PDA

View Full Version : If you had the choice?


thumper
05-26-2009, 03:35 PM
Leaving out the Super Bowls of the 70s, if you had to choose would you rather have the history and future of Dallas, with their three Super Bowls in the 90s and all the dominance with that team, or would you prefer Pgh's 90s success (no rings but good teams) with the rings of the 90s?

Also in consideration is the fact that after Dallas won those 3 rings they have yet to win a single play off game since that time, plus had to endure a lot of horrible seasons as well. Dallas has since flirted with being a good team since, but they have yet to have any post season success, and, in my opinion, won't until Jones hires and gives authority to a real GM (not gonna happen) and he hires a real head coach (Phillips is a nice grandpa figure, but no real head coach with real head coach authority.)

In other words, would you take one less ring (again, ignoring the 70s for purposed of discussion) for a more consistent quality team, plus with a legit future of more rings?

I'd say it's a no brainer. I would hate to be a Cowboys fan as long as Jones owns and operates the team with a real head coach. The only reason that team has any talent is from the years of the Tuna's work. The further they get away from those season, the worst the team will get. Jones has shown zero ability to be a real GM. Look at how worthless this year's draft was.

I will take the 90s, 2000s of the Steelers over what Dallas has/is any day.

:tt02:

revefsreleets
05-26-2009, 03:37 PM
Win with class versus win bigger with an "anything goes" attitude?

Easy.

Win with class, which means the Steelers all the way.

HometownGal
05-26-2009, 03:39 PM
Huh??? 99.9% of the members here would choose the Steelers without a second thought, so what purpose does this thread really serve? :doh:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
I would take the worst season of the Steelers...over the best season in Dallas. Screw the rest of the thoughts on it.

:tt::tt::helmet::tt::tt:

thumper
05-26-2009, 04:13 PM
Huh??? 99.9% of the members here would choose the Steelers without a second thought, so what purpose does this thread really serve? :doh:

Of course Steeler fans take our deal, but I was making a more balanced argument that could go down from a non-Steeler fan mindset, but even in the neutral vantage point, I take Pgh's 90's, 2000s and the future on out even if I were a fan of neither.

It's not so hard to understand, is it?

fansince'76
05-26-2009, 04:15 PM
I'd say it's a no brainer. I would hate to be a Cowboys fan as long as Jones owns and operates the team with a real head coach.

Bingo. I wouldn't want anything to do with the Cowboys from 1989-onward primarily due to that asshat. I've hated the Cowboys since the '70s for obvious reasons, but I at least RESPECTED them before that clown took them over.

NJarhead
05-26-2009, 04:17 PM
Huh??? 99.9% of the members here would choose the Steelers without a second thought, so what purpose does this thread really serve? :doh:

ditto

HometownGal
05-26-2009, 04:18 PM
Of course Steeler fans take our deal, but I was making a more balanced argument that could go down from a non-Steeler fan mindset, but even in the neutral vantage point, I take Pgh's 90's, 2000s and the future on out even if I were a fan of neither.

It's not so hard to understand, is it?

On a Pittsburgh Steelers BB where 99.9% of the members are Steelers fans and aren't fond of the Cryboys, I still say what's the point??

Not hard to understand, is it?

thumper
05-26-2009, 04:27 PM
Bingo. I wouldn't want anything to do with the Cowboys from 1989-onward primarily due to that asshat. I've hated the Cowboys since the '70s for obvious reasons, but I at least RESPECTED them before that clown took them over.

The reason I loath Jones is not because of his 1990s ways. I respect the fact that he knew enough to hire Jimmy and let him build that dynasty. The fact that the team had it's share of coke heads and prostitute-friendly players isn't what really turns me off. What rubs me the wrong way is how Jones had to be seen as the straw that stirred that drink, instead of letting the football men (Johnson and then Tuna) take worthy credit for their knowledge.

When I see ego gratification trump the success of an organization, it sickens me. Jones spent so many futile years trying to run the team after JJ, and then I thought he finally had enough of that and signed Tuna. But once again, his ego needs chased Tuna out of there and he will be back to sucking soon enough. The decision to sign - and keep TO - was purely Jones' move and it surely is what chased Tuna off. Now, another wasted season later, TO is gone and they never won a play off game since 1995.

My point is, even if we had a dynasty in the 90s like Dallas, it's not worth all the shit since and in the future. And I am saying that argument should be won with NON-Steeler fans as well.

Dino 6 Rings
05-26-2009, 04:30 PM
I'll take the team that doesn't have back to back losing seasons and is ALWAYS in the playoff discussion at the begining of every single season.

steelreserve
05-26-2009, 04:40 PM
You're asking me if I'd rather be a fan of a team I hate, just because they win? If that's the question, no thanks.

If you're just asking whether I think the Steelers are in a better position than the Cowboys, that one's pretty obvious too.

steelreserve
05-26-2009, 04:42 PM
I would take the worst season of the Steelers...over the best season in Dallas. Screw the rest of the thoughts on it.

:tt::tt::helmet::tt::tt:

I think the best season in Dallas was when they went 1-15 in Aikman's first year.

BlastFurnace
05-26-2009, 05:35 PM
Steelers over every other franchise in the league. It's not even close.

thumper
05-26-2009, 06:11 PM
Steelers over every other franchise in the league. It's not even close.

Hard to argue that since the last 4 seasons. But before that it was at least debatable to say another team had a better recent past and future. I'll take Ben, Harrison, Polomula, Ward, Heath, Tomlin, Holmes, Woodley, Farrior, Ike, et el over everything else right now. Although Pats are gonna be a bitch to beat this year.

BlastFurnace
05-26-2009, 07:10 PM
Hard to argue that since the last 4 seasons. But before that it was at least debatable to say another team had a better recent past and future. I'll take Ben, Harrison, Polomula, Ward, Heath, Tomlin, Holmes, Woodley, Farrior, Ike, et el over everything else right now. Although Pats are gonna be a bitch to beat this year.

The Pats are a pain every year.

PeckerWood
05-27-2009, 04:50 AM
Leaving out the Super Bowls of the 70s, if you had to choose would you rather have the history and future of Dallas, with their three Super Bowls in the 90s and all the dominance with that team, or would you prefer Pgh's 90s success (no rings but good teams) with the rings of the 90s?

Also in consideration is the fact that after Dallas won those 3 rings they have yet to win a single play off game since that time, plus had to endure a lot of horrible seasons as well. Dallas has since flirted with being a good team since, but they have yet to have any post season success, and, in my opinion, won't until Jones hires and gives authority to a real GM (not gonna happen) and he hires a real head coach (Phillips is a nice grandpa figure, but no real head coach with real head coach authority.)

In other words, would you take one less ring (again, ignoring the 70s for purposed of discussion) for a more consistent quality team, plus with a legit future of more rings?

I'd say it's a no brainer. I would hate to be a Cowboys fan as long as Jones owns and operates the team with a real head coach. The only reason that team has any talent is from the years of the Tuna's work. The further they get away from those season, the worst the team will get. Jones has shown zero ability to be a real GM. Look at how worthless this year's draft was.

I will take the 90s, 2000s of the Steelers over what Dallas has/is any day.

:tt02:

If it wasn't for the Hersel Walker trade to the Viking 15 players for 1 Dallas would have not won any Superbowls in the 90s.

I'll take the Steelers past over Dallas past any day, if Pittsburgh was as big a market as dallas and the way the Steelers draft and able to keep those drafted players longer by being in a bigger market like Dallas its hard telling how many Superbowls they would have won.:banging:

thumper
05-27-2009, 05:37 PM
The Pats are a pain every year.

Not so much a pain without Tom Brady - at least they weren't for us. But with Brady, a real tough team to get by

thumper
05-27-2009, 05:46 PM
If it wasn't for the Hersel Walker trade to the Viking 15 players for 1 Dallas would have not won any Superbowls in the 90s.

I'll take the Steelers past over Dallas past any day, if Pittsburgh was as big a market as dallas and the way the Steelers draft and able to keep those drafted players longer by being in a bigger market like Dallas its hard telling how many Superbowls they would have won.:banging:

One of the best things about Pgh, is that they are never bad for very long, since the 1970s any how. Even the 80s teams, which most of us generally regard as bad, had plenty of winning and play off seasons. The 80's were just bad in comparison to the 70s, 90s and 2000s.

Since Dallas 90s dynasty, they have yet to even win a play off game and have had many years of being a bad football team. And now without Tuna -or any real football man - there to run the team, they will get worse every season from now on. Just look at how pathetic their draft was. Look at the failed TO and Pacman experiments - both Jones' ideas.

Texasteel
05-27-2009, 06:11 PM
I hate the off season, thats when you get threads like this.

thumper
05-28-2009, 11:17 AM
I hate the off season, thats when you get threads like this.

If you don't like it, then don't come here. No one is making you.

Texasteel
05-28-2009, 06:15 PM
If you don't like it, then don't come here. No one is making you.

I will read what I want, when I want, and respond as I like. As long as I'm respectful.
You do the same.

thumper
05-29-2009, 02:14 PM
I will read what I want, when I want, and respond as I like. As long as I'm respectful.
You do the same.

I will post what I want, when I want, how I want, worded how I want and if you don't like it, there is not a thing you can do about it. If you find the posts painful and unnerving, you will just have to live with it. Your illogical take where you complained about a posts content while still reading and replying to it illustrates cognitive dissonance. Don't like it? Don't read it. Not very complex.

Texasteel
05-29-2009, 04:32 PM
I will post what I want, when I want, how I want, worded how I want and if you don't like it, there is not a thing you can do about it. If you find the posts painful and unnerving, you will just have to live with it. Your illogical take where you complained about a posts content while still reading and replying to it illustrates cognitive dissonance. Don't like it? Don't read it. Not very complex.

I'm so glad you are putting the dictionary your mom bought you to good use.

There is nothing illogical about reading a post, thinking it is dumb, and saying so. What is illogical is taking such offense to a simple statement, and feeling you have to attack the person that made the statement.

I never suggested that you don't post what you like, in any manner that you like. On the contrary please do, but if I think it is a dumb post, I will say so. Hell I have made plenty of dumb posts myself, so has almost everyone here.

You have a good time, but try to cut down on the personal attacks. It does make you look a little childish. :wave: