PDA

View Full Version : Dudes on NFL Channel on Sirius


thumper
07-01-2009, 04:36 PM
I didn't pick up on the names of who was chatting, but they said that Pgh wasn't really that good of a team and that they won a ring because the league, in general, had one of it's weakest years, in terms of overall quality of play and the number of good teams.

They said that the Steelers were probably one of the weaker teams to win the Super Bowl since the league had a very down season and that teams that seemed sub par last year could easily get up to the Steelers' level of play - citing even a team like the Bengals could be as good or better than Pgh by the 2009 season.

What do you agree or disagree with re: these assertions?

I'd say they probably have a decent point about - over all - it probably being a weak year for the total quality of the teams in the NFL. After all was said and done, the teams making the play offs were not very good. Indy was barely above average. SD was an 8-8 team, for cripes sake. TN had a gaudy record but were hardly THAT good of a team, with Korky Collins as their starting QB. Balt. had a rookie QB and almost no big play makers to speak of.

On the NFC side, you had a Giants team that lost most of its games in December. A Carolina team that was Jeckyl and Hide all season. A Philly team that was peaking but wasn't all that talented and an AZ team that looked no better than average all season long (but got hot in the post season).

I'm gonna have to go along and agree that the 2008 season was sub par as far as the quality of the play off teams.

That being said, no way does a team like the Bengals surpass Pgh in the 2009 season. They have way too many holes from what I can tell and...well...they are the Bengals which means they should find a way to suck 85% of the time.

Pgh should still be a contender in 2009, but there may be better teams lining up to challenge them in the play offs this time around. Brady will be back with NE, and that changes the field of play right there, alone. Balt. won't have a rookie QB. SD will probably have a healthy LT for the first time in a while. etc.

If there is a surprise team coming out of the North, it will be Cleveland, not Cinci. The Browns could win 10 games this year.

KeiselPower99
07-01-2009, 04:42 PM
WAH WAH WAH!!! Tom Brady wasnt playing so it wasnt fair. WAH WAH WAH!!!

fansince'76
07-01-2009, 05:10 PM
WAH WAH WAH!!! Tom Brady wasnt playing so it wasnt fair. WAH WAH WAH!!!

In so many words, bingo. In a nutshell, it was a "throwaway" year because the mighty metrosexual QB wasn't playing and the bestest, most wonderfulest team ever didn't even make the postseason. Next. :yawn:

AllD
07-01-2009, 05:43 PM
What about the huge plays in the Super Bowl? What about how competitive the Cards were? Not to mention the double standard when it comes to QBs where the one who threw a 100 yd pic 6 and fumbled on his last play got more accolades than the winning QB who helped win the game.

These Steelers are reminiscent of the late 1970s team, for real. I watched them and during their run, nobody outside of Pittsburgh really gave them the credit they deserved until after they fell from the top. One reason is they ALWAYS beat America's team and another is they won so much that many took it for granted.

But what I remember most is that they found ways to win games. They did not come out and run up the score 45-0 and then wait for the other teams to catch up. They had brutal games with lots of injuries.

Last season's team reminds me of them. And if somebody thinks the Steelers won because the league was so weak, it just means that their team was probably one of the worst teams in the league.

thumper
07-01-2009, 05:47 PM
I'm disappointed in the shallow thought process here sometimes. Instead of addressing the very specific assertions, you go off on an infant rant. If it was merely a "Waaaa no Brady" then go ahead and refute the myriad of other assertions made by these guys. So, illustrate how the NFL was indeed as quality as usual in the post season. Do you really think Pgh having to beat an 8-8 team and a team with a rookie QB is as impressive per typical Super Bowl- winning teams' post seasons?

It's depressing to see such base and coarse intellect as the norm in Steeler fans.

Texasteel
07-01-2009, 05:50 PM
I will guarantee you, that if Dallas or New England had gotten to and won the Super Bowl, there would not be ANY talk of a so called " down year ". The teams that got into the playoffs were very good teams and for the most part deserved to be there. The Steeler beat everyone put in front of them. As far and I am concerned, case closed.

thumper
07-01-2009, 05:55 PM
What about the huge plays in the Super Bowl? What about how competitive the Cards were? Not to mention the double standard when it comes to QBs where the one who threw a 100 yd pic 6 and fumbled on his last play got more accolades than the winning QB who helped win the game.

These Steelers are reminiscent of the late 1970s team, for real. I watched them and during their run, nobody outside of Pittsburgh really gave them the credit they deserved until after they fell from the top. One reason is they ALWAYS beat America's team and another is they won so much that many took it for granted.

But what I remember most is that they found ways to win games. They did not come out and run up the score 45-0 and then wait for the other teams to catch up. They had brutal games with lots of injuries.

Last season's team reminds me of them. And if somebody thinks the Steelers won because the league was so weak, it just means that their team was probably one of the worst teams in the league.

Most of your points are valid, but few address the thrust of what was initially asserted. Only your end comment address the assertion that the NFL was a watered down, lower-quality league than is the norm, say, for the past 20 years.

I examined the specifics of each play off team, and came away agreeing with the guys on the Sirius NFL Channel that last year did, in fact, field some of the weakest play off teams - especially when viewed collectively - that I ever recall analyzing.

SD - 8-8 team from a radically weak division. (KC, Oakland and Denver - not the murderers row of opponents).

Indy - Lost to 8-8 SD in first round.

Balt. - Rookie QB, no play makers.

TN - Kerry Collins was their QB

steelreserve
07-01-2009, 06:00 PM
Now THAT'S garbage. Sometimes you'll see a team win one Super Bowl by luck. When's the last time you saw a team win two Super Bowls in four years by luck, with all the same players?

Also, apparently, never mind the fact that we played one of the hardest schedules ever and not only won 12 games, but even in the losses, had a fighting chance to win every single one of them until the last possession. We didn't really play a bad game the entire season, at least by most teams' standards.

RoethlisBURGHer
07-01-2009, 06:27 PM
It was a down year?

The Patriots were 11-5 without Brady...and we stomped them in New England.

We lost in the regular season to a 12-win Colts team.

We beat a Cowboys team that the media pegged as a Super Bowl contender until their late season collapse.

The Steelers also had one of the hardest schedules in the NFL, won 12 games in the regular season, and won the Super Bowl.

In the AFC, we had the following teams that were playoff teams:

Steelers
Titans
Chargers
Dolphins
Colts
Ravens

The Steelers, Colts, and Chargers all made the playoffs last year.

Then, in the Super Bowl we played a Cardinals team that beat an Eagles team that dominated the Steelers offense earlier this season.

This year we will find out if last year truly was a down year.

If the Dolphins, Titans, and Ravens all do well this year...not necessarily the playoffs, just have a 10 win season...then I think that proves that last year wasn't a down year.

And honestly, the media is only labeling last year a down year because their favorite person to slurp on, Tom Brady, was out after the first game.

SteelKid212
07-01-2009, 06:32 PM
I'm disappointed in the shallow thought process here sometimes. Instead of addressing the very specific assertions, you go off on an infant rant. If it was merely a "Waaaa no Brady" then go ahead and refute the myriad of other assertions made by these guys. So, illustrate how the NFL was indeed as quality as usual in the post season. Do you really think Pgh having to beat an 8-8 team and a team with a rookie QB is as impressive per typical Super Bowl- winning teams' post seasons?

It's depressing to see such base and coarse intellect as the norm in Steeler fans.

everyone on this board needs to shutup... (still waitin on the sarcasm smiley)
we all seem to forget Thumper here seems to know more than everyone out there.. .specially Steeler Nation. :coffee:

GIMME A BREAK! steelers finished 12-4... against the leagues toughest schedule... dont talk to me about.. ooh the teams played sub-par this year... blah blah :blah:

the teams were the exact same teams!
most teams just couldn't find a way to finish games... but the tough teams were definitely there... the old rival veterans were definitely there!
Steelers could have easily finished 4-12... given the fact that almost everygame they played they pulled off a victory in the final seconds! it could have easily gone the other way. !!!!!!

BUT THEY FOUND A WAY TO WIN! THEY FOUND A WAY TO PULL IT OFF IN THE END AND COME OUT WITH A VICTORY... AND THAT MY FRIEND IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEAM WITH "SIX" AND THE REST OF THE "SUB PAR LEAGUE "

so GET OVER IT. :tt03:

fansince'76
07-01-2009, 06:54 PM
I'm disappointed in the shallow thought process here sometimes. Instead of addressing the very specific assertions, you go off on an infant rant. If it was merely a "Waaaa no Brady" then go ahead and refute the myriad of other assertions made by these guys.

Then stop posting infantile, Pats-gobbling bullshit. The OP looked like an article from CHFF. "The Pats didn't win, they weren't even in the running, and the rest of the league sucks in comparison to the almighty unbeatable Pats, ergo, it was a down year," which is pretty much how it came off and is pretty much the underlying theme of just about every article one would find at CHFF.

austinfrench76
07-01-2009, 07:09 PM
BS!

thumper
07-01-2009, 07:09 PM
I will guarantee you, that if Dallas or New England had gotten to and won the Super Bowl, there would not be ANY talk of a so called " down year ". The teams that got into the playoffs were very good teams and for the most part deserved to be there. The Steeler beat everyone put in front of them. As far and I am concerned, case closed.

I'm not saying "case opened." I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. We can assert that it was a weaker year for quality play offs teams __AND__ say Pgh has nothing to apologize for...SCOREBOARD, they beat who was put in front of them until there was no one left to beat.

Pgh doesn't have to apologize for winning the world title, but at the same time, I do think the play off's caliber were, in fact, weaker than typical seasons. That's all.

BlastFurnace
07-01-2009, 07:12 PM
I didn't pick up on the names of who was chatting, but they said that Pgh wasn't really that good of a team and that they won a ring because the league, in general, had one of it's weakest years, in terms of overall quality of play and the number of good teams.

They said that the Steelers were probably one of the weaker teams to win the Super Bowl since the league had a very down season and that teams that seemed sub par last year could easily get up to the Steelers' level of play - citing even a team like the Bengals could be as good or better than Pgh by the 2009 season.



You can look at every single year and say that. Every single year, there are teams that don't meet expectations, and teams that overachieve and surprise everyone. I am convinced that those in radio do nothing but try to draw people offsides for ratings. Honestly, I don't even care what these people say any longer and I hardly ever listen to talk shows any longer. The only post game show I even listen to any longer is the Steelers post game show on the radio.

Did they happen to mention that perhaps the worst team ever to win was the 2001 Patriots that benefited from a call (tuck rule) that hadn't been used since the rule book was written in the 1920's. Doubt it.

Don't let them bother you. Who cares what they think.

thumper
07-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Then stop posting infantile, Pats-gobbling bullshit. The OP looked like an article from CHFF. "The Pats didn't win, they weren't even in the running, and the rest of the league sucks in comparison to the almighty unbeatable Pats, ergo, it was a down year," which is pretty much how it came off and is pretty much the underlying theme of just about every article one would find at CHFF.

Infantile? A better match to the babble in your responses, to be honest. There are a plethora of specifics given that illustrate it was a weak play off field that have nothing - or no mention of - the Patriots, whatsoever. I find your inability to see this obvious truth to be revealing.

thumper
07-01-2009, 07:17 PM
everyone on this board needs to shutup..
we all seem to forget Thumper here seems to know more than everyone out there.. .specially Steeler Nation.

More than everyone? I'm not sure. More than the vast majority? Probably a safe assumption.

Steel Head
07-01-2009, 07:21 PM
That's garbage

Best Defense to win the SB since the 2000 Ravens D

and Big Ben leading the way on O

Sounds like crying because those pu$$y Patriot cheaters didnt win

BlastFurnace
07-01-2009, 07:26 PM
Infantile? A better match to the babble in your responses, to be honest. There are a plethora of specifics given that illustrate it was a weak play off field that have nothing - or no mention of - the Patriots, whatsoever. I find your inability to see this obvious truth to be revealing.

10..9..8..7..6..5..4........

I see a vacation coming in your future.

tony hipchest
07-01-2009, 07:32 PM
1st of all the bengals have more talent thant the browns. the browns will suck (yes, even worse than the bungles).

2nd of all, the bradys were practically worshiped when tom beat the steelers with a rookie qb on his way to their 3rd title.

statistically, no team has dominated on defense like the steelers did since the 91 eagles. (sure the ravens led in points allowed in 2000.) they were pretty much the best defense last year too, when the giants and patriots were the supposed height of nfl greatness.

steelers faced the best defense in the league (besides themselves) 3 times and won. they faced the 3 teams who were regarded as superbowl favorites and top to bottom the most talented teams since free agency began. (chargers, patriots, cowboys). won all 3. they faced the past 2 superbowl champs and had victory slip through their hands thanks to stupid, self inflicted, mistakes.

ken wisenhunt had as much insider info on the steelers that the jon gruden led bucs had on the raiders. he also had a multiple league MVP winning qb who has been to more superbowls than any active player not named brady. add to that arguably the best wr combo in the league and a former rushing title holder, and i dont see how anyone can say we faced sub-par teams or talent.

i heard portions of this convo (i think it was with schein and wilcots on BLITZ, and can almost guarantee it was spurned by a pat, raven, brown, dallas, or bunglefan.

all bitter haters. dont buy in.

fansince'76
07-01-2009, 07:37 PM
Infantile? A better match to the babble in your responses, to be honest. There are a plethora of specifics given that illustrate it was a weak play off field that have nothing - or no mention of - the Patriots, whatsoever. I find your inability to see this obvious truth to be revealing.

Combined records of the 12 2007 playoff teams: 135-57 (.703)

Combined records of the 12 2008 playoff teams: 130-61-1 (.680)

Essentially a 4.5-win difference in the regular season between 12 playoff teams in different years, particularly when one of the teams in the earlier year was 16-0 doesn't make the latter year's playoff participants appreciably "weaker," IMO.

stillers4me
07-01-2009, 08:03 PM
Personally, I thought last season was all round more exciting BECAUSE Tom Brady was gone. Some attention actually went to other teams and players for a change.

Give It To Abercrombie
07-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Infantile? A better match to the babble in your responses, to be honest. There are a plethora of specifics given that illustrate it was a weak play off field that have nothing - or no mention of - the Patriots, whatsoever. I find your inability to see this obvious truth to be revealing.

I wasn't interested in the original post at first, because I didn't feel it had merit. But I read on anyway. Then the more I read the more I disagreed with you, but hey, I don't run around saying I am smarter than other people, especially people I don't know. So I kept my figurative mouth shut and kept reading. Then I saw a trend in your posts, the glib nature in which you spew prodigious locution in an attempt to make your insipid spewings more palatable. Then I realized why no one was jumping on your bandwagon and carrying your flag even if there are those out there that agree with you.... you sound like a douche. Cheers.

tony hipchest
07-01-2009, 09:45 PM
:laughing:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/ono_whap.gif

TackleMeBen
07-01-2009, 10:05 PM
Personally, I thought last season was all round more exciting BECAUSE Tom Brady was gone. Some attention actually went to other teams and players for a change.
i have to agree with stillers. the media actually had to talk about other teams and players since brady was gone. if brady had been there all season, then the media would have talked about brady, and occasionally mentioned the 0-16 lions :wink02:

Texasteel
07-01-2009, 10:09 PM
More than everyone? I'm not sure. More than the vast majority? Probably a safe assumption.

I have tried to over look a lot of the insults and arrogance that you seem to love to throw out senselessly. I have seen you try to make a point simply by running the other posters into the ground, and often simply repeating yourself over and over again for no reason. This last post is simply the last straw. You can try to artificially inflate yourself for what ever reason you have, but it only makes you look so very much smaller. No sir, you are not smarter than anyone else. You just talk more.

Galax Steeler
07-02-2009, 07:10 AM
I didn't pick up on the names of who was chatting, but they said that Pgh wasn't really that good of a team and that they won a ring because the league, in general, had one of it's weakest years, in terms of overall quality of play and the number of good teams.

They said that the Steelers were probably one of the weaker teams to win the Super Bowl since the league had a very down season and that teams that seemed sub par last year could easily get up to the Steelers' level of play - citing even a team like the Bengals could be as good or better than Pgh by the 2009 season.

What do you agree or disagree with re: these assertions?

I'd say they probably have a decent point about - over all - it probably being a weak year for the total quality of the teams in the NFL. After all was said and done, the teams making the play offs were not very good. Indy was barely above average. SD was an 8-8 team, for cripes sake. TN had a gaudy record but were hardly THAT good of a team, with Korky Collins as their starting QB. Balt. had a rookie QB and almost no big play makers to speak of.

On the NFC side, you had a Giants team that lost most of its games in December. A Carolina team that was Jeckyl and Hide all season. A Philly team that was peaking but wasn't all that talented and an AZ team that looked no better than average all season long (but got hot in the post season).

I'm gonna have to go along and agree that the 2008 season was sub par as far as the quality of the play off teams.

That being said, no way does a team like the Bengals surpass Pgh in the 2009 season. They have way too many holes from what I can tell and...well...they are the Bengals which means they should find a way to suck 85% of the time.

Pgh should still be a contender in 2009, but there may be better teams lining up to challenge them in the play offs this time around. Brady will be back with NE, and that changes the field of play right there, alone. Balt. won't have a rookie QB. SD will probably have a healthy LT for the first time in a while. etc.

If there is a surprise team coming out of the North, it will be Cleveland, not Cinci. The Browns could win 10 games this year.

:coffee:

Rotorhead
07-02-2009, 09:03 AM
I will refute your points simply by stating the level of play was actually higher this season than most. There is a changing of the guard going on right now if you think about it. Indy always dominated their division, but now they have TN to contend with, so Indy is not worse, TN is better. SD had an injury riddled year, but started to get healthy toward the end of the season, that is why they won in the playoffs, they are a very good team that needed to deal with crappy coaching (Norv is the worst) and injuries. Baltimore would have won the SB if we didnt beat them, end of story (and remember what our rookie QB did). NE still made the playoffs, but Miami and even the NYJ were better teams than in previous years. So NE may have fallen do to asschin not being there, but that didnt affect Miami and NYJ for being better. So AFC = better teams more competition, not a down year. Dallas hasnt changed, good with a late season collapse. Philly is and has been a good team with McNabb healthy. I think they would be SB contenders if they actually had wideouts for him and Westbrook is probably the best player in the league with what he does every single season. Greenbay was there, NO is a def player or 2 from making a serious run, NYG are not worse, Carolina is a QB away from being a contender. Seattle is worse, but how many years have ppl been saying this is the year for Arizona? They have had all the tools, but now they have a coach that can put it together (your welcome from the Steelers). Vikes are a QB away from a serious contender.

So there you have it, the league was better all around, some of the top has dropped off a bit, but the middle of the pack grp is really picked it up which results in a better overall league, not a down year IMHO

Rotorhead
07-02-2009, 09:10 AM
I completely forgot about Atlanta, they are one year away from putting it all together and being a dominant NFC team for several years.

As for the Steelers not being all that good, they had one of the most dominant defenses of ALL TIME last year . . . um like one of the best EVER to play the game. Not to mention one of the best QB's in the game, a dominant possesion WR in Hines and a breakout season for a top flight receiver in Santonio . . . the only thing we lacked was a running game and that was due to injuries. With all of that, in years past, we would have been so dominating to the other teams we would have gone undefeated. Instead the league was better as a whole and we had to bring our A game to all our victories!

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 09:15 AM
I didn't pick up on the names of who was chatting, but they said that Pgh wasn't really that good of a team and that they won a ring because the league, in general, had one of it's weakest years, in terms of overall quality of play and the number of good teams.

They said that the Steelers were probably one of the weaker teams to win the Super Bowl since the league had a very down season and that teams that seemed sub par last year could easily get up to the Steelers' level of play - citing even a team like the Bengals could be as good or better than Pgh by the 2009 season.

What do you agree or disagree with re: these assertions?

I'd say they probably have a decent point about - over all - it probably being a weak year for the total quality of the teams in the NFL. After all was said and done, the teams making the play offs were not very good. Indy was barely above average. SD was an 8-8 team, for cripes sake. TN had a gaudy record but were hardly THAT good of a team, with Korky Collins as their starting QB. Balt. had a rookie QB and almost no big play makers to speak of.

On the NFC side, you had a Giants team that lost most of its games in December. A Carolina team that was Jeckyl and Hide all season. A Philly team that was peaking but wasn't all that talented and an AZ team that looked no better than average all season long (but got hot in the post season).

I'm gonna have to go along and agree that the 2008 season was sub par as far as the quality of the play off teams.

That being said, no way does a team like the Bengals surpass Pgh in the 2009 season. They have way too many holes from what I can tell and...well...they are the Bengals which means they should find a way to suck 85% of the time.

Pgh should still be a contender in 2009, but there may be better teams lining up to challenge them in the play offs this time around. Brady will be back with NE, and that changes the field of play right there, alone. Balt. won't have a rookie QB. SD will probably have a healthy LT for the first time in a while. etc.

If there is a surprise team coming out of the North, it will be Cleveland, not Cinci. The Browns could win 10 games this year.

I disagree with most of your assertions.

The Colts were above average. They won 9 in a row to end the regular season. Pats, Steelers, Texans, Chargers, Browns, Bengals, Lions, Jaguars, Titans (meaningless week 16 game) That's a pretty strong finish.

San Diego was 8-8, but that includes a game they were clearly Cheated from a win vs Denver. Remember the Referee made a horrible league apologized call that cost them a game. They should have been 9-7, but even so, found a way to win 4 in row at the end of the year to even have hopes of the playoffs. And they did STOMP on the Patriots earlier in the season. And lost their best LB on defense pretty much for the season and their RB was hurt most of the year.

The Titans were a pretty good team. Probably played a little over their heads and were exposed in their losses to the Jets, Texans and Ravens as being not as good as their record indicated, but when they played the Steelers, they played like a potential champion that day. They were a pretty good team with a Solid Running game and a Solid Defense. Better than most of the other teams in the league.

Baltimore did have a Rookie QB that took them to an AFC Title game on the backs of a solid running game, one clutch receiver and a very good defense. Sounds a lot like the Steelers of 2001 actually. Think about that. Don't they have the "best safety and best linebacker" in the league on their team? Yep, per all the talking heads they do.

The Giants, did in fact lose 3 out of 4 games in December, AFTER Burress Shot Himself in the leg and they lost their best WR on offense for the rest of the year. However they did pull a must win for homefield advantage game out over the Panthers.

The Panthers, Jeckle and Hyde? Totally disagree. Win 2, lost at Atlanta, Won 2 lost at Tampa, Won 4 Lost to Atlanta (Remember Divisional Game) Won 3, lost at NY Giants. Beat the Saints to end the season. Ended 12-4. Seems like a very Solid body of work to me, not Jeckle and Hyde, if anything,the Chargers were the Jeckle and Hyde of the 2008 season. Not the Panthers.

The Eagles, what can anyone say about them. They will be in the playoffs almost every year and almost every year Donovan will find a way to choke when it matters most. Whatever, the Eagles are who we think they are.

But as for it being a "watered down" year. I completely Disagree.

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 11:24 AM
That being said, no way does a team like the Bengals surpass Pgh in the 2009 season. They have way too many holes from what I can tell and...well...they are the Bengals which means they should find a way to suck 85% of the time.

Pgh should still be a contender in 2009, but there may be better teams lining up to challenge them in the play offs this time around. Brady will be back with NE, and that changes the field of play right there, alone. Balt. won't have a rookie QB. SD will probably have a healthy LT for the first time in a while. etc.

If there is a surprise team coming out of the North, it will be Cleveland, not Cinci. The Browns could win 10 games this year.

Part II of my Disagreements with your Assertions.

Better teams lining up to "challenge" the Steelers...New England and San Diego. When do they NOT challenge the Steelers in the playoffs? Seriously. Every Year you can count on 4 teams making the playoffs, basically bet on it and you'll win most of the time. Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Chargers. Toss in your Titans, Jags, Ravens, Broncos, Dolphins fighting for the last 2 spots and you have the AFC Playoff Picture in a nut shell basically the last 8 years. Sure the Bengals stepped up once, maybe the Jets shock the world and actually get a playoff spot, heck I'll even toss a bone to the Texans having an outside shot., but as for "Better Teams" NO there are not "better Teams" There are the SAME Teams we compete against each and every year.

I don't see the Bengals Passing the Steelers, however, I see them being 2nd in the AFC North. Mostly due to the Ravens tougher schedule having to play both the 2nd place Colts and Patriots. So I see the Ravens actually taking a step back and the Bengals with he easier schedule having sucked last year, making up ground. I see NOTHING in Mangini or the Browns that makes be believe they can suddently run the ball more effectively or play better on defense as a team. However, the Bengals, did bring in a Safety, Tank Johnson too if I remember correctly, Brought in a FB in Brian Leonard, and had a pretty good draft. Not saying they are going to set the world on fire but tell me this...who's the starting QB for the Browns this year? Yeah, that's what I thought.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 11:53 AM
I would say that the league was more watered down last year (2007) with some VERY mediocre teams making it to the playoffs.

I will stick with the guys contending that this does have a lot to do with "the sexy factor", and since Pittsburgh isn't sexy, and the Cards are perennial losers, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at saying that unless a big market team is playing a big market team in the Super Bowl, something is wrong, or it's boring, or the league was weak, etc, etc...

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 12:06 PM
Woah Revs, don't be crazy, I mean the 2007 Playoffs had the Jags, Steelers, Chargers, Colts, Patriots and Titans in the AFC and the NFL had the Cowboys, Giants, Packers, Bucs, Seahawks, and Redskins. Clearly the 2007 Teams were much Better than the 2008 teams. Clearly. :chuckle:

SteelerFanInCA
07-02-2009, 12:30 PM
At the end of the day there are still 6 Lombardy Trophies sitting in a Trophy case in Pittsburgh.

thumper
07-02-2009, 12:42 PM
I wasn't interested in the original post at first, because I didn't feel it had merit. But I read on anyway. Then the more I read the more I disagreed with you, but hey, I don't run around saying I am smarter than other people, especially people I don't know. So I kept my figurative mouth shut and kept reading. Then I saw a trend in your posts, the glib nature in which you spew prodigious locution in an attempt to make your insipid spewings more palatable. Then I realized why no one was jumping on your bandwagon and carrying your flag even if there are those out there that agree with you.... you sound like a douche. Cheers.

A post 100% committed to ad hominem attacks without any foot ball content whatsoever - replete with errors and half truths. Keep that thesaurus handy; it appears you are in desperate need. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

thumper
07-02-2009, 12:45 PM
I would say that the league was more watered down last year (2007) with some VERY mediocre teams making it to the playoffs.

I will stick with the guys contending that this does have a lot to do with "the sexy factor", and since Pittsburgh isn't sexy, and the Cards are perennial losers, this is just a thinly veiled attempt at saying that unless a big market team is playing a big market team in the Super Bowl, something is wrong, or it's boring, or the league was weak, etc, etc...

The NFL loves when Pgh is involved, because they are at or near the top for fan following. Even though they are not a big market team, they offer all the same value as does a big market team, since they have such a huge following, so I don't believe your theory holds water.

thumper
07-02-2009, 12:51 PM
I have tried to over look a lot of the insults and arrogance that you seem to love to throw out senselessly. I have seen you try to make a point simply by running the other posters into the ground, and often simply repeating yourself over and over again for no reason. This last post is simply the last straw. You can try to artificially inflate yourself for what ever reason you have, but it only makes you look so very much smaller. No sir, you are not smarter than anyone else. You just talk more.

You just don't have the capacity to absorb and comprehend the higher-level substance. Don't hate. It just deflates your stance all the more. Instead of hating, open up and take the position of trying to learn and advance. Zealots and ideologues often get so married to their teams and positions that they no longer function in the realm of logic and reason. If we need a group of men to storm a hill in a war, that level of thinking is desired. But other than that, it is a low-level mental state. Don't hate. Learn, love and grow.

"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and his fellow men.": Robert G. Ingersoll - (1833-1899)

thumper
07-02-2009, 01:04 PM
Combined records of the 12 2007 playoff teams: 135-57 (.703)

Combined records of the 12 2008 playoff teams: 130-61-1 (.680)

Essentially a 4.5-win difference in the regular season between 12 playoff teams in different years, particularly when one of the teams in the earlier year was 16-0 doesn't make the latter year's playoff participants appreciably "weaker," IMO.

Incomplete form of analysis. There is more to a teams level of quality than mere won-loss records. A lot more goes into it. Pgh was 15-1 in 2004. Do you think that team was better, by post season, than the 2005 or 2008 Steelers? But they had a better record.

fansince'76
07-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Incomplete form of analysis. There is more to a teams level of quality than mere won-loss records. A lot more goes into it. Pgh was 15-1 in 2004. Do you think that team was better, by post season, than the 2005 or 2008 Steelers? But they had a better record.

But yet you brought up SD's won-loss record as the sole "proof" that they weren't a good team. Besides, it's not like your drivel merits a 3-post rebuttal.

Sharkissle29
07-02-2009, 01:19 PM
A post 100% committed to ad hominem attacks without any foot ball content whatsoever - replete with errors and half truths. Keep that thesaurus handy; it appears you are in desperate need. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

ad hominem or not....he does make a point because you do sound like a douche.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 01:22 PM
The NFL loves when Pgh is involved, because they are at or near the top for fan following. Even though they are not a big market team, they offer all the same value as does a big market team, since they have such a huge following, so I don't believe your theory holds water.\

That is completely different than what I am saying. TV ratings are not the same as calling the league competitive or not competitive.The Steelers don't wing the ball all over the field, are not exciting, and they lack the big market appeal that "plays in Peoria". They didn't have to beat media darlings the Pats to get to the promised land. And the Cards are perennial losers. It's cheap and easy to just say "Eh, with Brady out, the Cowboys down, a defensive team from the AFC and a usually bad NFC team making the SB, the whole league just wasn't up to snuff".

There's no real way to measure this anyway, and you've already picked your side of this argument (gasp! You're being contrarian again. Shocking!), so arguing with you will be futile at this point anyway. But having fun ripping people apart and telling them how much smarter than them you are in the process...

fansince'76
07-02-2009, 01:25 PM
You just don't have the capacity to absorb and comprehend the higher-level substance.

You mean such "higher-level substance" as posting threads like "It's official: Cowher POS, rooted against Pens" (in the Steelers forum, no less)? Yer a real brainiac there, dude.

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Incomplete form of analysis. There is more to a teams level of quality than mere won-loss records. A lot more goes into it. Pgh was 15-1 in 2004. Do you think that team was better, by post season, than the 2005 or 2008 Steelers? But they had a better record.

I thought I did a good job of disagreeing with your analysis. Any response?

vasteeler
07-02-2009, 01:33 PM
so how long untill this thumper fool gets banned i thought insults were for the blast furnace:doh:

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 01:35 PM
All this amounts to is very transparent disrespect for the Steelers and Cardinals. The guys are trying to drub up a little controversy, and what better way to do it then try and argue that because they aren't fans of the teams that made the big game, that MUST be evidence that the league had a down year.

It's offseason fodder, purposefully kept as open-ended and vague opinion, and all it's good for is getting some Steelers fans up in arms defending their team.

Thumper is the perfect foil for this kind of garbage...

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 02:11 PM
But Thumper said he agreed with it, that this years Post Season teams weren't as good as last seasons. I disagreed with that assessment and showed why I believe this year was as good.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Thumper is a poor man's Mark Madden...and I mean a REALLY poor man...like those "Rollex" watches you can buy in Times Square....

Texasteel
07-02-2009, 02:29 PM
You just don't have the capacity to absorb and comprehend the higher-level substance. Don't hate. It just deflates your stance all the more. Instead of hating, open up and take the position of trying to learn and advance. Zealots and ideologues often get so married to their teams and positions that they no longer function in the realm of logic and reason. If we need a group of men to storm a hill in a war, that level of thinking is desired. But other than that, it is a low-level mental state. Don't hate. Learn, love and grow.

It has nothing to do with hate, a word you are throwing around trying to hide the fact that you are an arrogant ass. If I wanted lessons on insulting people for the hell of it, and acting so arrogant the I give the idea that no one is fit to talk to me. I would gladly listen to you. I would rather act, talk, and treat others like a grown man would. An concept that you have not grasped yet.

Hammer67
07-02-2009, 02:37 PM
What an interesting thread. I wonder if some of the same language and condescending remarks would be made this were a personal conversation in a bar, for instance??

thumper
07-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Now THAT'S garbage. Sometimes you'll see a team win one Super Bowl by luck. When's the last time you saw a team win two Super Bowls in four years by luck, with all the same players?

Also, apparently, never mind the fact that we played one of the hardest schedules ever and not only won 12 games, but even in the losses, had a fighting chance to win every single one of them until the last possession. We didn't really play a bad game the entire season, at least by most teams' standards.

Listen, seriously folks. They - nor I - ever asserted that Pgh won by luck. You are making assumptions of points that were never created. All that was stated was two points: one I agree with, one I do not.

1. Last year's teams in the NFL were less quality than typical seasons. I agree with that. It used to be that the play offs had 2-4 teams who were really top caliber. Where were those teams? Or where were they in 2007 as well. Pgh was a gritty team with a great D and a franchise QB. But they had to have the worst OL of any SB winner in modern history.

2. Lowly teams like the Bengals could be better than Pgh by this season. I do NOT agree with that, although there are always surprises every NFL season. Who had AZ winning the NFC last year. (I actually did say they would be a play off team but didn't call them to win the NFC.)

So, no one ever said Pgh was "lucky" to win it. Just that, over all, the teams, and play off teams specifically, were not as quality as would be typical in the past. Pgh beat everyone who was in front of them. SCOREBOARD. End of story. They don't have to apologize for beating whoever they had to play.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 02:59 PM
What an interesting thread. I wonder if some of the same language and condescending remarks would be made this were a personal conversation in a bar, for instance??

I used to invite ALL the members of that dumpy Browns board I used to frequent to come on down and watch the game with me. I gave them the name of the bar, the location, when I'd be there, and even exactly what I'd be wearing.

Surprisingly (cough cough), not a one of them ever showed...

thumper
07-02-2009, 03:00 PM
An concept that you have not grasped yet.

Kind of like you having not grasped the English language?

Look, stop hating. Start growing. Start loving. Hate is no good. If someone has vision that may exceed yours, learn from it. And let's keep it to football conversation people. Ad hominem attacks don't get us any where!

Subtract: hate, ad hominem attacks.
Add: love, growth, learning and football discussion.

The subject at hand: Were the NFL play off teams of lesser quality than typical of the post season teams of the past? I think the evidence is clear that assertion is accurate. Go back to prior posts to see the evidence as I presented.

Let's stay in the positive! :hatsoff:

Texasteel
07-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Actually Hammer is right.

I would like to apologize to the forum for call another member what I did. It was inexcusably. To keep this from happening again I will put this particular member on ignore. Again I apologize to all concerned, including thumper. I will await a message from the mods, I deserve it.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Oh, and parity in the league does NOT equate to mediocrity.

thumper
07-02-2009, 03:07 PM
You mean such "higher-level substance" as posting threads like "It's official: Cowher POS, rooted against Pens" (in the Steelers forum, no less)? Yer a real brainiac there, dude.

How is posting that prove other said assessments are not of higher-level substance? They are not mutually exclusive. Just because I make playful, lighter comments doesn't mean I don't also create higher-level assessments as well.

If one laughs and enjoys Benny Hill does that preclude one from enjoying and understanding Shakespeare? Not in the world of reality. Please try to adhere to the context of logic and reason when making assertions.

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Listen, seriously folks. They - nor I - ever asserted that Pgh won by luck. You are making assumptions of points that were never created. All that was stated was two points: one I agree with, one I do not.

1. Last year's teams in the NFL were less quality than typical seasons. I agree with that. It used to be that the play offs had 2-4 teams who were really top caliber. Where were those teams? Or where were they in 2007 as well. Pgh was a gritty team with a great D and a franchise QB. But they had to have the worst OL of any SB winner in modern history.

See, Here it is, I disagreed with that Statement. Last year's NFL wasn't any better than this Year's NFL. Especially when you consider the "Regulars" who have been making the playoffs more than not were also still in the Playoffs. Except one team. Patriots. Otherwise, the Steelers, Colts, and Chargers all held up their end of the bargain. The Giants, Eagles, Vikings, are full of talent. Atlanta stepped up and took over the Bucs spot, but it isn't as if the 07 Bucs were the best team ever. Cards replaced the Seahawks, snooze. Vikes replaced the Packers, with Adrian Peterson and the lack of Favre, who didn't see that coming really?

See, so the 07 Teams were NOT that much better than the 08 team. Take out the Pats, that's the ONLY argument, that because the Pats missed the Playoffs, the entire Playoff season was null and void or at least watered down.

Fine, then the 06 season is TRASH too because the Steelers, the Defending SB Champs, didn't make the playoffs because their QB Faceplanted a Windshield. I don't remember ANYONE saying that? But Brady breaks his leg, or whatever, and now the entire League is Watered Down?

No. No it was not. Same Talent, Same good teams competing. Lots of Guys like Adrian Peterson, Larry Fitzgerald, Deanglo Williams, Haynes Worth, coming into their own.

thumper
07-02-2009, 03:13 PM
Oh, and parity in the league does NOT equate to mediocrity.

Actually, an argument could be made that it does. Back in the day, when there weren't as many things to "even out the playing field" the good teams were more superior to the rest of the league, it would seem. Think of how much better the 70s Steelers, Raiders and Cowboys were. Or the 80's Skins, Bears, Giants and 49ers were. Or the late 80's, early 90s Bills, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles.

I don't know. Parity doesn't _have_ to create mediocrity, but I can see how it could.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 03:21 PM
So the league was better when there were only 12 teams?

Also, was their a huge rash of retirements between '07 and '08? Injuries? Were their dozens of players that played in '07 that didn't play in '08? Coaches that retired?

There simply wasn't enough that changed from one year to the next (other than the obvious: The Pats didn't make the playoffs) to warrant such an absurd statement that the league was somehow dramatically worse in just one year.

Perhaps the case COULD be made over the course of years, but, then again, I'd say the talent level is INCREASING across the board, the game is getting more complicated and specialized to the point that players who played just a decade ago would have trouble even competing.

No, this is Occam's Razor: The Pat's didn't make the playoffs, and a usually bad NFC made the Super Bowl, so the league MUST be getting worse.

fansince'76
07-02-2009, 03:27 PM
How is posting that prove other said assessments are not of higher-level substance? They are not mutually exclusive. Just because I make playful, lighter comments doesn't mean I don't also create higher-level assessments as well.

If one laughs and enjoys Benny Hill does that preclude one from enjoying and understanding Shakespeare? Not in the world of reality. Please try to adhere to the context of logic and reason when making assertions.

Fair enough. We just disagree on the premise of this thread is all. I apologize for my earlier statements too - been a stressful couple days for me, but things got a whole lot better earlier today.

Hammer67
07-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I used to invite ALL the members of that dumpy Browns board I used to frequent to come on down and watch the game with me. I gave them the name of the bar, the location, when I'd be there, and even exactly what I'd be wearing.

Surprisingly (cough cough), not a one of them ever showed...

Not surprising in the least. It isn't just fans of other teams, either. Many times I have been embarrassed for things said on these very boards by people whose opinions I generally respect. We let down our hair a bit more when behind a keyboard, it's human nature and takes concious work to avoid.

Anyway, my thoughts are off topic. Carry on, Steeler Nation! :drink:

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 03:38 PM
Actually, an argument could be made that it does. Back in the day, when there weren't as many things to "even out the playing field" the good teams were more superior to the rest of the league, it would seem. Think of how much better the 70s Steelers, Raiders and Cowboys were. Or the 80's Skins, Bears, Giants and 49ers were. Or the late 80's, early 90s Bills, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles.

I don't know. Parity doesn't _have_ to create mediocrity, but I can see how it could.

I disagree again. The Parity is the same as it ever was.

70s Playoff teams for the Decade AFC =
Baltimore Colts, Cincy, Oakland, Miami, Kansas City, Clevland, Steelers, Raiders, Buffalo, New England, Houston, Denver, Chargers. 13 teams.

70s Playoff teams for the Decade NFC =
Dallas, Detroit, San Fran, Minnesota, Washington, Green Bay, Minnesota, Rams, Cardinals, Bears, Falcons, Eagles, Bucs. 13 Teams

80s Playoff Teams for Decade AFC =
Raiders, Oilers, Bills, Chargers, Jets, Dolphins, Bengals, Patriots, Steelers, Browns, Broncos, Seahawks, Chiefs, Patriots, Colts (Indy), 15 Teams

80s Playoff Teams for the Decade NFC =
Rams, Cowboys, Vikings, Eagles, Falcons, Giants, 49ers, Redskins, Lions, Vikings, Packers, Bears, Saints. 13 Teams.

90s Playoff Teams for the Decade AFC =
Chiefs, Dolphins, Bills, Raiders, Bengals, Jets, Oilers/Titans, Chargers, Steelers, Broncos, Raiders, Patriots, Browns, Colts, Jaguars, Seahawks. 16 teams.

90s Playoff Teams for the Decade NFC =
Redskins, Eagles, Saints, Giants, Bears, Falcons, Cowboys, Lions, Vikings, 49ers, Packers, Panthers, Bucs, Cardinals, Rams. 15 teams.

2000 on Playoff Teams for the AFC =
Colts, Dolphins, Broncos, Ravens, Raiders, Jets, Steelers, Browns, Titans, Patriots, Chargers, Jaguars, Bengals. 13 Teams

2000 on Playoff Teams for NFC =
Saints, Rams, Bucs, Eagles, Giants, Vikings, 49ers, Bears, Packers, Falcons, Panthers, Cowboys, Seahawks, Redskins, Cardinals. 15 teams.

LVSteelersfan
07-02-2009, 04:15 PM
Actually Hammer is right.

I would like to apologize to the forum for call another member what I did. It was inexcusably. To keep this from happening again I will put this particular member on ignore. Again I apologize to all concerned, including thumper. I will await a message from the mods, I deserve it.

Good idea. I put him on ignore because I get tired of reading mindless drivel attacking other posters for basically no reason other than to validate that he is somehow superior to a bunch of people on a message board. Message board bullies are a dime a dozen and not even worth bothering with.

Now onto the real point of the thread. I agree to a certain extent that the league may have been down a bit due to serious injuries last year but how come that wasn't said about the Steelers when they were missing a bunch of key players in 2007? Because we are not the sexy team that the Patsies and Cowgirls are. And anyone saying that the Bungles will overtake the Steelers this year is laughable and needs to get a reality check.

Dino 6 Rings
07-02-2009, 04:22 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my post showing all the playoff teams throughout the decades shows there is no watering down going on for any reason in the NFL and if nothing else, it shows that the more Elite fanchises, you know the ones in my signature, are actually good each decade and tend to be the playoff teams more often than not.

Just because Brady was out, doesn't mean squat. Pretty sure LT and Rivers were BOTH hurt in the AFC Title game last year and they still took it to the Pats pretty good for at least a half, maybe 3 qrts before the Pats locked that game up. Had the Chargers been able to score in the redzone besides kicking FGs, that game would have been a lot closer.

Last year, we lost what 3 starters do to injury, but was it watered down?

Indo
07-02-2009, 06:26 PM
Wow.

I just read all 62 posts of this thread and I have come to several conclusions:

A) Thumper needs to change his username to Chest-Thumper


Why do you seem to think you are more intelligent than the "vast majority" here?
Does your erudite command of the English language make you so?



You just don't have the capacity to absorb and comprehend the higher-level substance.

Is it me, or is that not an ad hominem attack?
BTW, you have used that term in Every thread in which you have participated
Same with "zealots and idealogues"

B) Ad hominem=Lawyer Speak......Thumper just passed the Bar Exam




When someone does respond to your assertions in a manner that disagrees with you, your response is to attack

C) Thumper likes to "hear" himself/herself speak (I should not assume that he/she is a male, but I will use the male pronoun for the sake of simplicity). There is no Discussion here---anyone that might disagree is subjected to a barrage of insults and a reiteration of his points with the apparent assumption that that will make the reader (us) change our points of view. You forgot to turn on the CAPS LOCK.


There is no hate. Just making observations

tony hipchest
07-02-2009, 06:42 PM
i have come to 2 conclusions-

nobody in the history of posting has used the term "ad hominem" more than thumper.

nobody in the history of posting has used the term "strawman" more than ultimatefootballnetwork.

:hunch:

i mean its cool when someone learns a new word to add to their vocabulary that isnt a part of everyday english vernacular, until they jump the shark with that word and cram it down anyones ears who will listen in a weak attempt to prove intelligence.

and to illustrate this point and show how annoying it can be, i am gonna use the term "vernacular" 50 times in the next 7 days on this board. :chuckle:

(oooh! you should use the term 'typographical".... :laughing:)

thumper
07-02-2009, 09:30 PM
Fair enough. We just disagree on the premise of this thread is all. I apologize for my earlier statements too - been a stressful couple days for me, but things got a whole lot better earlier today.

I accept and sincerely hope that whatever has been stressing you makes a turn for the better and ends up making you feel good.

tony hipchest
07-02-2009, 10:07 PM
1. Last year's teams in the NFL were less quality than typical seasons. I agree with that. It used to be that the play offs had 2-4 teams who were really top caliber. Where were those teams? Or where were they in 2007 as well. Pgh was a gritty team with a great D and a franchise QB. But they had to have the worst OL of any SB winner in modern history.

heres the problem i see with you agreeing with this. its all based on speculative perception (my vernacular is off da hook today- and for the next 6).

allow me to elaborate.... (see, i told you).

had the steelers NOT stomped a mudhole into the asses of the cowboys and patriots, both of the superbowl favorites woulda made the playoffs and the steelers possibly woulda been left out in the cold.

the patriots woulda been worshiped for cracking the code of the perplexing raven defense (which woulda been lauded as the greatest this century had they had the privelage to fall to the mighty pats in a champ game).

the cowboys woulda been exaulted for finally defeating their nemesis, and taking down the dominant eagles who had been to nearly half a dozen championship games, this decade alone.

it woulda been called the most competitive and toughest road traveled to reach the most anticipated superbowl ever.

the winner woulda been called the greatest champion, of the greatest game, in the greatest, most competitive era EVER.

what i have typed is true and cannot be disputed. the fact that the steelers canceled the greatest superbowl to ever be hoped for, will not diminish their accomplishment.

unfortunate for the cardinals who also happened to get in their way.

can no lose! :tt:

MongoSteeler
07-02-2009, 10:43 PM
I would ask those same talking heads that if the last SuperBowl proves that the playoff teams were watered down, what did the Denver trashing of Green Bay SuperBowl make the playoff teams?

MasterOfPuppets
07-02-2009, 11:06 PM
i guess i better look up the word " vernacular " .... :huh:

Give It To Abercrombie
07-02-2009, 11:10 PM
What an interesting thread. I wonder if some of the same language and condescending remarks would be made this were a personal conversation in a bar, for instance??

I had the exact same thought.

:drink:

Give It To Abercrombie
07-02-2009, 11:20 PM
Zealots and ideologues often get so married to their teams and positions that they no longer function in the realm of logic and reason. If we need a group of men to storm a hill in a war, that level of thinking is desired. But other than that, it is a low-level mental state.

I don't care how you meant that, I only care how it came across. You should be ashamed.

Rotorhead
07-03-2009, 12:37 AM
Let me see if I am understanding what you are attempting to say . . . Because the top 2-3 teams in the leage may not be as good as the top 2-3 teams from the last couple years, the league is having a down year talentwise? Is this correct? I feel the level of the teams below the top 2-3 team (the level of say the next 10 teams) has improved; which shows me the league is not "down" but "up" talentwise as a whole. The top 2-3 teams do not make up the majority of the league's talent pool.

revefsreleets
07-03-2009, 09:09 AM
I'm sorry, as it may have been me who first popularized calling out the constant "ad hominem" fallacies being committed on this board:noidea:

Back to the argument: I actually think a league with a lot of parity is not only more competitive, it's actually MUCH more competitive. If you have some elite teams at the top, and some shit teams at the bottom, there are going to be a lot of penciled in wins for the elite teams. But when any team can lose any week, and almost every game is competitive, no team can take weeks off.

Also, if the league is ultra-competitive, a top-seeded team playing a bottom seeded team loses it's luster, as the top-seeded team has to "bring it" just to win the game, and can't take anything for granted, or play in second gear for portions of the game.

This still REEKS to me of sour grapes because the effing Pats didn't make the playoffs, as if somehow the league is diminished without their presence in the Super Bowl.

MDSteel15
07-03-2009, 10:00 AM
Kind of like you having not grasped the English language?

Look, stop hating. Start growing. Start loving. Hate is no good. If someone has vision that may exceed yours, learn from it. And let's keep it to football conversation people. Ad hominem attacks don't get us any where!

Subtract: hate, ad hominem attacks.
Add: love, growth, learning and football discussion.

The subject at hand: Were the NFL play off teams of lesser quality than typical of the post season teams of the past? I think the evidence is clear that assertion is accurate. Go back to prior posts to see the evidence as I presented.

Let's stay in the positive! :hatsoff:

Kind of like you not knowing, in every post, that PLAYOFF is one word.... :chuckle:

thumper
07-03-2009, 11:43 AM
Let me see if I am understanding what you are attempting to say . . . Because the top 2-3 teams in the leage may not be as good as the top 2-3 teams from the last couple years, the league is having a down year talentwise? Is this correct? I feel the level of the teams below the top 2-3 team (the level of say the next 10 teams) has improved; which shows me the league is not "down" but "up" talentwise as a whole. The top 2-3 teams do not make up the majority of the league's talent pool.

I'm not sure. Was the rest of the league, other than the two top teams, better than the rest, on average, in other seasons? You still had the bottom feeders, of really bad teams; that didn't change. Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland, KC, Rams - I mean, there were plenty of bad, bad football teams. And, I don't think they were only speaking of the top 2-3 teams. The play off teams - all 12 - when looked at as a group seemed weaker than in year's past.

SD
Indy
Pgh
Miami
TN
Balt.

NY
Philly
Carolina
AZ
Atl
MN

Seems like teams with a lot of flaws.

thumper
07-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Kind of like you not knowing, in every post, that PLAYOFF is one word.... :chuckle:

Major finding. I think the New York Times should report on it. :applaudit:

thumper
07-03-2009, 11:51 AM
I'm sorry, as it may have been me who first popularized calling out the constant "ad hominem" fallacies being committed on this board:noidea:

Back to the argument: I actually think a league with a lot of parity is not only more competitive, it's actually MUCH more competitive. If you have some elite teams at the top, and some shit teams at the bottom, there are going to be a lot of penciled in wins for the elite teams. But when any team can lose any week, and almost every game is competitive, no team can take weeks off.

Also, if the league is ultra-competitive, a top-seeded team playing a bottom seeded team loses it's luster, as the top-seeded team has to "bring it" just to win the game, and can't take anything for granted, or play in second gear for portions of the game.

This still REEKS to me of sour grapes because the effing Pats didn't make the playoffs, as if somehow the league is diminished without their presence in the Super Bowl.

Other than in the Boston media, I don't think your point about the media thinks the league is diminished without the Pats in it. Now, I _do_ think they have a point that without Brady in play, it __IS__ like a golf tourney without Tiger Woods. I think it's hard to argue other wise.

As far as the league being better with more parity, and most match ups' outcomes being up in the air, on that area I agree, but that being said, even with the league making moves to increase parity, there will always be plenty of teams who screw up and suck regardless. Last year, we still had teams that just stunk, with the Lions, Browns, Bengals, Rams, et el stinking it up.

thumper
07-03-2009, 11:56 AM
I don't care how you meant that, I only care how it came across. You should be ashamed.

Why? For telling the truth? Is truth something that should be avoided? Do you really believe those acting as zealots and ideologues are clear and accurate thinkers?

Hammer67
07-03-2009, 12:01 PM
Other than in the Boston media, I don't think your point about the media thinks the league is diminished without the Pats in it. Now, I _do_ think they have a point that without Brady in play, it __IS__ like a golf tourney without Tiger Woods. I think it's hard to argue other wise.

Actually, I would argue otherwise. Tiger Woods is personally responsible for his success. Tom Brady is part of a TEAM. While he is a phenominal QB, that doesn't mean it's an automatic win when he plays, otherwise they would have won it every year he started. Plus, the Steelers have beaten them before, badly, with Brady as a starter.

The media kisses his ass too much. He has a steller receiving corp, a great line and has had a great running game. This was magnified by a backup taking over in the same offense and winning 11 games in, what should have been, a playoff year.

It's hard to argue that Tom Brady isn't, pretty much, adored by the national sports media (Peter King, anyone?)

Hammer67
07-03-2009, 12:04 PM
Why? For telling the truth? Is truth something that should be avoided? Do you really believe those acting as zealots and ideologues are clear and accurate thinkers?

Actually, from a casual observer's point of view, your comments have come across rather condescending, not that you're the only one.... :noidea:

Kaeg
07-03-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm not sure I get this whole thing. If the best teams in the league aren't all that great, who's beating them? How do you base the idea? I like the idea that maybe parity is really the moving force in the whole idea. So what if we don't have a 16-0 team in the mix.

thumper
07-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Actually, I would argue otherwise. Tiger Woods is personally responsible for his success. Tom Brady is part of a TEAM. While he is a phenominal QB, that doesn't mean it's an automatic win when he plays, otherwise they would have won it every year he started. Plus, the Steelers have beaten them before, badly, with Brady as a starter.

The media kisses his ass too much. He has a steller receiving corp, a great line and has had a great running game. This was magnified by a backup taking over in the same offense and winning 11 games in, what should have been, a playoff year.

It's hard to argue that Tom Brady isn't, pretty much, adored by the national sports media (Peter King, anyone?)

Some valid points; Brady is part of a team. The team is well-run with lots of talent. But they have not always had a "great running game."When Antwon Smith is your starting back, as he was in 2001, you probably can't say your rushing game is "great."

As far as the media adoring Brady, it's exactly what you should expect when a dude comes out of no where, with model-good-looks, wins his first Super Bowl as huge underdogs vs. the Rams, goes on to win two more rings, has an undefeated, all-time record setting season in TD passes, dates crazy hot super models (and eventually marries one - who has one of the hottest tails in the entire world) and happens to be one of the best QBs of all time. If there is ANYONE on earth who is going to be adored my the media, it's __THAT__ guy.

And although the Tiger analogy may not be total apples to apples comparison, there is still some validity towards a similarity. Tom Brady is the uber player in the NFL; when he is missing from the equation there is a natural inclination to feel like it's a "Tiger-less golf tourney." Does that mean __I__ feel it diminishes what Ben and the Steelers did last season? Not one bit. Can I understand how it may in the eyes of others? Sure, I can understand it.

revefsreleets
07-03-2009, 01:11 PM
If there IS NOT a "Pro Pats" bias, then why does every single power poll always have them at or near #1 regardless? From LA to NY and every journalist in between, they have a love affair with the Pats.

Every move they make is brilliant. Every draft pick a gem. Every coach a genius. It's sickening, and this whole thread is simply yet another manifestation of the same garbage.

Indo
07-03-2009, 01:13 PM
i have come to 2 conclusions-

nobody in the history of posting has used the term "ad hominem" more than thumper.

nobody in the history of posting has used the term "strawman" more than ultimatefootballnetwork.

:hunch:

i mean its cool when someone learns a new word to add to their vocabulary that isnt a part of everyday english vernacular, until they jump the shark with that word and cram it down anyones ears who will listen in a weak attempt to prove intelligence.

and to illustrate this point and show how annoying it can be, i am gonna use the term "vernacular" 50 times in the next 7 days on this board. :chuckle:

(oooh! you should use the term 'typographical".... :laughing:)

I do like "vernacular" (counter: 1 of 50)...
Using "typographical",while I like the word, would be somewhat plebeian.
While I am not quite as loquacious as Thumper, I do feel that I must adopt an obsequious countenance and mimic his eloquence at every possible opportunity. It would serve to impart to me an elan which has hitherto eluded my being.

(I like "obsequious" the best, but I'm not sure that I can use it 50 times....)

Oh........

http://dictionary.reference.com/

thumper
07-03-2009, 01:16 PM
Actually, from a casual observer's point of view, your comments have come across rather condescending, not that you're the only one.... :noidea:

Hmmm, "condescending" while others are dealing in out and out name calling <-- (used since some have been whining on the use of "ad hominem" term)

thumper
07-03-2009, 01:20 PM
I do like "vernacular" (counter: 1 of 50)...
Using "typographical",while I like the word, would be somewhat plebeian.
While I am not quite as loquacious as Thumper, I do feel that I must adopt an obsequious countenance and mimic his eloquence at every possible opportunity. It would serve to impart to me an elan with has hitherto eluded my being.

(I like "obsequious" the best, but I'm not sure that I can use it 50 times....)

Oh........

http://dictionary.reference.com/

Hey, I didn't know this guy was posting in here.

http://www.joesportsfan.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Christensen.jpg

Indo
07-03-2009, 01:26 PM
That's pretty funny, actually :toofunny:

tony hipchest
07-03-2009, 01:38 PM
I do like "vernacular" (counter: 1 of 50)...
Using "typographical",while I like the word, would be somewhat plebeian.
While I am not quite as loquacious as Thumper, I do feel that I must adopt an obsequious countenance and mimic his eloquence at every possible opportunity. It would serve to impart to me an elan which has hitherto eluded my being.

(I like "obsequious" the best, but I'm not sure that I can use it 50 times....)

Oh........

http://dictionary.reference.com/:laughing:

In English Doc... We aint scientists!:wink02:

dang! that doughty vernacular would leave me feeling i was sliced and diced and "cut in half".... knee high to a grasshopper and all.


Vk4BMK7OcQo

Indo
07-03-2009, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest;622428]:laughing:

In English Doc... We aint scientists!:wink02:

dang! that doughty vernacular would leave me feeling i was sliced and diced and "cut in half".... knee high to a grasshopper and all.


That there is some sweet 8-bar blues

And the counter is now 2 of 50---- a good start


here's a link, if you're interested...........http://dictionary.reference.com/

tony hipchest
07-03-2009, 02:06 PM
here's a link, if you're interested...........http://dictionary.reference.com/

thanks for the link. i think ive figured out how to incorporate vernacular into my posts 47 more times- :chuckle:

awvT8rF6d1A

...know what i mean?

Kaeg
07-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Gaahlly! I gots tah grab me mah dikshunary. Whut with all the fancy new werds ahm lernin taday!

thumper
07-03-2009, 04:12 PM
If there IS NOT a "Pro Pats" bias, then why does every single power poll always have them at or near #1 regardless? From LA to NY and every journalist in between, they have a love affair with the Pats.

Every move they make is brilliant. Every draft pick a gem. Every coach a genius. It's sickening, and this whole thread is simply yet another manifestation of the same garbage.

First of all, not true. I was watching the NFL Channel and listening to NFL Sirius and most talking heads have been saying "I like NE or Pgh and you know there will be a team or two we don't expect to contend as well." That is the concensus. I would prefer that they don't mention Pgh as a contender but most still do.

And as far as giving Pats lots of gloss, wouldn't they. Last season Brady played they went undefeated, broke the single season TD passing record and had won 3 rings over his career so far. Yea, they got upset in the Super Bowl, but so what? There is plenty of history to make the case for Brady and NE to being a very good team.

I love when Pgh doesn't get gloss; it gives them the best chance to win.

thumper
07-03-2009, 04:14 PM
That's pretty funny, actually :toofunny:

I thought it was. But I am my own best audience.

http://www.trunkbunker.com/toddchristensen1.jpg

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 09:40 AM
First of all, not true.

Really? "Not true"?

Please....

Dino 6 Rings
07-06-2009, 12:01 PM
You know what really pissses me off sometimes...is when I go and research something like every single team that has made the playoffs for each decade since the 1970s and post it to counter the argument that the playoffs are "watered down" or that there is more "parity" these days, and the person I'm showing it to just ignores it. As if it was never posted.

The Patriots missed the playoffs, that's it, that's the only reason anyone would say the Playoffs of 08/09 were watered down. That's the only reason. I posted a ton of facts to back up that claim.

The only real difference for the AFC was the Titans replacing the Jags (actually, taking BACK their previous Playoff spot) and the Dolphins taking the Patriots playoff spot (Which with Bill Parcells running things down in Miami, are we really that suprised?)

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 12:04 PM
You know what really pissses me off sometimes...is when I go and research something like every single team that has made the playoffs for each decade since the 1970s and post it to counter the argument that the playoffs are "watered down" or that there is more "parity" these days, and the person I'm showing it to just ignores it. As if it was never posted.

The Patriots missed the playoffs, that's it, that's the only reason anyone would say the Playoffs of 08/09 were watered down. That's the only reason. I posted a ton of facts to back up that claim.

The only real difference for the AFC was the Titans replacing the Jags (actually, taking BACK their previous Playoff spot) and the Dolphins taking the Patriots playoff spot (Which with Bill Parcells running things down in Miami, are we really that suprised?)


Here's a response: Not true.

There, feel better? Your facts and figures <<< someones knee-jerk opinion.

thumper
07-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Really? "Not true"?

Please....

Then refute the assertion. I offered why it's not true: The majority of media people are saying it's either Pgh or NE to win the AFC. You claim a bias but offer nothing as evidence.

Dino 6 Rings
07-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Then refute the assertion. I offered why it's not true: The majority of media people are saying it's either Pgh or NE to win the AFC. You claim a bias but offer nothing as evidence.

I sure has heck hope you aren't suggesting that I didn't support any evidence.

These are the claims I believe I have refuted:

The 08/09 Playoffs were wateredown.

Their is more Parity in today's NFL.

I believe I have proven that the only reason the first thing is being said is due to NE not being in the playoffs and that there is no other reason for such a claim.

I believe I have proven that since the 1970s, the Parity has existed and that over a 10 year period an equal amount of different teams basically makes the playoffs each decade in both conferences.

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Then refute the assertion. I offered why it's not true: The majority of media people are saying it's either Pgh or NE to win the AFC. You claim a bias but offer nothing as evidence.

Evidence? Are you actually denying that there is a pro-Pats bias in the sports reporting media?

Really?

And you claim to be intellectually superior to everyone here?

thumper
07-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Evidence? Are you actually denying that there is a pro-Pats bias in the sports reporting media?

Really?

And you claim to be intellectually superior to everyone here?

There is a "pro Pats" bias in the media just as there was a "pro Cowboys" bias in the 90s and a "pro Steelers" bias in the 70s. In case you haven't noticed, but if you win 3 rings in a short period, you become the media's darling. It's really not very hard to figure out. Pats having so much success in the 2000s makes them get talked about. Wow, where did this "bias" come from? Ooooooo, it's such a mystery!

And as far as me EVER claiming intellectual superiority to EVERYONE in here? That is a straw man argument. And we all know who has to resort to straw man arguments, don't we? Find where I ever asserted such. Go ahead. Try. You can't. And now you look helpless.

Dino 6 Rings
07-06-2009, 02:28 PM
I think thumper has me on ignore, that is the only explaination.

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Go ahead. Try. You can't. And now you look helpless.

Oh boy....we have another one of THESE on the board.

Yeah...I'm reeeeaaal helpless....

EVERY post of yours is condescending...every one. And you've heard that from several people here...are we just making that up?

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 02:47 PM
This is actually REALLY easy...



I'm disappointed in the shallow thought process here sometimes

It's depressing to see such base and coarse intellect as the norm in Steeler fans.

You just don't have the capacity to absorb and comprehend the higher-level substance

that they no longer function in the realm of logic and reason. If we need a group of men to storm a hill in a war, that level of thinking is desired. But other than that, it is a low-level mental state. Don't hate. Learn, love and grow.

You are clearly inferring that YOU are the intellectual and the rest of us are your inferiors.

Which is a crock of bullshit...you're about average for this board, I'd say...no better, no worse.

SteelersinCA
07-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Poor Dino....

mmalone
07-06-2009, 03:24 PM
First of all, not true. I was watching the NFL Channel and listening to NFL Sirius and most talking heads have been saying "I like NE or Pgh .

This is true..

because..

NE was #5 offense last year without Brady so they figure it will be better this year...
NE was #10 Defense last year ----

PIt - was #22 Offense - If Ben has a Brady Year and gets us top 10 we win all..
Pit - was #1 Defense ---

Bal was #18 offense - Does Flacco get better.
Bal was #2 defense they speak of the ravens also. ? now is Defense.

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 03:47 PM
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the league was "watered down".

It wasn't.

It isn't.

It's a stupid argument. The talent level is as high as ever. The coaching is as complex and excellent as ever. The teams just happen to be more competitive. This is offseason fodder, and a few people want to latch on make it more...which is fine until they start making sweeping broad (and incorrect) generalizations about the intellectual level of posters on this board simply because THEY recognize the true nature of this argument and don't take it very seriously.

Dino 6 Rings
07-06-2009, 04:28 PM
Or just get ignored when they take on the argument and post stats and facts to disprove any watering down of the league.

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 07:56 PM
Or just get ignored when they take on the argument and post stats and facts to disprove any watering down of the league.

Yeah, I don't understand why you'd be on ignore. It should be reserved for idiots and jackasses, which is how I utilize it.

Methinks thump just doesn't have any real juice outside of a very strong opinion and a few insults...

tony hipchest
07-06-2009, 08:48 PM
1st of all the bengals have more talent thant the browns. the browns will suck (yes, even worse than the bungles).

2nd of all, the bradys were practically worshiped when tom beat the steelers with a rookie qb on his way to their 3rd title.

statistically, no team has dominated on defense like the steelers did since the 91 eagles. (sure the ravens led in points allowed in 2000). they were pretty much the best defense last year too [meaning 07-08], when the giants and patriots were the supposed height of nfl greatness.

steelers faced the best defense in the league (besides themselves) 3 times and won. they faced the 3 teams who were regarded as superbowl favorites and, top to bottom, the most talented teams since free agency began. (chargers, patriots, cowboys). won all 3. they faced the past 2 superbowl champs and had victory slip through their hands thanks to stupid, self inflicted, mistakes.

ken wisenhunt had as much insider info on the steelers that the jon gruden led bucs had on the raiders. he also had a multiple league MVP winning qb who has been to more superbowls than any active player [qb] not named brady. add to that arguably the best wr combo in the league and a former rushing title holder, and i dont see how anyone can say we faced sub-par teams or talent.

i heard portions of this convo (i think it was with schein and wilcots on BLITZ, and can almost guarantee it was spurned by a pat, raven, brown, dallas, or bunglefan.

all bitter haters. dont buy in.

thumper seems to make it a habit of ignoring facts, evidence, and analysis that is contrary to his opinion.

he still refuses to answer what the talking heads on sirius would be saying had (pre-season fantasy favorites) dallas and the patriots met up for last years superbowl.

Indo
07-07-2009, 10:47 AM
There is a "pro Pats" bias in the media just as there was a "pro Cowboys" bias in the 90s and a "pro Steelers" bias in the 70s. In case you haven't noticed, but if you win 3 rings in a short period, you become the media's darling. It's really not very hard to figure out. Pats having so much success in the 2000s makes them get talked about. Wow, where did this "bias" come from? Ooooooo, it's such a mystery!

And as far as me EVER claiming intellectual superiority to EVERYONE in here? That is a straw man argument. And we all know who has to resort to straw man arguments, don't we? Find where I ever asserted such. Go ahead. Try. You can't. And now you look helpless.



You are correct----you never said that you were superior to EVERYONE. You said "The vast majority..." (post #16).

You also said this in post #5:

It's depressing to see such base and coarse intellect as the norm in Steeler fans.


By the way, are you EVER going to acknowledge that Dino 6 Rings DID refute all of your arguments? Or will you, for the sake of Thumping your Chest, continue to ignore him so that you can continue to Thump?

No hate. All love. Just Wondering

Rotorhead
07-07-2009, 12:25 PM
Well I am glad the people on this board I respect (Dino, Rev, Tony, etc) agree with me about the talent level. Now on to a couple of points:
Never, ever ever again post anything derogatory about soldiers . . . you are obviously not one, will never be one and have no idea what it means to be out on a battlefield to "storm a hill" so don't pretend in all your uppity BS you have a clue of what type of intelligence it takes. Your remark disgusts me as does your attitude towards the real people who hold intelligent conversations on this board (as opposed to you which just acts intelligent, we all know you can read a dictionary, woohoo wonderful).
Point #2, just because the teams names which are in the playoffs have changed, does not mean the talent level has dropped off. You offer only a list of team names as your "proof" of the talent level of the league . . . maybe you should put down the dictionary and pick up "The idiots guide to making a logical argument" and comeback later. Maybe then you can pose an argument which isnt torn apart by all of us inferior hoople heads you speak of.

thumper
07-07-2009, 07:06 PM
Well I am glad the people on this board I respect (Dino, Rev, Tony, etc) agree with me about the talent level. Now on to a couple of points:
Never, ever ever again post anything derogatory about soldiers . . . you are obviously not one, will never be one and have no idea what it means to be out on a battlefield to "storm a hill" so don't pretend in all your uppity BS you have a clue of what type of intelligence it takes. Your remark disgusts me as does your attitude towards the real people who hold intelligent conversations on this board (as opposed to you which just acts intelligent, we all know you can read a dictionary, woohoo wonderful).
Point #2, just because the teams names which are in the playoffs have changed, does not mean the talent level has dropped off. You offer only a list of team names as your "proof" of the talent level of the league . . . maybe you should put down the dictionary and pick up "The idiots guide to making a logical argument" and comeback later. Maybe then you can pose an argument which isnt torn apart by all of us inferior hoople heads you speak of.

First of all, your rant about soldiering is about as off topic as discussing ladies' under garments on this board. I'd be happy to discuss issues of our troops, the level of brain washing, etc. that is needed to make a good soldier, etc. but not here.

Secondly, I don't make a habit of rehashing the same refutations and assertions over and over. Once is enough, even if another poster repeats his same rhetoric, ad nauseum.

A collection of zealots and ideologues who keep cheer leading for one another, regardless of any actual true substance, proves nothing. I'm sure the "Ditto heads" cheer each other on in clinging to Rush's talking points about how great the GOP is compared to Democrats even though all this sh-t storm hit us with GOP in office. But, they have trouble recalling such a fact. No difference than the zealots in here: You convince each other is "winning" an argument when reality couldn't be further from the truth.

Ever try using the Socratic form of debate? Look it up and get back to me. It's polar opposite of the ideologue version of discussion and vastly superior in unearthing the truth.

Any who, bringing this whole thing back on topic. I, as did the dudes on Sirius, maintain that last season's play off field was decidedly weaker than on average. All Pgh had to do was beat an 8-8 team at home, followed by beating a team with a rookie QB to make the Super Bowl. That is likely to never happen again.

thumper
07-07-2009, 07:08 PM
Oh boy....we have another one of THESE on the board.

Yeah...I'm reeeeaaal helpless....

EVERY post of yours is condescending...every one. And you've heard that from several people here...are we just making that up?

Simply not true. This one, for instance; clear evidence of proving the above to be a false assertion.

thumper
07-07-2009, 07:12 PM
This is actually REALLY easy...



..you're about average for this board, I'd say...no better, no worse.

Hmm, "average" in what capacity? In looks? In weight? Height? Education? Wit? Football vision? Vision in general?

What I know I am above average in, compared to the rest, is the ability to not hate. No question I excel in that compared to so many others, making ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum. Some of you seem quite overly sensitive in the security re: intellect. Don't stress. Don't freak. Don't hate.

Love and accept and you will be free.

thumper
07-07-2009, 07:15 PM
Or just get ignored when they take on the argument and post stats and facts to disprove any watering down of the league.

You are making the assumption that your "facts" were telling the whole story, why the over-simplified "analysis" did not tell the whole story. That would be like saying "RB A got more yards than RB B, so RB A is the better running back" while ignoring factors such as RB B had a bad hammie all season.

You can't selectively offer the stats you did in a vacuum and expect them to represent full-spectrum analysis.

tony hipchest
07-07-2009, 07:16 PM
wow. "idealogues and zealots" used twice in a single post.

that vernacular is sure to leave the multitude perplexed. :coffee:

san diego beat the mighty colts.

ravens beat the leagues best team (record wise) titans.

steelers beat them both.

you and the dudes on sirius can maintain whatever you wish....

doesnt make you right.

:talker:

thumper
07-07-2009, 07:17 PM
If there IS NOT a "Pro Pats" bias, then why does every single power poll always have them at or near #1 regardless? .

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do of a track record of that head coach and QB winning 3 rings a short order, and going undefeated to the Super Bowl the last year Brady was healthy, AND the fact that they have added MORE talent since that time. Maybe, like, I don't know, that has something to do with it.

tony hipchest
07-07-2009, 07:18 PM
aha! another "ad hominem" sighting.

up next....

"strawman" comment.

:yawn: ZZZZZZzzzzzzz......

tony hipchest
07-07-2009, 08:10 PM
Secondly, I don't make a habit of rehashing the same refutations and assertions over and over. Once is enough, even if another poster repeats his same rhetoric, ad nauseum.
.

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

.zealots and ideologues logic, zealots and ideologues zealots and ideologues zealots and ideologues ad hominem love dont hate zealots, and ideologues ad hominem ad hominem zealots and ideologues. Strawman zealots and ideologues ad hominem, ad hominem strawman..... :blah:

you were saying? :busted:

X-Terminator
07-08-2009, 12:01 AM
Yep, we definitely have yet ANOTHER member who thinks he's far superior to everyone else. As if we haven't had enough of them already.

Boring! :yawn:

Time to "Officer Barbrady" ol' Thumper. Move along folks, nothing to see here...

HometownGal
07-08-2009, 06:05 AM
First of all, your rant about soldiering is about as off topic as discussing ladies' under garments on this board. I'd be happy to discuss issues of our troops, the level of brain washing, etc. that is needed to make a good soldier, etc. but not here.

I'm sure the "Ditto heads" cheer each other on in clinging to Rush's talking points about how great the GOP is compared to Democrats even though all this sh-t storm hit us with GOP in office. But, they have trouble recalling such a fact.

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg

Time to take a break, thumpity-dee-dump. :wave:

revefsreleets
07-08-2009, 09:33 AM
Buh-bye, thump...another average intellect suffering from delusions of grandeur meets the dumpster.

If it makes you feel better, you were above average in one regard: Most nitwits who come here only looking to start a fight only last about 100 posts, and you made it all the way to 207. Congrats!

Dino 6 Rings
07-08-2009, 11:39 AM
You are making the assumption that your "facts" were telling the whole story, why the over-simplified "analysis" did not tell the whole story. That would be like saying "RB A got more yards than RB B, so RB A is the better running back" while ignoring factors such as RB B had a bad hammie all season.

You can't selectively offer the stats you did in a vacuum and expect them to represent full-spectrum analysis.

Hoping that you log on to just view. Here was the whole story I posted:

Teams by Decade that made the Playoffs to disprove the "more parody" argument. Showing clearly that the same amount of teams basically made the Playoffs each decade. That shows that even with Free Agency and expansion, the same amount of teams (usually the Great Franchises) make the Playoffs each decade, hence ending the argument about parody when you look at the actual Facts over a long period of time and not with Simple Tunnel Vision.

I broke down the teams that made the playoffs each season, in 07 and 08 and showed clearly how having the the standard Colts, Steelers, Chargers, with the Pats missing, made it seem as if it was watered down, but clearly, the Dolphins with Parcells at the Helm being good shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. So the Dolphins replaced the Pats, the Ravens replaced the Jags, is that a "watering down" in the AFC? I argue No, it is not.

I also showed in the NFC how the Adrien Peterson lead Vikings taking the spot from the Farveless Packers isn't that much of a stretch. The Redskins had their spot taken, even after they'd made the playoffs 2 years in a row. The Eagles, always in the playoffs MISSED them in 07 again made the playoffs 08, The Giants, SB Champs, made the playoffs. The Panthers were a "surprise" team but not really, they just have been in a Playoff battle for their Division with the Bucs the last couple seasons. (mind you, I'm doing this all from memory because I can't be bothered looking up the actual years who made the playoffs when the last 3 years because I know it won't matter to you because you're a Punk that learned some big words, I'm doing this for my fellow members to laugh about)

The Cardinals replaced the Seahawks. The Cards who have been every body's darling for the last 5 seasons at least, Talking heads have said "my dark horse is the Cardinals" is it any suprise that with their Offense in Shambles the Seahawks falthered and the Cards at 9-7 were finally able to take the Division? It shouldn't be.

So I've pointed out that the ONLY reason any would suggest the Playoffs were "watered down" is because the Patriots were not in the Playoffs. They have made the playoffs 5 years in a row. So it was a "surprise" to not see them, but when you take into account the Tuna in Miami, don't be "surprised" for much longer now that Bill B has some Competition again in the AFC East from Bill P.

Now, show me how with the Eagels actually in the 08 playoffs, and the Cowboys who haven't won a playoff game since 1996, in the playoffs in 07, makes the 07 Playoff Season "tougher" than the 08 season?

Explain to me how the Ravens are worse than the Jaguars.

Show me why the Titans in 07, making the playoffs is "better" than the Titans in 08 making the playoffs.

Explain to me how the Vikings aren't playoff worthy with the best RB in football and a monster D Line.

Indo
07-08-2009, 01:26 PM
:bash: "YOU WILL listen to me.....all of you idealogues and zealots and hamina hamina hamina....

:willy: "You are all HATEFUL because you don't agree with me. That's right ME...ME


:hyper: "Oh sure, Dino---you just throw a bunch of data at me to prove I'm wrong...or, at least, that there might be another opinion on this board than MINE. But it doesn't mean anything (THUMP THUMP THUMP THUMPTHUMP)... I'm RIGHT and you're a zealot if you think otherwise"


I, too, am amazed he lasted as long as he did. I haven't been on this board very long, but sheesh...

revefsreleets
07-08-2009, 01:40 PM
Well, if he'd have posted this garbage at a certain other site with the initials of SN, they'd have kicked his ass up one side of the internet and down the other.

We do it another way at SF...

tunes4life
07-08-2009, 02:21 PM
"ladies' under garments"?

BAH HA HA HA HA! Sorry just haven't heard them called that in a while. I would like to discuss some more but I don't have time. I need to get my trousers out of the wash tub. This entire thread made me want to trot to the ice box so I can get myself a pint of mead.

fansince'76
07-10-2009, 12:13 AM
You all are just simpleminded idealogues and zealots who are only capable of conversing at the rudimentary levels of ad hominem attack and strawman arguments. You were all blessed to have such a vast intellect shine the brilliant beacon of his knowledge upon the dark chasm of ignorance that is this board, and yet you chose to reject the greatest of gifts that has ever been bestowed upon it. Ungrateful wretches.

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Dino 6 Rings
07-10-2009, 09:57 AM
Steeldawgs...that is a fantastic post!!!