PDA

View Full Version : McGinest is a poop stain!


drizze99
03-15-2006, 04:31 PM
Browns | McGinest agrees to three-year deal
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:20:41 -0800

Len Pasquarelli, of ESPN.com, reports the Cleveland Browns have agreed to terms with free agent LB Willie McGinest (Patriots) on a three-year, $12 million deal.

www.KFFL.com

Ambridge
03-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Another good pick-up for Cleveland.

As much as I hate the Browns I have to admit they've improved their team by leaps and bounds this past week and if they can get some half decent QB play from Charlie Frye next season they could make some noise in the division.

boLT fan
03-15-2006, 06:03 PM
Man, the AFC North could be actually competitive with 3 teams. They could be a good divison to watch this year.

Suitanim
03-15-2006, 06:41 PM
Obviously, the Browns offseason moves so far grade out to an A. If they can put together a decent draft, and also get Suljah back, that may be the team the Bengals have to battle for second place next year.

clevestinks
03-15-2006, 06:51 PM
Willie best years are behind him! I`m not worried about him. cleveland team are snake bitten

Mr. Clean
03-15-2006, 07:01 PM
Except for the center they signed from New Orleans, the Clowns have thrown big money at old players and role players. It brings to mind the Shakesperean quote, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"

The LT they signed from the Falcons wan't a starter. McGinest is 34, not 30 or 27. Jurevicius is a journeyman receiver with his fourth team.

Do not be impressed by free agent signings. Look at the Penguins' free agent signings before this hockey season. Ziggy Palffy, Sergei Gonchar, Mark Recchi, John LeClair, Jocelyn Thibault. None of them made the Penguins into a winner.

To become a winner, a team has to draft well, then coach and develop their players. Free agency can be useful to add a little depth or maybe fill a hole, but it cannot build a team.
The clowns may be just as sorry at the end of the 2006 season a they were at the end of the 2005 season.

Frye will accomplish nothing without a better offensive line.

Suitanim
03-15-2006, 08:10 PM
Disagree. The LT was an upgrade over Shelton, Faine can either stay at C or move to guard, and vice/versa with Bentley, Andruzzi and Cosey are ex-Pats who can still play, and Ryan Tucker was their best OL last year.

Joe Jerevicius was highly coveted by many on this board because he's a 3rd down/possesion receiver, something the Browns have lacked since they lost Johnson.

McGinest won't be an every down player, and he can still play.

Even fat old Washington was an upgrade over the flop they had playing NT last year.

They did a great job, and never had to overpay. I stick with my A grade.

TexaSteeler
03-15-2006, 11:34 PM
Man, the AFC North could be actually competitive with 3 teams. They could be a good divison to watch this year.

Other than the AFC North, I see the other AFC contenders falling farther behind.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 02:25 AM
Another Patriot legend heads into the sunset.

Im sure I am in the large majority of Pats fans who wish Willie all the best - he put his body on the line for us and made some truly signature plays for us - stopping the Edge on the 1yd line is a personal fav.

I wouldnt be feeling quite so generous if he went to a real contender.

NM

hardwork
03-16-2006, 05:06 PM
Willie best years are behind him! I`m not worried about him. cleveland team are snake bitten



McGinest still brings a lot to the table. Especially for the Browns. He knows the defense that Romeo wants to put in place. He's a very solid citizen and stabilizing locker room influence. If we didn't have several of those kinds of players, stabilizing influence, around, we would have kept him. He might not beat you on the field any more but his presence might be part of what beats you in a year or two.

BB2W
03-16-2006, 05:17 PM
Romeo is gonna turn things around in Cleveland. What if Charlie Frye turns out to be the real deal?... There could be three of the AFC's best teams with three of the AFC's best young quarterbacks in one division.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 05:46 PM
McGinest still brings a lot to the table. Especially for the Browns. He knows the defense that Romeo wants to put in place. He's a very solid citizen and stabilizing locker room influence. If we didn't have several of those kinds of players, stabilizing influence, around, we would have kept him. He might not beat you on the field any more but his presence might be part of what beats you in a year or two.
yesterday i wouldve said theres alot of of truth to that, but now that im buying into LITP's philosophy that any money spent that doesnt directly contribute to yards, points, tackles, sacks, etc. on the field, i think it is a waste of money. the browns are better off spending less $$$ on chearleaders who yell "go browns, you can beat them big ol' bad steelers". :rolleyes:

good thing ive admitted it and now see the light.

SteelerzGirl
03-16-2006, 06:07 PM
Romeo is gonna turn things around in Cleveland. What if Charlie Frye turns out to be the real deal?... There could be three of the AFC's best teams with three of the AFC's best young quarterbacks in one division.

I agree, BB2W. The Browns are finally getting it together and are going to be contenders in the AFCN very soon. I'm looking forward to it!

Suitanim
03-16-2006, 06:25 PM
Romeo is gonna turn things around in Cleveland. What if Charlie Frye turns out to be the real deal?... There could be three of the AFC's best teams with three of the AFC's best young quarterbacks in one division.

Are you forgetting about Kyle Boller?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

hardwork
03-16-2006, 06:49 PM
yesterday i wouldve said theres alot of of truth to that, but now that im buying into LITP's philosophy that any money spent that doesnt directly contribute to yards, points, tackles, sacks, etc. on the field, i think it is a waste of money. the browns are better off spending less $$$ on chearleaders who yell "go browns, you can beat them big ol' bad steelers". :rolleyes:

good thing ive admitted it and now see the light.


Sure......

Mr. Clean
03-16-2006, 06:55 PM
I reiterate that outside of their center, the Clowns signed a bunch of has-beens and never-weres. Not impressed.

The Penguins signed a bunch of old free agents before this NHL season and they still stunk. You cannot build a team with free agents. Their defense is still pathetic.

8-8 for the Pumpkin Heads? I'll believe it when I see it.

hardwork
03-16-2006, 07:01 PM
I reiterate that outside of their center, the Clowns signed a bunch of has-beens and never-weres. Not impressed.

The Penguins signed a bunch of old free agents before this NHL season and they still stunk. You cannot build a team with free agents. Their defense is still pathetic.

8-8 for the Pumpkin Heads? I'll believe it when I see it.


Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher.

Stlrs4Life
03-16-2006, 07:13 PM
Yeah they made some good moves. But majority sare older players, how many years do they have left in them? And all the money they spent on them thus far. Draft in my opinion is the only way to build.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 07:15 PM
Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher. does homerism blind you to the likes of jimmy johnson, bill walsh, and chuck noll?


bill parcells? homerism at its finest. :sofunny:

Suitanim
03-16-2006, 07:20 PM
Wow...c'mon guys...the Browns did well, and I'm not the only one to notice it.

Bentley- A++(Obviously)
McGinest- A( Only asked to pass rush, not play every down. The guy recorded 4 sacks in one playoff game just a couple months ago. To dismiss his skill is absurd)
Shaffer-B+ (May have overpaid a tad, but he's an upgrade over LT Shelton, who they overpaid for the year before, and he's young with a big upside)
Joe Jurevicius-A (First true possession receiver on the team since Kevin Johnson...ask the Seahawks fans if they'd be in the SB without him, and i bet they'd say no. Hell, he was the only guy on THAT team that could consistently catch the ball)
David Zastudil-B (Hell, he's a punter, but he's reliable and he's from Cleveland)
Ted Washington- B- He's old and fat, but he's played in all 16 games the last 2 seasons, and he's a big upgrade over the NT the Browns had last year)

All in all, a grade of A for the Browns in free agency.

hardwork
03-16-2006, 07:54 PM
does homerism blind you to the likes of jimmy johnson, bill walsh, and chuck noll?


bill parcells? homerism at its finest. :sofunny:

Jesus, you gotta spoon feed this poster. Every coach you put up built his team prior to the cap. This is the cap era in the NFL.

Unless you're Belichick or Parcels it takes awhile to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 07:58 PM
Bentley- A++(Obviously)
McGinest- A( Only asked to pass rush, not play every down. The guy recorded 4 sacks in one playoff game just a couple months ago. To dismiss his skill is absurd)

David Zastudil-B (Hell, he's a punter, but he's reliable and he's from Cleveland)

yes, but if any of them players get hurt or dont see enough field time it is not "money well spent."

i always considered c. gardocki one of our most underrated f.a. pick ups ever. dude means alot. and i think hes cheaper than jeff reed so were not wasting $$$. yahoo!

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 08:05 PM
Jesus, you gotta spoon feed this poster. Every coach you put up built his team prior to the cap. This is the cap era in the NFL.

Unless you're Belichick or Parcels it takes awhile to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher. what champ team did parcells build after the cap??? (the 1st year of the cap -93- is what sent phil simms into retirement coming off a pro bowl season according to his son on sirius radio)

i guess noll, johnson and walsh were too stupid to go out and buy a r. harrison, m. vrabel or c. dillon to plug a gaping hole. all bow down to the genius belichick. the fact that you said:

"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

tells me all i need to know. homerism at its finest. i can spoon feed you some more if youd like.

much more difficult to draft and stick with players you pick than to be able to play mix and match every single year (especially when you can keep pushing salary cap hell further and further into the future and the nfl and p.a. bails you out with a significant jump in the salary cap and new labor agreement. (see j. gibbs. im sure all that cash and 2 mil per year for his assistants will trully make him a genius like belichick, and the incorrectly stated and misprepresented parcells.)

hardwork
03-16-2006, 08:10 PM
much more difficult to draft and stick with players you pick than to be able to play mix and match every single year (especially when you can keep pushing salary cap hell further and further into the future and the nfl and p.a. bails you out with a significant jump in the salary cap.

Yeah, it's easier now then it used to be. Sure.......

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 08:17 PM
Yeah, it's easier now then it used to be. Sure.......
the hardest part for belichick has been convincing players to take far below market value. thats it....... and i will admitt its a skill hes good at.

which begs the question....what is tougher? to manipulate the cap. or to manipulate the players?

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 08:25 PM
Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher. i guess the likes of j. johnson, c. noll, v. lombardi, b. walsh were too stupid to work with the likes of r. kraft, s. peoli, capologists who get paid handsomly to manage todays nfl economics, and dozens of assistant coaches/ supporting staff, to help teach the players and succeed.

hardwork
03-16-2006, 08:30 PM
the hardest part for belichick has been convincing players to take far below market value. thats it....... and i will admitt its a skill hes good at.


Oh come on. That's all Belichick is good at? First you got to get your hands on a good player who also has that quality of not playing just for the money. Then you have to put other like minded players around him. And on, and on. It's not easy.

hardwork
03-16-2006, 08:33 PM
i guess the likes of j. johnson, c. noll, v. lombardi, b. walsh were too stupid to work with the likes of r. kraft, s. peoli, capologists who get paid handsomly to manage todays nfl economics, and dozens of assistant coaches/ supporting staff, to help teach the players and succeed.

Are you paying attention here? I just went over that. They built their teams during a different era.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 08:40 PM
Oh come on. That's all Belichick is good at? First you got to get your hands on a good player who also has that quality of not playing just for the money. Then you have to put other like minded players around him. And on, and on. It's not easy. old era had the draft to work with.

new era has the draft AND free agency.

do you really think that the likes of noll and walsh were to stupid to work within the confines of the salary cap era to succeed? if you do thats fine. i'll leave it alone, but i will never agree that true coaching talents were born with the salary cap era and bill belichick. sorry. wont happen.

patfans seem to cling the tightest to this theory that it is so much harder to win in todays game, cause it seems to validate what shouldnt need validation. belichick won 3 champs. that makes him no better or no worse than anyone else who has won 3 before him. noll has 4.

4>3

what youre ignoring is that the noll's had to deal with powerhouses such as the dolphins, cowboys, raiders etc. to succeed. the toughest powerhouse the pats have had to deal with has been the steelers and thats it. much easier to do today with the watered down competition.

Hawk Believer
03-16-2006, 09:05 PM
Joe Jurevicius-A (First true possession receiver on the team since Kevin Johnson...ask the Seahawks fans if they'd be in the SB without him, and i bet they'd say no. Hell, he was the only guy on THAT team that could consistently catch the ball)


I would have to agree. We lost our top two recievers through most of the regular season and Jurevicius was an amazing surprise. He is a tough, smart reciever. He not only consistently makes the catches he should, he breaks up interceptions the other team should get.

I am very sorry to see him go. We actually offered him more than Cleveland. But alas, he grew up there and they got the hometown discount.

Suitanim
03-16-2006, 09:11 PM
I would have to agree. We lost our top two recievers through most of the regular season and Jurevicius was an amazing surprise. He is a tough, smart reciever. He not only consistently makes the catches he should, he breaks up interceptions the other team should get.

I am very sorry to see him go. We actually offered him more than Cleveland. But alas, he grew up there and they got the hometown discount.

I forgot about that, he IS a Clevelander.

The best thing Cleveland gets? If it's 3rd and 6, JJ will ALWAYS run a 7 yard pattern.

hardwork
03-16-2006, 09:12 PM
what youre ignoring is that the noll's had to deal with powerhouses such as the dolphins, cowboys, raiders etc. to succeed. the toughest powerhouse the pats have had to deal with has been the steelers and thats it. much easier to do today with the watered down competition.


Well, you're just proving my point, but that's OK. Think what you want.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 09:20 PM
Think what you want.

i will. and thanks for the permission.

i can understand why patfans would be reaching so deep to place their "dynasty" above all others. especially now that it is over and they still have to play 2nd fiddle to the bills and what they accomplished in the early 90's

hardwork
03-16-2006, 09:29 PM
i will. and thanks for the permission.

i can understand why patfans would be reaching so deep to place their "dynasty" above all others. especially now that it is over and they still have to play 2nd fiddle to the bills and what they accomplished in the early 90's


Yeah, sure.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 10:06 PM
what youre ignoring is that the noll's had to deal with powerhouses such as the dolphins, cowboys, raiders etc. to succeed. the toughest powerhouse the pats have had to deal with has been the steelers and thats it. much easier to do today with the watered down competition.

So the Steelers are officially 'watered down competition'?

If I had a penny for every time you attributed dumb biased comments to 'pats fans' i'd be a rich man.

It must be great for you to know so many.

Go ahead and turn another NFL thread in an obsessive anti-pats dynasty thread - we have all seen it before, and im sure we will see it again plenty of times.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:24 PM
So the Steelers are officially 'watered down competition'?

If I had a penny for every time you attributed dumb biased comments to 'pats fans' i'd be a rich man.

It must be great for you to know so many.

Go ahead and turn another NFL thread in an obsessive anti-pats dynasty thread - we have all seen it before, and im sure we will see it again plenty of times.

NM im glad about 15 cents would make you rich.

this statement aint obviously biassed????????????:

"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

only a delusional patfan would believe that. go ahead and support that stance. i would expect no less.

while youre at it you might as well claim pete carrols national championships with USC, as your own.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:44 PM
So the Steelers are officially 'watered down competition'?



NM

please litp, with your infinite wisdom, why dont you list the "powerhouses" the patriots have had to contend with on their dynastic run.

ill start you off:

#1 steelers

i bet you cant name #'s 2, 3, or 4

hardwork
03-16-2006, 10:45 PM
"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

only a delusional patfan would believe that.

You're right, that may have been a little hasty. I'll add Charlie Weis to the list after seeing what he did with Notre Dame in his first year.

I guess that'll cover all the bases. Thanks for pointing that out Tony.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:53 PM
You're right, that may have been a little hasty. I'll add Charlie Weis to the list after seeing what he did with Notre Dame in his first year.

I guess that'll cover all the bases. Thanks for pointing that out Tony. as ive already pointed out to litp, you forgot pete carrol. (man on 1st and 2nd.... ground ball.....double play.)

ah ha! just as ive suspected all along. your not a true "lifer" patfan after all, or you wouldnt have forgotten him :cool:

hardwork
03-16-2006, 11:05 PM
as ive already pointed out to litp, you forgot pete carrol. (man on 1st and 2nd.... ground ball.....double play.)

ah ha! just as ive suspected all along. your not a true "lifer" patfan after all, or you wouldnt have forgotten him :cool:

Ah huh. There MAY be one or two in here who have played and watched football as long as I have but no more then that I'll bet. And I highly doubt anyone in here has been watching the Patriots as long as I have. I went to their games at Nickerson Field, Harvard Stadium, Fenway Park, etc. etc.

Oh, and I started playing football before we had face masks.

Livinginthe past
03-17-2006, 02:17 AM
please litp, with your infinite wisdom, why dont you list the "powerhouses" the patriots have had to contend with on their dynastic run.

ill start you off:

#1 steelers

i bet you cant name #'s 2, 3, or 4

Well Tony here we reach the very crux of the matter.

How are you going to define powerhouses exactly?

Teams that have dominated the competition years in which the Patriots did not win it all?

There hasn't been one in terms of SB wins - the Patriots are the only multiple SB winners in the last 7 years.

How far back should we go?

In 2001 the Patriots :

beat the Oakland Raiders - who reached the AFC Championship game the year before and would reach the Sb the year after.

beat the Pittsburgh steelers - which you have mentioned.

finished off by beating the 'Greatest Show on Turf' the St.Louis Rams which still remains the biggest SB upset of all time.

In 2003 the Patriots :

beat the mighty Indianapolis Colts - the 'greatest offense ever seen' - people take it for granted that the Colts will roll over in the playoffs these days - but who has been the most consistent barrier stopping them achieve SB winner status year in, year out?

Who gave them the unwanted title of Biggest Playoff Chokers?

Well...it wasn't the Denver Bronco's and it wasn't the powerhouse Steelers either.

In 2005 the same stooges presented themselves for their yearly post-season beating at the hands of the New England Patriots.

The Steelers and the Colts

In the SB the Patriots beat one the most consistent post season attendee's from the NFC - the Philadelphia Eagles.

I will give you your #2 and your #3 as requested.

#2 The St Louis Rams

#3 The Indianapolis Colts

Unfortunately I cannot conjure up a number 4 as 2 of those 3 teams (the Colts and the Steelers) repeatedly showed up in the playoffs only to get their asses handed to them by the Patriots.

Maybe if another team , other than the Denver Bronco's, can string together consecutive SB wins in the Tom Brady era there will be someone worthy of title 'powerhouse'.

Then maybe we will see if the Patriots can beat em.

NM

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 09:25 AM
Ah huh. There MAY be one or two in here who have played and watched football as long as I have but no more then that I'll bet. And I highly doubt anyone in here has been watching the Patriots as long as I have. I went to their games at Nickerson Field, Harvard Stadium, Fenway Park, etc. etc.

Oh, and I started playing football before we had face masks.chill.... it was just a joke. i was making fun of the fact that you claimed weiss yet left out carrol. thats all. cool?:cool:

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 10:08 AM
Well Tony here we reach the very crux of the matter.

How are you going to define powerhouses exactly?

Teams that have dominated the competition years in which the Patriots did not win it all?

There hasn't been one in terms of SB wins - the Patriots are the only multiple SB winners in the last 7 years.

How far back should we go?

In 2001 the Patriots :

beat the Oakland Raiders - who reached the AFC Championship game the year before and would reach the Sb the year after.

beat the Pittsburgh steelers - which you have mentioned.

finished off by beating the 'Greatest Show on Turf' the St.Louis Rams which still remains the biggest SB upset of all time.

In 2003 the Patriots :

beat the mighty Indianapolis Colts - the 'greatest offense ever seen' - people take it for granted that the Colts will roll over in the playoffs these days - but who has been the most consistent barrier stopping them achieve SB winner status year in, year out?

Who gave them the unwanted title of Biggest Playoff Chokers?

Well...it wasn't the Denver Bronco's and it wasn't the powerhouse Steelers either.

In 2005 the same stooges presented themselves for their yearly post-season beating at the hands of the New England Patriots.

The Steelers and the Colts

In the SB the Patriots beat one the most consistent post season attendee's from the NFC - the Philadelphia Eagles.

I will give you your #2 and your #3 as requested.

#2 The St Louis Rams

#3 The Indianapolis Colts

Unfortunately I cannot conjure up a number 4 as 2 of those 3 teams (the Colts and the Steelers) repeatedly showed up in the playoffs only to get their asses handed to them by the Patriots.

Maybe if another team , other than the Denver Bronco's, can string together consecutive SB wins in the Tom Brady era there will be someone worthy of title 'powerhouse'.

Then maybe we will see if the Patriots can beat em.

NM

thats cute. a patfan calling the colts a powerhouse. but yes, other than playing them once, like the steelers, you pretty much have contended with them. when i chose the word "contend" i picked it over the word "play" because i find a distinct difference in powerhouses you play once in the post season vs. teams you contend with on a yearly basis. thats why i left out powerhouses such as the vikings purple people eaters, denvers orange crush of the list of the regular opponents of the steelers of old. i can admit these steelers today arent quite the powerhouse of the 70's steelers but they are the closest thing the patriots have or will seen.

comparing the colts, eagles, raiders, and rams (all of whom the pats have only played once minus the colts) to the raiders, cowboys, and dolphins (thats a collective 6 sb's from that era compared to the rams 1 in your pats era) proves my point that the competition was stiffer back then and they were true powerhouses. the raiders of 2000+ were a flash in the pan who fizzled as quick as they burst on the scene. philly is close but the pats only played them once. the colts powerhouse has made it to 1 afcc game and lost. now that i have clearly and concisely demonstrated how the steelers regularly battled with true powerhouses (some would even call them dynasties in their own right) lets get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion which you have so deftly avoided.

"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

you have stayed away from this comment that i was arguing cause you obviously dont believe it enough to defend it, yet you are so quick to attack my statements that are being used to debunk it. hence my "watered down" comment when you stepped in. so since you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth its time to take a stance.

are the raiders, colts, rams, eagles, steelers, of the 21st century equal or greater powerhouses / dynasties, compared to the raiders, dolphins, cowboys, vikings, steelers, broncos of the 70's, or is todays league waterd down compared to back then?

i kind of got you in a jam here cause there is really only one answer and its a simple "yes"
or "no" question. if you answer yes you look like a fool, comparing todays colts, rams, and eagles to the 70's raiders, dolphins, cowboys. if you answer no you are pretty much agreeing with me and my point that you have been so pointlessly arguing against.

although its not a rhetorical question im really not expecting an answer because to do so might mean you indirectly saying im right. try the confusion trick or pretending you dont understand a word i just said. thats a deflectionary tactic that always seems to work.

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 10:29 AM
Well Tony here we reach the very crux of the matter.

How are you going to define powerhouses exactly?


NM

and i love this tactic. asking me to re-define what has already so clearly been defined in post #32 of this thread:


Originally Posted by tony hipchest in response to hardwork
"what youre ignoring is that the noll's had to deal with powerhouses such as the dolphins, cowboys, raiders etc. to succeed. the toughest powerhouse the pats have had to deal with has been the steelers and thats it. much easier to do today with the watered down competition."


youre a smart guy litp. ill leave it up to you to figure out the similarities of what defined the 3 aforementionned teams as "powerhouses".

hardwork
03-17-2006, 12:07 PM
are the raiders, colts, rams, eagles, steelers, of the 21st century equal or greater powerhouses / dynasties, compared to the raiders, dolphins, cowboys, vikings, steelers, broncos of the 70's, or is todays league waterd down compared to back then?


Which just proves my point. It was so easy to build a "powerhouse" back then they were all over the place. Building a SB team today is far more difficult. Not to mention building one that wins 3 out of 4. You have to be innovative. You have to beat teams that have better players then you. You have to reload every year. You can't afford any more then 2 or maybe 3 great players, if that. Plus, like with all the phoney home run stats of late in baseball, all those football teams back then were full of players who ate steroids for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 01:17 PM
Which just proves my point. It was so easy to build a "powerhouse" back then they were all over the place. Building a SB team today is far more difficult. Not to mention building one that wins 3 out of 4. You have to be innovative. You have to beat teams that have better players then you. You have to reload every year. You can't afford any more then 2 or maybe 3 great players, if that. Plus, like with all the phoney home run stats of late in baseball, all those football teams back then were full of players who ate steroids for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. heres where we get into the "which came first, chicken or the egg" aspect of this debate. and believe me i have looked at both sides of this coin and have really come to the conclusion that any advantages of then vs. now is probably a wash. now to address your point, it was not easy for noll to assemble the steelers. what they did was scout the small black colleges which were an untapped resource at the time, and draft a bunch of unknowns that were diamonds in the rough.= innovation through the draft.

what was harder? to scout all these players at unknown colleges that may or may not even have tape of their players and then have them fall to you in the draft? or todays version of free agency where youre scouting known players in the nfl, with the assistance of computers and dvd's and information on a player is just a click away. by no means was it easy for the great teams to get built back then. now i will give you that it may have been easier to keep those great teams together longer, but what struggles has belichick faced keeping his team together? not many (just dealing with individual players greed or desire for more). a free agent leaves and they bring in his replacement.

-the cowboys can easilly offer t.o. an incentive laden contract plus vinatieri and become a contender.
-any team can do what the redskins are doing to try and build a powerhouse.
-its easy for belichick to convince his players to take less to stay (except for law, milloy and givens- he said he really wasnt having fun) and for the players who dont stay he can always have players like harrison or dillon, (moulds maybe) come in to replace them.
-and i will say pittsburgh has been able to afford more than 2 or 3 great players. heres a list of great steelers who are top 5 at there positions:
b. roethlisberger
h. ward
a. faneca
j. hartings
t. polamalu
c. hampton
j. porter
c. gardocki
-indy kept its top 3 players together for a long time at the expense of their defense.
-philadelphia, patriots, and steelers have been able to use the compenetory picks system that was put into place to compensate teams who lose free agents. this again, helps make it easier on todays coaches under the current free agency system.

really its still all about x's and o's and getting it done on the field and putting good players in place to win just like it was back then. leave the money aspect out of it cause for every cadillac williams out there (getting paid top 5 draftpick money) there is a willie williams (getting paid $230,000 on and undrafted f.a. minimum contract) both players had almost the same numbers in their 1st season as an nfl starter. the ravens spent big free agent money on elvis grbac, the pats drafted tom brady. you cant tell me it was hard to replace bledsoe and his inflated contract. that was the easiest replacement in the world, and gave you a few extra draft picks to boot.

hardwork
03-17-2006, 01:51 PM
We shall see, won't we.

BTW, Roethlisberger a great player? Great QBs don't play the way he did in the SB.

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 02:39 PM
We shall see, won't we.

BTW, Roethlisberger a great player? Great QBs don't play the way he did in the SB.

you must like being wrong.

brady 16/27 145 1td = 1st sb win
elway 12/22 123 1 td 1 int = 1st sb win
ben 9/22 123 2 int 1 run = 1st sb win

not to mention bens march through the playoffs towards his 1st sb was much more impressive than brady's "march" in '01. he proved he could tuck a ball better than anyone else against oakland, and got yanked, i mean injured, in favor of bledsoe against pitt. historical

hardwork
03-17-2006, 05:49 PM
you must like being wrong.

brady 16/27 145 1td = 1st sb win
elway 12/22 123 1 td 1 int = 1st sb win
ben 9/22 123 2 int 1 run = 1st sb win

not to mention bens march through the playoffs towards his 1st sb was much more impressive than brady's "march" in '01. he proved he could tuck a ball better than anyone else against oakland, and got yanked, i mean injured, in favor of bledsoe against pitt. historical

Imagine comparing Roethlisberger to Brady. Lol

hardwork
03-17-2006, 06:09 PM
Super Bowl MVP

XL Feb. 5, 2006 Hines Ward
XXXIX Feb. 6, 2005 Deion Branch
XXXVIII Feb. 1, 2004 Tom Brady
XXXVII Jan. 26, 2003 Dexter Jackson
XXXVI Feb. 3, 2002 Tom Brady


I don't see any guy named Roethlisberger there, do you? I do see Tom Brady though, and I see him twice.

Livinginthe past
03-18-2006, 06:44 AM
and i love this tactic. asking me to re-define what has already so clearly been defined in post #32 of this thread:


Originally Posted by tony hipchest in response to hardwork
"what youre ignoring is that the noll's had to deal with powerhouses such as the dolphins, cowboys, raiders etc. to succeed. the toughest powerhouse the pats have had to deal with has been the steelers and thats it. much easier to do today with the watered down competition."


youre a smart guy litp. ill leave it up to you to figure out the similarities of what defined the 3 aforementionned teams as "powerhouses".

Ok short post first.

What you gave me there is a quote of you naming 3 teams you rate as 'powerhouses'.

Where is the definition?

What constitues a powerhouse?

That is the question I want you to answer.

NM

Livinginthe past
03-18-2006, 07:18 AM
thats cute. a patfan calling the colts a powerhouse. but yes, other than playing them once, like the steelers, you pretty much have contended with them. when i chose the word "contend" i picked it over the word "play" because i find a distinct difference in powerhouses you play once in the post season vs. teams you contend with on a yearly basis. thats why i left out powerhouses such as the vikings purple people eaters, denvers orange crush of the list of the regular opponents of the steelers of old. i can admit these steelers today arent quite the powerhouse of the 70's steelers but they are the closest thing the patriots have or will seen.

comparing the colts, eagles, raiders, and rams (all of whom the pats have only played once minus the colts) to the raiders, cowboys, and dolphins (thats a collective 6 sb's from that era compared to the rams 1 in your pats era) proves my point that the competition was stiffer back then and they were true powerhouses. the raiders of 2000+ were a flash in the pan who fizzled as quick as they burst on the scene. philly is close but the pats only played them once. the colts powerhouse has made it to 1 afcc game and lost. now that i have clearly and concisely demonstrated how the steelers regularly battled with true powerhouses (some would even call them dynasties in their own right) lets get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion which you have so deftly avoided.

"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

you have stayed away from this comment that i was arguing cause you obviously dont believe it enough to defend it, yet you are so quick to attack my statements that are being used to debunk it. hence my "watered down" comment when you stepped in. so since you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth its time to take a stance.

are the raiders, colts, rams, eagles, steelers, of the 21st century equal or greater powerhouses / dynasties, compared to the raiders, dolphins, cowboys, vikings, steelers, broncos of the 70's, or is todays league waterd down compared to back then?

i kind of got you in a jam here cause there is really only one answer and its a simple "yes"
or "no" question. if you answer yes you look like a fool, comparing todays colts, rams, and eagles to the 70's raiders, dolphins, cowboys. if you answer no you are pretty much agreeing with me and my point that you have been so pointlessly arguing against.

although its not a rhetorical question im really not expecting an answer because to do so might mean you indirectly saying im right. try the confusion trick or pretending you dont understand a word i just said. thats a deflectionary tactic that always seems to work.

The answer to this question is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Its naive to think that I can answer it with a 'yes' or a 'no' - when experts and talking heads have been debating this one since the Patriots won their 2nd and 3rd SB's of the salary cap era.

The first problem is you are trying to compare apples and oranges - the current 'Patriots dynasty' has been running for 5 years - you want to compare records of opposition teams in this era with teams who played over a 10 year period in the 70's.

If we put the 70's Vikes on the field with the 2005 Colts in the theoretical match up I think the Colts would be too fast and have too much stamina for the Vikes - but then that is a judgement call..we have no way of proving it one way or the other.

Were the 70's Dolphins more dominant than this era's Colts? - maybe but then what happens if the Colts win 2 of the next 5 SB's - they would then have the same amount of SB wins over a 10 year period as the Dolphins did.

The question alot of people try to address is - Whose achievement is greater?

The 70's steelers or 00's Patriots?

It is harder to construct and keep a championship winning squad together with FA in effect - you make it seem so simple for Belichick to keep plugging in these players to replace key contributors who leave - if was so easy..why isn't everyone doing it?

Is it tougher to beat 4 high quality teams and 20+ non-contenders or is it tougher to beat 31 other teams are capable of getting to the big game?

Last time I looked the Vikes and the Cowboys were in the NFC - which means the Steelers wouldnt have even had to play them in the playoffs until the big game.

As for addressing the comment you highlighted - I am not obliged to take a stance on other peoples theories - if it is my comment ill back it up, if its not I dont have to.

The reason I commented on your 'watered down competition' comment was purely because, in trying to belittle the Patriots achievements, you also belittled the Steeler teams that kept getting beat by that Patriots team and also last years championship winning team.

I completely agree that compeition has been watered down - but in a very literal sense - there is the same quality in the league, the same amount of top-notch players and coaches - they have just been shared out amongst the 32 teams a little more evenly than in the past.

Sorry I couldnt give you a definite yes or no answer.

NM

tony hipchest
03-18-2006, 11:46 AM
The answer to this question is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Its naive to think that I can answer it with a 'yes' or a 'no' - when experts and talking heads have been debating this one since the Patriots won their 2nd and 3rd SB's of the salary cap era.some of the experts and talking heads are retards and sometimes get paid to present an opposing view or play devils advocate

The first problem is you are trying to compare apples and oranges - the current 'Patriots dynasty' has been running for 5 years - you want to compare records of opposition teams in this era with teams who played over a 10 year period in the 70's.who said anything about fruit? i thought this was about football

If we put the 70's Vikes on the field with the 2005 Colts in the theoretical match up I think the Colts would be too fast and have too much stamina for the Vikes - but then that is a judgement call..we have no way of proving it one way or the other.could be[B]

Were the 70's Dolphins more dominant than this era's Colts? - maybe but then what happens if the Colts win 2 of the next 5 SB's - they would then have the same amount of SB wins over a 10 year period as the Dolphins did.[B]then they would be a powerhouse the pats have dealt with

The question alot of people try to address is - Whose achievement is greater?

The 70's steelers or 00's Patriots?

It is harder to construct and keep a championship winning squad together with FA in effect - you make it seem so simple for Belichick to keep plugging in these players to replace key contributors who leave - if was so easy..why isn't everyone doing it?

Is it tougher to beat 4 high quality teams and 20+ non-contenders or is it tougher to beat 31 other teams are capable of getting to the big game?

Last time I looked the Vikes and the Cowboys were in the NFC - which means the Steelers wouldnt have even had to play them in the playoffs until the big game.kinda like the rams you stated? thats why the powerhouses i initially listed were limited to miami, oakland and dallas, 3 teams that have won multiple sb's and the steelers have faced in the afcc game or sb at a minimum of twice.

As for addressing the comment you highlighted - I am not obliged to take a stance on other peoples theories - if it is my comment ill back it up, if its not I dont have to.

The reason I commented on your 'watered down competition' comment was purely because, in trying to belittle the Patriots achievements, you also belittled the Steeler teams that kept getting beat by that Patriots team and also last years championship winning team.funny how when i say it is "belittlement" yet when you say it.........

I completely agree that compeition has been watered down thank you. that wasnt so hard, now was it?- but in a very literal sense - there is the same quality in the league, the same amount of top-notch players and coaches same quality and top notch players/ coaches (which i completely agree with) means its not quite the apples and oranges you made it out to be. its still football. x's o's, running, tackling etc.- they have just been shared out amongst the 32 teams a little more evenly than in the past.

Sorry I couldnt give you a definite yes or no answer.you just did

NM

since you didnt see the similarities of the cowboys, raiders and dolphins as powerhouses i will try to define what i think the term means to me. i could also call powerhouses "mini dynasties". powerhouses are the teams that had the makings of a dynasty that didnt quite come to fruition or didnt quite win it all every year but were there every year to be dealt with. if you notice the teams i mentionned won more than 1 sb and were all in multiple championship games. all contended for more than 5 years. the book has still not been written on todays patriots or steelers, eagles or colts (i put them in that order for a reason)

i think a dynasty should span atleast 10 years and the team be a true contender year in and year out. (pats are on that pace to this point) and do it with the same core of players (pats- yes, redskins - no)

other powerhouses or minidynasties: redskins, giants, 90's cowboys and bills.

mini powerhouses: broncos 90's, (bears and rams maybe but they didnt even dominate for 5 years)

interesting fact about the steelers and 49ers dynasty is that pittsburghs was sandwiched in between 2 afcc game losses to the dolphins and the 49ers was sandwiched between 2 nfcc game wins against dallas. patriots minidynasty, to this point, has been sandiched between 2 meetings at heinz field.

i would call the patriots a definite powerhouse on the brink and as previously stated the steelers are the closest thing to a powerhouse thay have had to deal with. (not just once but on a regular basis) if the patriots want to continue their dynastic run it looks like the steelers will be the main force standing in their way. good thing for the pats that the steelers cant win a sb with cowher huh? (sarcasm)

Livinginthe past
03-18-2006, 12:37 PM
since you didnt see the similarities of the cowboys, raiders and dolphins as powerhouses i will try to define what i think the term means to me. i could also call powerhouses "mini dynasties". powerhouses are the teams that had the makings of a dynasty that didnt quite come to fruition or didnt quite win it all every year but were there every year to be dealt with. if you notice the teams i mentionned won more than 1 sb and were all in multiple championship games. all contended for more than 5 years. the book has still not been written on todays patriots or steelers, eagles or colts (i put them in that order for a reason)

i think a dynasty should span atleast 10 years and the team be a true contender year in and year out. (pats are on that pace to this point) and do it with the same core of players (pats- yes, redskins - no)

other powerhouses or minidynasties: redskins, giants, 90's cowboys and bills.

mini powerhouses: broncos 90's, (bears and rams maybe but they didnt even dominate for 5 years)

interesting fact about the steelers and 49ers dynasty is that pittsburghs was sandwiched in between 2 afcc game losses to the dolphins and the 49ers was sandwiched between 2 nfcc game wins against dallas. patriots minidynasty, to this point, has been sandiched between 2 meetings at heinz field.

i would call the patriots a definite powerhouse on the brink and as previously stated the steelers are the closest thing to a powerhouse thay have had to deal with. (not just once but on a regular basis) if the patriots want to continue their dynastic run it looks like the steelers will be the main force standing in their way. good thing for the pats that the steelers cant win a sb with cowher huh? (sarcasm)

Thanks for making a real effort there with the fruit comment.

My whole point is that you are looking at the 70's Steelers in retrospect, but the Patriots are in the midst of their 'dynastic era' - so it is impossible to judge them fairly.

The comment about the Colts sums it up really - you say that if the Colts were to win a couple of SB's in the next 5 years then they will be officially labelled a powerhouse?

I cant really agree with the logic of that at all - teams change so rapidly these days that the Colts team may bear little resembelence to the won that got beat by the Patriots.

The whole point of this debate is to judge whose Dynasty is more impressive is it not?

It is pretty difficult for there to be multi SB winners other than the Patriots as there have been only 2 SBs during the run that they have not won themselves.

If we look at regular season records then the Patriots certainly have beaten some powerful opposition - Steelers 15-1 springs to mind.

They have had great success against teams with good records - barring this season.

Would you agree that is more difficult to win multi-SB's in the salary cap era or not?

If you do, then surely the Patriots have the more impressive achievement.

Regardless I have given the Steelers plenty of props for being the best team in football at this time - the facts back that up.

As far as Cowher goes, ill give him his due now that he achieved a SB win - I am not a Steelers fan who feels obliged to back the coach with no real reason.

Maybe we can revisit this topic in 5 years time and we will have a better idea of where we stand.

NM

hardwork
03-18-2006, 01:31 PM
Three SB victories in five years makes the Patriots a dynasty. It's that simple. It doesn't matter who is impressed or not. No one has gone 6 victories in ten years. Just doesn't happen in the NFL. If you want to try and measure it like that then you have to turn to teams like the Celtics, and the Canadians. And the last time I checked they didn't play football.

tony hipchest
03-18-2006, 02:17 PM
Thanks for making a real effort there with the fruit comment.think nothing of it!

My whole point is that you are looking at the 70's Steelers in retrospect, but the Patriots are in the midst of their 'dynastic era' - so it is impossible to judge them fairly. did i not clearly state
the book has still not been written on todays patriots? "
The comment about the Colts sums it up really - you say that if the Colts were to win a couple of SB's in the next 5 years then they will be officially labelled a powerhouse?"officially labeled? i dont recall saying its official but if the colts win the next 2 sb's i would definitely consider them a powerhouse according to my definitions of what a powerhouse is, in regards to the game of football

I cant really agree with the logic of that at all - teams change so rapidly these days that the Colts team may bear little resembelence to the won that got beat by the Patriots.im not suprised. theres alot of logic you cant agree with

The whole point of this debate is to judge whose Dynasty is more impressive is it not?either that, or to discuss whether a 20 lb bushell of apples weighs more than a 20 lb. bushell of oranges:sofunny:

It is pretty difficult for there to be multi SB winners other than the Patriots as there have been only 2 SBs during the run that they have not won themselves.5-3=2 im impressed.

If we look at regular season records then the Patriots certainly have beaten some powerful opposition - Steelers 15-1 springs to mind.did i not clearly state "i would call the patriots a definite powerhouse on the brink and as previously stated the steelers are the closest thing to a powerhouse thay have had to deal with. (not just once but on a regular basis)"?

They have had great success against teams with good records - barring this season.barring this season they did well against top 15 ranked qb's too, but then again, barring this season they won 3 of 4 champs.

Would you agree that is more difficult to win multi-SB's in the salary cap era or not?no- the patriots have shown how easy it is. now its the steelers turn to prove they can do it both ways

If you do, then surely the Patriots have the more impressive achievement.not by a long shot. 4>3. lets see how many hall of famers belichick drafts, develops, and gives rings to first. 4 of 6 is 4 of 6. but dont tell me that noll couldnt have kept a core group together, having them accept a little less money, and plug the holes using the free agent system just as well as belichick has. just remember while belichick was the 1st to win 3 sb in the salary cap era, noll was the 1st to win 3 EVER and the only one to win 4. youre belichick talk really "belittles" what noll has accomplished

Regardless I have given the Steelers plenty of props for being the best team in football at this time - the facts back that up.and i have given the patriots their due respect. sorry if i didnt slob their knob

As far as Cowher goes, ill give him his due now that he achieved a SB win - I am not a Steelers fan who feels obliged to back the coach with no real reason.i thought the vindication would be felt at the ring ceremony. who knew it would be at this moment right now, instead

Maybe we can revisit this topic in 5 years time and we will have a better idea of where we stand.perhaps

NM

:boxing: (sometimes these little dudes say it all) :blurp::cool:

Livinginthe past
03-18-2006, 02:59 PM
I was just pointing out the flaw in your 'powerhouse' theory - with the Colts as an example.

To fulfil the criteria you have laid out - the Patriots are relying on other teams to win multiple SB's - the fact that they haven't and may not surely proves how difficult it is to repeat.

Theoretically, Peyton Manning might not be the QB of the Colts when they achieve these SB wins - so how does this bear any relevance at all to the Patriots previous victories over a Peyton Manning led Colts?

My point still remains a good one - only 2 SB's have not been won by the Patriots during this current run - so it is impossible for the Pats to fulfil your criteria for a Dynasty.

You are saying that it is easier to a be a SB repeating team in the salary cap era?

How is that so?

Your example of the Patriots doing it, so everyone must be able to do it - is a little like me saying I seen Carl Lewis run the 100M in 10 seconds - therefore I should be able to do it.

I have alot of respect for what Noll achieved, but you are guessing when you are saying that he could have won multiple SB's in the salary cap era - Belichick has done it and Noll never will - those are the facts.

I never said Cowher couldnt win an SB - I merely said he had to shoulder the blame for losing previous AFCC games.

NM

SteelerDan43
03-18-2006, 03:07 PM
IMO the dynastys are the 40's Bears (4), 40's/50's Browns (7), 60's Packers (5), 70's Steelers (4), 80's 49ers (4) so the way I see it you have the rest of the decade to win 1 more to get into the club...

tony hipchest
03-18-2006, 03:43 PM
I was just pointing out the flaw in your 'powerhouse' theory - with the Colts as an example.what flaw have you pointed out/ the colts arent a powerhouse in my mind but very well could be. if they win 4 of the next 5 sb's i would have to look at them as a dynasty cause they will have been a dominant force to be reconed with for 10 years

To fulfil the criteria you have laid out - the Patriots are relying on other teams to win multiple SB's - the fact that they haven't and may not surely proves how difficult it is to repeat.criteria? i just said the steelers faced stronger more dominant teams on a regular basis in the 70's as compared to what the patriots have faced. you even agreed! and now you want to take us back to that? id rather not waste my time. again

Theoretically, Peyton Manning might not be the QB of the Colts when they achieve these SB wins - so how does this bear any relevance at all to the Patriots previous victories over a Peyton Manning led Colts? i dont understand youre point of bringing peyton manning into this. i dont think the colts will get over the hump without peyton manning

My point still remains a good one - only 2 SB's have not been won by the Patriots during this current run - so it is impossible for the Pats to fulfil your criteria for a Dynasty.no suprise here. once again reading comprehension fails you. its pretty tiresome explaining things over and over when you can just read things correctly the first time.

You are saying that it is easier to a be a SB repeating team in the salary cap era?dallas, green bay, denver, rams, and patriots have all gotten there twice in a row in the past 13 years. the opportunity to repeat is definitely there. that means 5 teams have had a legitimate shot of repeating. 5x2 = 10 of the past 13-14 sb's. it is hard to repeat in ANY era.

How is that so?

Your example of the Patriots doing it, so everyone must be able to do it - is a little like me saying I seen Carl Lewis run the 100M in 10 seconds - therefore I should be able to do it.bad example. atleast my analogies are within the ball park

I have alot of respect for what Noll achieved, but you are guessing when you are saying that he could have won multiple SB's in the salary cap era - Belichick has done it and Noll never will - those are the facts.just like im guessing in the assumption that 'chick could draft and assemble all the hall of famers noll did. at this point its an assumptiomn whether belichick can even win 4 sb's

I never said Cowher couldnt win an SB - I merely said he had to shoulder the blame for losing previous AFCC games.like a man, he has shouldered the blame. part of his job is to assess what went wrong on the field as well as what went wrong on the sidelines, hence him saying what went wrong in the games he lost.

NM

this debate is pretty much a moot point until belichick wins it all next year. and even then, 4 out of 6 with 2 repeats is still better than 4 out of 6 with only one repeat. as hard as it is to repeat once its twice as hard to do 2 times. im sure you will come up with some weird way to debate that simple logic though.

Mr. Clean
03-18-2006, 03:45 PM
The Browns could have signed the Poor Clare Nuns from Hanceville, Alabama to play defense and improved their team.

C'mon. McGinest is 34. if Belicik wanted McGinest he would still be with the Patriots.
Ted Washington is 38.
Jurevicius is 30 and a third WR at best.
Bentley is a stud.
The left tackle would have been a backup in Atlanta.
Zastudil! Maybe that's the reason Cowher bought the house in Raleigh. He's afraid of coaching against Zastudil!

Now, I?ll admit that strange things have happened. Bill Walsh's first season in SF, the 49ers went 2-14 in 1979. In 1981 they went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl. In 1981 the NFC had only two teams that won more than nine games - the 12-4 Cowboys and the 13-3 49ers.

The AFC is too tough, the AFC North is too tough, for the Brownies to pull off something like that this year. The Browns are not good enough to split with either the Bengals or Steelers in 2006 without both of the latter suffering a slew of debilitating injuries. 7-9 - if they get lucky.

Look at the Clowns' schedule - two games against each division opponent, the NFC South, the AFC West, Buffalo and Tennessee. The Brownies will go 1-5 in the AFC North (one win over the Ratbirds), 1-3 vs. the AFC West (they will beat Oakland), 1-3 vs. the NFC South (they will beat New Orleans), and a split with Buffalo and Tennessee.
Can the Brownies split with the Bengals? Not likely.
Can the Brownies split with Pittsburgh? No way.
Can the Brownies beat Denver, San Diego, Kansas City? No, no, no.
Can the Brownies beat Carolina, Tampa, Atlanta? No, no, and maybe Atlanta if Vick stinks out the joint.
Buffalo & Tennessee - a split is possible.

I'm saying it here first - the Brownies will have another first round pick in the top 10 in April 2007.

Livinginthe past
03-18-2006, 05:00 PM
this debate is pretty much a moot point until belichick wins it all next year. and even then, 4 out of 6 with 2 repeats is still better than 4 out of 6 with only one repeat. as hard as it is to repeat once its twice as hard to do 2 times. im sure you will come up with some weird way to debate that simple logic though.

You appear to be missing the point I am making about the Colts and Peyton Manning.

If the Colts win 2 or 3 SB's over the next 5 years you will award them powerhouse status, and in retrospect, it will be said that the Patriots beat another powerhouse on their way to 3 SB's.

I am saying that what the Colts do over the next 5 years is utterly irrelevant in terms of what the Patriots have achieved by beating them over the last few years.

The Colts could have another QB and another coach from the ones that lost to the Patriots.

I certainly didnt agree that the 70's Steelers faced better opposition on a more regular basis than the 00's Patriots.

If anything, the fact that the talent was spread out in such a top heavy fashion made it all the more simple to make it into the postseason and therefore the SB.

I agree that there were more 'elite' teams over that 70's period - but thats means that their were alot of weak teams also and that meant gimme games and easy wins.

Any given Sunday is a popular phrase in recent years - this is because the talent levels of most teams has evened out which means you have to work hard weeks 1-17 with no real easy games.

Success these days is usually closely followed by losing key players to less successful teams on a regular basis - im pretty sure this wasn't the case back in the Steelers era. A constant flow of players in and out of a team surely has to be more difficult to coach than being able to keep a squad from draft day right through to retirement or at least the best years of a players career.

I apologise if my atheltics analogy escaped you.

Im saying you have absolutely no proof that repeating in the salary cap era is easier - just because BB has done it, it certainly doesnt mean any old coach can do it.

I would say that it is easier for a coach of a mediocre team to win a SB in this era, but I also think that it is alot harder to repeat.

NM

hardwork
03-18-2006, 08:18 PM
.......if Belicik wanted McGinest he would still be with the Patriots.


The Patriots wanted McGinest for another year, but it would have cost them 3 years to do it. That's what they didn't want, and in the end wouldn't do. So, they'll move Vrable back to the outside with Colvin and play either Beisel or someone new with Bruski in the middle.

Livinginthe past
03-19-2006, 12:44 AM
The Patriots wanted McGinest for another year, but it would have cost them 3 years to do it. That's what they didn't want, and in the end wouldn't do. So, they'll move Vrable back to the outside with Colvin and play either Beisel or someone new with Bruski in the middle.

The OLB class this year seems quite deep - I wonder if they will keep Vrabel inside and take a replacement for Willie in the draft.

Either way its a massive bonus having MV being able to play both positions so well - I think this year we may well see Colvin reach double digits in sacks - he improved massively in the second half of last year.

NM

Ruck Fules
03-19-2006, 01:06 AM
LMAO @ the title of the thread. Nice!

hardwork
03-19-2006, 02:31 AM
The OLB class this year seems quite deep - I wonder if they will keep Vrabel inside and take a replacement for Willie in the draft.

Either way its a massive bonus having MV being able to play both positions so well - I think this year we may well see Colvin reach double digits in sacks - he improved massively in the second half of last year.

NM


I would rather see Vrabel in the middle with Bruhski, what a combo, but he's so good on the outside I think they'll move him back. As you say though, it will be interesting to see what they do.

tony hipchest
03-19-2006, 11:50 AM
I would rather see Vrabel in the middle with Bruhski, what a combo, but he's so good on the outside I think they'll move him back. As you say though, it will be interesting to see what they do. i think it was pat kirwan who was saying it would be hard to pass on lb bobby carpenter. mel kiper had him projected to the steelers w/ #32 pick. i bet vrabel is lobbying for a fellow alum in the 1st round.

j-dawg
04-03-2006, 02:11 PM
The Browns could have signed the Poor Clare Nuns from Hanceville, Alabama to play defense and improved their team.

C'mon. McGinest is 34. if Belicik wanted McGinest he would still be with the Patriots.
Ted Washington is 38.
Jurevicius is 30 and a third WR at best.
Bentley is a stud.
The left tackle would have been a backup in Atlanta.
Zastudil! Maybe that's the reason Cowher bought the house in Raleigh. He's afraid of coaching against Zastudil!

Now, I?ll admit that strange things have happened. Bill Walsh's first season in SF, the 49ers went 2-14 in 1979. In 1981 they went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl. In 1981 the NFC had only two teams that won more than nine games - the 12-4 Cowboys and the 13-3 49ers.

The AFC is too tough, the AFC North is too tough, for the Brownies to pull off something like that this year. The Browns are not good enough to split with either the Bengals or Steelers in 2006 without both of the latter suffering a slew of debilitating injuries. 7-9 - if they get lucky.

Look at the Clowns' schedule - two games against each division opponent, the NFC South, the AFC West, Buffalo and Tennessee. The Brownies will go 1-5 in the AFC North (one win over the Ratbirds), 1-3 vs. the AFC West (they will beat Oakland), 1-3 vs. the NFC South (they will beat New Orleans), and a split with Buffalo and Tennessee.
Can the Brownies split with the Bengals? Not likely.
Can the Brownies split with Pittsburgh? No way.
Can the Brownies beat Denver, San Diego, Kansas City? No, no, no.
Can the Brownies beat Carolina, Tampa, Atlanta? No, no, and maybe Atlanta if Vick stinks out the joint.
Buffalo & Tennessee - a split is possible.

I'm saying it here first - the Brownies will have another first round pick in the top 10 in April 2007.

do you really think the browns can't split the bungals this year?! seriously, you may hate the browns, but that's no excuse for your lack of judgement. :blah:

CantStop85
04-03-2006, 03:36 PM
do you really think the browns can't split the bungals this year?!
Impossible is nothing, right? Hang on to that hope, soldier.

j-dawg
04-03-2006, 03:49 PM
hehehe.... i don't foresee any pepto-bismol in my future... two catches for 22 yards from chad in his last outing against us... looking forward to seeing how much our D has improved against the run... impossible? hmmm.....

83-Steelers-43
04-03-2006, 03:59 PM
Well, at least you guys are heading in the right direction.

3 to be 4
04-03-2006, 11:53 PM
what champ team did parcells build after the cap??? (the 1st year of the cap -93- is what sent phil simms into retirement coming off a pro bowl season according to his son on sirius radio)

i guess noll, johnson and walsh were too stupid to go out and buy a r. harrison, m. vrabel or c. dillon to plug a gaping hole. all bow down to the genius belichick. the fact that you said:

"Unless you're Belichick, or the old Parcels, it takes a long time to build a championship team. Look how long it took Cowher."

tells me all i need to know. homerism at its finest. i can spoon feed you some more if youd like.

much more difficult to draft and stick with players you pick than to be able to play mix and match every single year (especially when you can keep pushing salary cap hell further and further into the future and the nfl and p.a. bails you out with a significant jump in the salary cap and new labor agreement. (see j. gibbs. im sure all that cash and 2 mil per year for his assistants will trully make him a genius like belichick, and the incorrectly stated and misprepresented parcells.)

hey, they are all playing under the same rules, so evidently Belichick is better at it than everybody else. Or at least the difference between Belichick and Cowher is that Belichick has Belichick for a GM. Who's fault is it that the Steelers chose to spend 26 years using the philosophy of "draft and stick with players you pick"?

tony hipchest
04-04-2006, 12:55 AM
hey, they are all playing under the same rules, so evidently Belichick is better at it than everybody else. Or at least the difference between Belichick and Cowher is that Belichick has Belichick for a GM. Who's fault is it that the Steelers chose to spend 26 years using the philosophy of "draft and stick with players you pick"?the difference between belichick and cowher is the same as the difference between cowher and all other multiple sb winning coaches (except maybe gibbs)- a hall of fame qb. heres to hoping ben is working on the beginnings of a hall of fame career.

anyways it looks like belichick is adopting colberts off season philosophy so far this year. i think cowher + colbert = the best gm in the business. they both carry = weight and rarely disagree on draft day. the rebuilding through the draft will continue. not quite a "fault". how convinient to quote 26 years. lets just round up and say in the past 30 years that formula has won just as many champs as the pats. it has proven the test of time.

3 to be 4
04-04-2006, 08:32 AM
the difference between belichick and cowher is the same as the difference between cowher and all other multiple sb winning coaches (except maybe gibbs)- a hall of fame qb. heres to hoping ben is working on the beginnings of a hall of fame career.

anyways it looks like belichick is adopting colberts off season philosophy so far this year. i think cowher + colbert = the best gm in the business. they both carry = weight and rarely disagree on draft day. the rebuilding through the draft will continue. not quite a "fault". how convinient to quote 26 years. lets just round up and say in the past 30 years that formula has won just as many champs as the pats. it has proven the test of time.


a good point about the hall of fame qb. however, if we are including GM discussion into this, doesnt Belichick get any credit for drafting the hall of fame QB, then keeping him on the roster, then sticking with him when Bledsoe came back from the injury, then making the call to go with the kid in the SB, then taking the heat and trading Bledsoe?
Yes, Brady was obviously a surprise gem, but the late **** Reibein, Pioli, and Belichick put him in a position to succeed and saw what he brought to the table while all the national media and statistic obsessed fans saw was "but Bledsoe has a better arm and more yardage"