF the Green Bay Packers win another championship, I 100000000% guarantee that there will be nothing about winning their 13th championship on their ring.

xfl2001fan
05-24-2009, 11:10 AM
you can nit pick all you want at this league and that back in the ages ... but the simple fact is that since the modern NFL era started, steelers are the best.

The first SuperBowl" was won by the green bay packers ... and since that first superbowl, the steelers have won the most.

It is most definitely trolling when fans of opposing teams try and more or less discredit the legitimacy of the number of championships in accordance with the NFL greatness hierarchy.

... IF the Green Bay Packers win another championship, I 100000000% guarantee that there will be nothing about winning their 13th championship on their ring.

I'm sure you would have made that claim after their last championship victory too. When the NFL recognizes these other championships, why shouldn't the fans. That's the only point Janstett is trying to make. If you don't get that point, so be it. If you choose to ignore that point, so be it. You have your viewpoint and it differs from Janstett's. Steelers fans who blatantly ignore the most basic points to promote their team can also be considered trolling, even on a Steelers website.

Pi Kapp Steeler
05-24-2009, 03:48 PM
New ring is supposed to be unveiled 9 June (at least that's what I thought was said earlier in this thread.)

For all the rest, well said bro. Hate your team and it's victories, but very well said!

Thank you sir :hatsoff:

Psyychoward86
05-24-2009, 08:40 PM
Your argument is invalid because Super Bowls are counted in that championship record link I posted... No distinction between championships there. Super Bowls are counted as championships but at worst not vice-versa. And no, I'm not trying to troll, just having a discussion and glad to see so many people who know NFL history. I am a Giants fan first, a fan of other old-school classy organizations like yours second, and a fan of the whole NFL third. And I still want to see how you guys go with your ring.

Jeebus you're specific in your posts. While it is appreciated that you have sources to back up your opinion, let's be honest. Real winners dont have to dig far back into the past to declare themselves as winners. Consistency is a trademark of a great franchise (not losing consistency of course). That's why Steeler fans dont have to take any crap about how the Browns have so many NFL Championships: Because theyve sucked since that era, which was too many decades ago. It also helps that we've beaten them over a dozen times in a row :flap:. Let's just agree that few know the formula for success, and the Giants and Steelers have it :drink:

paw-n-maul-u
05-25-2009, 02:08 AM
Jeebus you're specific in your posts. While it is appreciated that you have sources to back up your opinion, let's be honest. Real winners dont have to dig far back into the past to declare themselves as winners. Consistency is a trademark of a great franchise (not losing consistency of course). That's why Steeler fans dont have to take any crap about how the Browns have so many NFL Championships: Because theyve sucked since that era, which was too many decades ago. It also helps that we've beaten them over a dozen times in a row :flap:. Let's just agree that few know the formula for success, and the Giants and Steelers have it :drink:

to quote andy bernard "that's like poetry, you could sell paper to a tree".

Anyone who disputes the REAL and MODERN DAY nfl ... well, they are just livin in the hindsight and probably still can't figure out which team to root for, the old browns or the new browns or the good browns or the bad browns or the even more recent REALLLY bad browns.

browns are browns are browns are stains. they all ... just ... smell funny.

NJarhead
05-25-2009, 09:38 AM
LMAO

what steps? a special ribbon? :rofl:

gimme a break

Recognition of them. A championship is a championship PERIOD. Occasionally they are mentioned but almost in passing.

HTG - I'm depressed by the quality of some of these newbs. This one is claiming she needs a break already. :noidea:

janstett
05-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Jeebus you're specific in your posts. While it is appreciated that you have sources to back up your opinion, let's be honest. Real winners dont have to dig far back into the past to declare themselves as winners. Consistency is a trademark of a great franchise (not losing consistency of course).

I agree on winning consistancy; if the last time the Giants had won anything was 1956, I would be down in the dumps. If you look at all the championship games the Giants have played in in my signature, they contended for titles 19 times in 8 of their 9 decades (the 70's being the lone decade they didn't). There was a lot of heartache in there, including going to the championship game 6 times in 8 years (56 58 59 61 62 63, only won once in 56).

However, I have a real problem with cutting off everything before the Super Bowl, because we're throwing out 45 years of NFL history and it's a slap in the fact of all the players that made the modern game what it is. We don't do that in baseball, basketball, or hockey, why do it in football? We still count World Series titles from before the modern playoff format or the AL rule changes and even in the dead ball era... We count NBA titles from before the shot clock.

The Steelers have been absolutely great in the 40 years since 1972, and they were absolutely terrible in the 40 years before 1972. I think the former makes up for the latter.

Depending on how you define "the modern era" (i.e. NFL-AFL merger, or 4 rounds of playoffs with 16 game seasons), the Steelers have earned the "most successful" spot. But it can still be argued in other ways -- who appeared in more Super Bowls (Cowboys by 1), who made the playoffs more years, overall winning percentage, most winning seasons, etc. The Steelers definitely deserve to be the de-facto answer with their 6 SB championships.

Every franchise has its ups and downs... The good ones get back up. The bad ones are in permanent rebuilding mode and make greedy decisions that screw up their franchise (see Jets, Raiders, etc.). Clearly the Steelers are a model franchise and earned every ounce of their success.

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 09:40 AM
WELL!

Has anyone seen this thing yet or what!!!

Steel Head
06-08-2009, 09:42 AM
Recognition of them. A championship is a championship PERIOD. Occasionally they are mentioned but almost in passing.

HTG - I'm depressed by the quality of some of these newbs. This one is claiming she needs a break already. :noidea:

dont get your panties in a bunch. you are the one that is way off the thread topic crying about stuff nobody cares about

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Um, No Fighting in this thread, I want a pic of the New Ring ASAP!!!

fansince'76
06-09-2009, 09:27 AM
Today's the day! :tt:

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 09:37 AM
I keep refreshing the PPG Website to see if they post it.

SteelMember
06-09-2009, 09:39 AM
Someone really wants a new Avi. :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 09:49 AM
LOL! Heck yeah I do!

Stu Pidasso
06-09-2009, 11:39 AM
I keep refreshing the PPG Website to see if they post it.

Link please!!!!

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 11:41 AM
http://www.post-gazette.com/steelers/

pittsburgh post gazette, the ring is Not on it yet.

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 11:43 AM
CRAP!!!!

Not til 6pm tonight Folks:

http://news.steelers.com/article/105659/

Super Bowl XLIII ring unveiled

The Steelers players and coaches will receive their Super Bowl rings during a private ceremony this evening at Heinz Field. Fans can get a look at the ring, along with a description of its elements,
on Steelers.com.

Check Steelers.com at 6 p.m. to see the Steelers’
Super Bowl XLIII ring.

Burghfan58
06-09-2009, 12:11 PM
WELL!

Has anyone seen this thing yet or what!!!

6:00 tonight on Steelers.com. Get your popcorn ready.:popcorn:

SteelMember
06-09-2009, 01:06 PM
:laughing:

So...we'll know at 6 pm.

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 06:02 PM
YEEEEHAAAAWWWW

Indo
06-09-2009, 06:04 PM
pretty cool...





http://news.steelers.com/article/105731/

NJarhead
06-09-2009, 06:05 PM
Very nice. :tt03:

Sharkissle29
06-09-2009, 06:07 PM
that was about what i was expecting (not having diamond lombardis).....there just isnt enough room on a ring, a diamond to represent a super bowl will have to do for now on since we have run out of room which is a good thing

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 06:08 PM
They Trophies are on the side, looks pretty cool.

I can't wait to get the replica made!!!

T&B fan
06-09-2009, 06:15 PM
very cool ring and yes the Trophies side nice

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-09-2009, 06:29 PM
Very nice now let's get a hockey one for the PENS! :tt02:

Stu Pidasso
06-09-2009, 06:41 PM
GLORIOUS

HometownGal
06-09-2009, 06:52 PM
Totally awesome!!! :tt03::thumbsup:

Preacher
06-09-2009, 07:00 PM
I like it... but not as much as next years. . . :wink02:

StainlessStill
06-09-2009, 07:10 PM
What a beautiful sight. Can you believe we sit alone at the top with the only team with this ring at 6? I love it.

Here We Go Steelers, HERE WE GO:applaudit:

Itching for football season to start..

Fire Haley
06-09-2009, 07:26 PM
Any you fashion fags who don't approve the ring can go wear your Cardinals jersey now.

Go on.


Git.




I have spoken.

tony hipchest
06-09-2009, 07:31 PM
i bet b-mac cant wait to show it off to his new teammates. :chuckle:

if i were nate washington, id be rubbing some salt, i mean ice, in some fresh wounds tomorrow.

KeiselPower99
06-09-2009, 07:34 PM
Very Nice

RJC
06-09-2009, 09:36 PM
That thing is the gaudiest, ugliest, most home shopping networkiest piece of garbage I've ever seen. If I played for them, I'd be embarassed....

stillers4me
06-09-2009, 09:43 PM
Those things are freakin' HUGE! Check out the videos ....Charlie Batch had his other one there and this thing is twice as big as the XL! While it may be huge and gaudy compared to everyday jewelry, this one is fitting for the only team with SIX LOMBARDI'S in the showcase!

http://www.wpxi.com/news/19693567/detail.html

NJarhead
06-09-2009, 09:44 PM
That thing is the gaudiest, ugliest, most home shopping networkiest piece of garbage I've ever seen. If I played for them, I'd be embarassed....

But seriously, do you like it or what? :chuckle:

JackHammer
06-09-2009, 10:00 PM
Rings are sweet! I'll eloborate after the 3rd period :tt03:

Give It To Abercrombie
06-09-2009, 10:20 PM
Mine must be in the mail still.....I haven't received it yet. :noidea:

MACH1
06-09-2009, 10:31 PM
Only thing I don't like is the suckhawk colors on it. Other than that it's awesome.

stillers4me
06-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Only thing I don't like is the suckhawk colors on it. Other than that it's awesome.

Maybe the next one will be more to your liking. :wink02:

tony hipchest
06-09-2009, 11:06 PM
Those things are freakin' HUGE! Check out the videos ....Charlie Batch had his other one there and this thing is twice as big as the XL! While it may be huge and gaudy compared to everyday jewelry, this one is fitting for the only team with SIX LOMBARDI'S in the showcase!

http://www.wpxi.com/news/19693567/detail.htmldamn. thats a texas sized belt buckle.

SteelCityMan786
06-09-2009, 11:06 PM
The new ring has a touch of the Super Bowl IX, X, XIII, and XIV rings.

2 Thumbs Up.

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Those things are freakin' HUGE! Check out the videos ....Charlie Batch had his other one there and this thing is twice as big as the XL! While it may be huge and gaudy compared to everyday jewelry, this one is fitting for the only team with SIX LOMBARDI'S in the showcase!

http://www.wpxi.com/news/19693567/detail.html

that size difference is SICK!!! Ridiculous!

I want to see it on display next to other teams rings, guess I'm going to the hall of fame soon.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-09-2009, 11:37 PM
Damn that is a big, nice ring. Kick ass!

Steel Head
06-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Beautiful Ring, it doesnt get better than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MACH1
06-10-2009, 12:09 AM
Maybe the next one will be more to your liking. :wink02:

Pretty soon they'll have to make knuckle rings. :chuckle:

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-10-2009, 12:26 AM
KDKA has a video. They show all 6 of our rings together this one dwarfs the other 5 put together....

Seeing them in the photos yeah they're big but when you see them on the players fingers knowing just how big their hands are it's ----- downright offensive :rofl:

http://kdka.com/video/?id=58655@kdka.dayport.com


Mean Joe Green now has 6 rings.....can anyone else claim they own 6 rings?

JackHammer
06-10-2009, 12:51 AM
I like the level of detail they put into it, and the historical significance of how the diamonds were placed. I also love the football shape of the ring. What I really like best are the background colors. The two outer bands have a black background that really stands out. Inside of that is a gold band that probably wouldn't stand out at all if it weren't next the black. Then the inner most band has the white gold as the back drop to all of those diamonds. The black pin stripe, between the gold and white gold, really does a good job of keeping them separate. It's just down right BRIGHT in the middle and the logo really stands out against all of those icebergs. What a ring!

lilyoder6
06-10-2009, 01:48 AM
this is a sick effing ring...

my sis and brother who were at 2 different places, ironically both were able to put on the sb43 ring.. pics weren't great but what can u ask for from a phone..

but wow.. just simply wow at these rings

Galax Steeler
06-10-2009, 04:40 AM
Wow how sweet it is. It don't get anybetter then that.

trauben
06-10-2009, 08:13 AM
Forget about brass knuckles, that thing would do the job!

janstett
06-10-2009, 09:01 AM
Nice but freaking huge! Any bigger and it's going to be like a finger cast where you can't bend your finger.

I like that it's round not square, and I like that they didn't do the 6 Lombardis on the ring face.

I don't think I like the colored logos on the side (NFL shield and SB logo)

That's no 10-table ring, it's a table ring!

janstett
06-10-2009, 09:03 AM
Mean Joe Green now has 6 rings.....can anyone else claim they own 6 rings?

Vince Lombardi (one with Giants 5 with Packers, last team to win 3 in a row)

George Halas (of the Bears) was around for 8 championships

Wellington Mara (of the Giants) was around for 6 championships

Charles Haley got 5 rings as a player (2 with the 49ers, 3 with the Cowboys)

vasteeler
06-10-2009, 11:50 AM
Vince Lombardi (one with Giants 5 with Packers, last team to win 3 in a row)

George Halas (of the Bears) was around for 8 championships

Wellington Mara (of the Giants) was around for 6 championships

Charles Haley got 5 rings as a player (2 with the 49ers, 3 with the Cowboys)

I dont think they have SUPER BOWL rings
Charles Haley maybe but he only has five

Dino 6 Rings
06-10-2009, 12:17 PM
Leave the NY Fan alone, he's one of those "more championship" guys.

Steel Head
06-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Nice but freaking huge! Any bigger and it's going to be like a finger cast where you can't bend your finger.

I like that it's round not square, and I like that they didn't do the 6 Lombardis on the ring face.

I don't think I like the colored logos on the side (NFL shield and SB logo)

That's no 10-table ring, it's a table ring!

I dont think the Steelers care about your opinion

it's an awesome ring

I am glad they stuck with the yellow gold look instead of the white gold that other teams used. white gold is for women

nicesteel4life
06-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Leave the NY Fan alone, he's one of those "more championship" guys.

Isnt that the same as JEALOUS GUY ? :flap:

tunes4life
06-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Forget about brass knuckles, that thing would do the job!

lol, ya! Do you think they'll let them wear 'em in games?

:thumbsup:

tunes4life
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
Vince Lombardi (one with Giants 5 with Packers, last team to win 3 in a row)

George Halas (of the Bears) was around for 8 championships

Wellington Mara (of the Giants) was around for 6 championships

Charles Haley got 5 rings as a player (2 with the 49ers, 3 with the Cowboys)


So..................No?

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Here is second 5 minute video from WPXI with audio this time interviewing a few of the players leaving the party last night...

http://www.wpxi.com/video/19708262/index.html

TDLP
06-10-2009, 02:14 PM
That's a serious piece of kit, it looks great

janstett
06-10-2009, 03:37 PM
Leave the NY Fan alone, he's one of those "more championship" guys.

Oh, so the Steelers didn't want to win anything from 1933-1972, they were playing for the free water? So that's why you didn't make the playoffs once in your first 40 years... :popcorn:

janstett
06-10-2009, 03:38 PM
So..................No?

Reading problems? George Halas has 8 rings. Lombardi has 6. Mara has 6.

Charles Haley won 5 rings as a player (still the record) but last I saw he was on the Lions coaching staff, so I don't think he'll be getting his 6th ring any time soon.

EDIT: A player named Forrest Gregg won 6 rings as a player (5 with the Packers, 1 with the Cowboys). He spanned the era between SB and NFL championships, winning 3 of each.

Steel Head
06-10-2009, 03:58 PM
Reading problems? George Halas has 8 rings. Lombardi has 6. Mara has 6.

Charles Haley won 5 rings as a player (still the record) but last I saw he was on the Lions coaching staff, so I don't think he'll be getting his 6th ring any time soon.

EDIT: A player named Forrest Gregg won 6 rings as a player (5 with the Packers, 1 with the Cowboys). He spanned the era between SB and NFL championships, winning 3 of each.

I dont think they got rings for winning those old meaningless championships, just a pat on the back and a little trophy or plaque

devilsdancefloor
06-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Reading problems? George Halas has 8 rings. Lombardi has 6. Mara has 6.

Charles Haley won 5 rings as a player (still the record) but last I saw he was on the Lions coaching staff, so I don't think he'll be getting his 6th ring any time soon.

EDIT: A player named Forrest Gregg won 6 rings as a player (5 with the Packers, 1 with the Cowboys). He spanned the era between SB and NFL championships, winning 3 of each.

First off dont be rude remember you are not a a giants site a little respect would go along way so people wouldnt think you are a troll. i do belive that he was talking about SUPER BOWL RINGS! i beleive we all know who forrest gregg is or at least most of us should he was the coach for the bungels and stains and i think he coach the packers as well.So please stop puffing your chest out before you turn red and pass out.

JackHammer
06-10-2009, 06:52 PM
Anyone else watching Savran? Jeff Reed was on and Stan asked him if he was allowed to say what the new ring was appraised at. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "this ring was appraised at 23,5 and the last one was 11."

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-11-2009, 12:15 AM
Was listening to The Drive on ESPN1250 the guys were starting to discuss the SB rings and Eddie Crow in his Eddie Crow self said the rings look like a "rapper vomited" on them.

...yep I have to agree and what beautiful vomit it is. :tt02:

janstett
06-11-2009, 11:11 AM
I dont think they got rings for winning those old meaningless championships, just a pat on the back and a little trophy or plaque

http://www.championship-rings.net/image.php?object_type=detailed&image_id=1695

Starting in 1934 there was a trophy, called the Ed Thorp trophy, that was awarded to the champion. It travelled around the league like the Stanley Cup moving to each year's new champion. Of course, you wouldn't know about it since it didn't stop in Pittsburgh.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RQH8GHjCJnrmoM:http://redskinsblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/thorp1.jpg

Meaningless? Which World Series, NBA Titles, and Stanley Cup titles are "meaningless"? Are your SB IX and X wins meaningless because it was only a 14-game season and there was no wildcard round, or because there were fewer teams in the league?

Then I declare the Pittsburgh Pirates' 1909 World Series no longer counts because it was in the dead ball era. I declare the 1925 and 1960 World Series meaningless because it predates the LCS and the Designated Hitter rule in the AL. I declare the Penguins' Stanley Cups in 90-91 as meaningless because they moved the face-off circles and lines two feet closer to the center in 1998.

And it's already been said (if you had bothered to read), but not only does the NFL count NFL championships leading into the Super Bowl, look at the Packers' Super Bowl II ring which has three diamonds on it, for the three championships they won in a row -- the last NFL championship and the first two Super Bowls.

http://www.steelergridiron.com/history/rings/sb2.jpg

And also earlier in the thread I pointed out the 12 diamonds in the Packers' 1996 SB ring to represent their 12 titles (congratulations, you're half-way there).

http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/5/v/4/greenbay_XXXI.jpg

Or that the NFL counts NFL championships (http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships).

You are just as ignorant as the Cowturd fans but at least they have an excuse because their team is a 1960 expansion team. You disrespect the rich history of the NFL, including your Steeler teams from 1933 on. I guess they played for free health insurance or because they had nothing better to do... They didn't want to compete for a "meaningless" championship, I guess they had tee times in December.

Dino 6 Rings
06-11-2009, 11:39 AM
One of the guys on the NFL Network called it the new ring a Hand Broach. Classic.

Dino 6 Rings
06-11-2009, 11:44 AM
You are just as ignorant as the Cowturd fans r.

Easy there fella. No one is disrespecting the accomplishments of teams from prior to the SB and Merger.

We are Celebrating our teams Sixth Super Bowl Title. The Most Super Bowl Titles in the NFL. That's all this is. We Steelers fans have a deep respect for the game. Let us Enjoy our Chest Thumping, because we STOMPED this year and Won it all.

Best D in the League, 2 time winning QB, 2 Super Bowl MVP WRs on the Roster. Great team, great new young head coach, and we won it all with the Toughest Schedule in the NFL in the last 25 years.

We thump our chests and strut around with our New Ring, not out of disrespect for other teams and their accomplishments, but because right now, We Can.

janstett
06-11-2009, 12:01 PM
We thump our chests and strut around with our New Ring, not out of disrespect for other teams and their accomplishments, but because right now, We Can.

No disagreement there, you guys came out on top last year, enjoy the afterglow of a championship :)

I just get annoyed when "fans" think the NFL didn't exist before 1967. I expect it out of bandwagon jumpers who couldn't name two offensive linemen on their team, but I expect more from true hard core NFL fans.

X-Terminator
06-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Easy there fella. No one is disrespecting the accomplishments of teams from prior to the SB and Merger.

We are Celebrating our teams Sixth Super Bowl Title. The Most Super Bowl Titles in the NFL. That's all this is. We Steelers fans have a deep respect for the game. Let us Enjoy our Chest Thumping, because we STOMPED this year and Won it all.

Best D in the League, 2 time winning QB, 2 Super Bowl MVP WRs on the Roster. Great team, great new young head coach, and we won it all with the Toughest Schedule in the NFL in the last 25 years.

We thump our chests and strut around with our New Ring, not out of disrespect for other teams and their accomplishments, but because right now, We Can.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Dino 6 Rings
06-11-2009, 12:39 PM
No disagreement there, you guys came out on top last year, enjoy the afterglow of a championship :)

I just get annoyed when "fans" think the NFL didn't exist before 1967. I expect it out of bandwagon jumpers who couldn't name two offensive linemen on their team, but I expect more from true hard core NFL fans.

No worries, there are only True Hard Core fans posting on this site for the most part. We eat our own trolls.

MaidenIndiana
06-11-2009, 02:39 PM
First off I think the ring is f**kin beautiful. Secondly why is that Giants troll coming on this forum talkin smack? Let's keep this simple, not discounting past NFL championships but in the SB era the Steelers have 6...count em 6! the Giants have 3...count em 3. Don't know about the new math but from where I come from 6 SB's are twice as many as 3 SB's. Enough said.:wave:

janstett
06-12-2009, 12:22 PM
Secondly why is that Giants troll coming on this forum talkin smack? Let's keep this simple, not discounting past NFL championships but in the SB era the Steelers have 6...count em 6! the Giants have 3...count em 3. Don't know about the new math but from where I come from 6 SB's are twice as many as 3 SB's. Enough said.:wave:

First, I'm not a troll. I came here to see how the Steelers would go with their ring. Since I was just at the HoF the week before the SB and took some really nice closeup pictures of all (then) 42 rings, I wanted to know.

Second, you ARE discounting NFL championships. The Packers have 12- count em 12- championships, the Steelers have half as many. The Bears have 9, the Giants have 7. I don't know why people are so quick to throw away 47 years of NFL history and disrespect the old legends like Vince Lombardi (especially when the SB trophy is named after him). We don't do that in any other sport. People still talk about Babe Ruth.

Yes, in the SB era Pittsburgh has been incredibly successful and nothing can take that away. But let's have some perspective here, especially since the Steelers have been playing since 1933. You guys had 40 years of utter failure followed by 40 years of incredible success. And really your story should serve as inspiration to down and out teams like the Cardinals and Lions, that you can go from league doormat to a model franchise.

NJarhead
06-12-2009, 12:30 PM
First, I'm not a troll. I came here to see how the Steelers would go with their ring. Since I was just at the HoF the week before the SB and took some really nice closeup pictures of all (then) 42 rings, I wanted to know.

Second, you ARE discounting NFL championships. The Packers have 12- count em 12- championships, the Steelers have half as many. The Bears have 9, the Giants have 7. I don't know why people are so quick to throw away 47 years of NFL history and disrespect the old legends like Vince Lombardi (especially when the SB trophy is named after him). We don't do that in any other sport. People still talk about Babe Ruth.

Yes, in the SB era Pittsburgh has been incredibly successful and nothing can take that away. But let's have some perspective here, especially since the Steelers have been playing since 1933. You guys had 40 years of utter failure followed by 40 years of incredible success. And really your story should serve as inspiration to down and out teams like the Cardinals and Lions, that you can go from league doormat to a model franchise.

I think the problem people have with your approach is that you showed up right after the Super Bowl to both congratulate us and then remind us that the Giants (and Packers and Bears, etc) all had championships prior to the super bowl. Sort of like a "Congratulations! Now allow me to rain on your parade."

I don't think that would fly on a Giants forum if the situation were reversed and I think that as long as you persue that tactic you're going to have problems making friends here.

For the record, I like the Giants. I live in Giants country and pretty much grew up on them.

SteelMember
06-12-2009, 12:36 PM
I think the problem people have with your approach is that you showed up right after the Super Bowl to both congratulate us and then remind us that the Giants (and Packers and Bears, etc) all had championships prior to the super bowl. Sort of like a "Congratulations! Now allow me to rain on your parade."

I don't think that would fly on a Giants forum if the situation were reversed and I think that as long as you persue that tactic you're going to have problems making friends here.

For the record, I like the Giants. I live in Giants country and pretty much grew up on them.

I would say that is very accurate and would agree with everythig up until the last line. :chuckle:

NJarhead
06-12-2009, 01:36 PM
I would say that is very accurate and would agree with everythig up until the last line. :chuckle:

Hey, I fought it off and remained true to the Black and Gold. I didn't have it easy like the actual Pittsburgh brats. I had to beg, borrow and steal to see a game. :wink02: