PDA

View Full Version : Patriots: Team of the decade?


Bayz101
10-26-2011, 02:45 PM
The Patriots are widely considered by many to be the "Team of the decade". Do I agree with the majority? Nay.

Now, when you look at the Steelers two superbowls in the last decade, a number of things spark. At least in my eyes.

One: Patriots didn't win a SuperBowl in between the Steelers two SuperBowl wins of that decade. Also, Steelers have Three AFC titles during this time, opposed to the Patriots One.

Two: With success, comes controversy, at least in the Patriots case. The Patriots suffered plenty of controversy regarding their success, and haven't won a SuperBowl since the allegations of cheating came up.

So, guys. Looking at the sucsess of the two teams in the past decade. I ask you one thing. Who deserves the most recognition?


My thoughts:

The Steelers have one Two SuperBowls, both of which came without much controversy. One of which came from a wildcard seed, winning every game on the road. The only thing that hinders the match up, is the Steelers inability to beat the Pat's during the Regular Season.

Regular season isn't the playoffs, and it doesn't have a Super Bowl.

---Steelers are the team of the decade.

As for Sunday, Steelers will beat the Patriots. And guys, you ready for this?

When the Steelers we're ready to play the Titans, I made a statement. I said the Steelers running game would be explosive---Explosive it was.

This weekend, it will show it's head again.

Any given Sunday.

-Nate

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 02:50 PM
Also, I understand the last decade doesn't matter. This is 2011. But i'm a fan of the Steelers, as all of you are. As a fan, i'm proud when looking back at our past, and excited when looking forward into our future. Right now, the team is focused on right now. That's all their focused on.

For anyone who's agitated with my thoughts when looking back. I'm sorry. I have a feeling after Sunday, i'll have a lot to write about regarding the future :)

-Nate

Fire Arians
10-26-2011, 02:57 PM
the patriots* haven't won a superbowl since being caught cheating, so no.

DanRooney
10-26-2011, 03:00 PM
The Patriots went to 4 SB's and won 3 as opposed to us going to 3 and winning 2 (actually does last year even count from 2000-2010?). They also almost nearly went undefeated and have beaten us almost every head-to-head matchup with their starting QB. We've easily been the best team since Ben arrived but if you count 2000-2003, then the Pats have the edge.

stlrtruck
10-26-2011, 03:03 PM
The patriots* 3 SBs come under a lot of video evidence controversy. If they truly want to be a team of any decade, do it without cheating!

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 03:11 PM
When I look at the term "Team of the decade". One thing comes to mind: Super Bowls. With the Patriots leading the Super Bowl count of the last decade, one thing comes to mind: The controversy surrounding their success. And with that being said. Patriots: 3-1-?. Steelers 2-1-0. What is the third column for?

The controversy statistic.

So, do you guys think all of the Patriots rings we're controversial?

joeyssteelcurtain
10-26-2011, 03:17 PM
When I look at the term "Team of the decade". One thing comes to mind: Super Bowls. With the Patriots leading the Super Bowl count of the last decade, one thing comes to mind: The controversy surrounding their success. And with that being said. Patriots: 3-1-?. Steelers 2-1-0. What is the third column for?

The controversy statistic.

So, do you guys think all of the Patriots rings we're controversial?

Yes i do... They have not won a ring. Without cheating.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 03:26 PM
Yes i do... They have not won a ring. Without cheating.

And they haven't won since getting caught. I wouldn't be surprised if their still cheating! It's only a matter of time until they reveal Bellicheat has mind reading abilities supplied to him by the almighty King Godell in a pricey surgery which involved three colonoscopy's, all of which we're voluntary!

Ok, that was a little off topic.

tanda10506
10-26-2011, 03:32 PM
If there was no cheating issues I would say Pats got it. We've been better since Ben as mentioned, but they have the 16-0 reg. season and 3/4 SB's, and they have beat us almost every time. All that said, since they haven't won a significant game since cheating, it makes you wonder if thats the main reason they were so good. Also did they win the SB the year the refs made up the "tuck rule" for Brady?

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 03:42 PM
I believe it was implemented in the 2001 season. It was called against the Raiders in a loss to New England in the 2001 Divisional Playoff Game. Resulting in controversy.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 03:43 PM
And sorry, forgot to answer your question. Yes, they won the Super Bowl that year.

steelerjim58
10-26-2011, 04:26 PM
Trying to be as objective as possible, I think the fact that the Steelers missed the playoffs twice has to be considered.

Steelerfreak58
10-26-2011, 04:33 PM
Sigh

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 04:40 PM
Trying to be as objective as possible, I think the fact that the Steelers missed the playoffs twice has to be considered.

And the Patriots missed the playoffs once. The Steelers missed the playoffs the year Ben Roethlisberger had his accident, if i'm not mistaken.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 04:42 PM
Actually, the Patriots missed the playoffs twice. 2002 and 2008.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 04:43 PM
Yet again. 2000, 2002 and 2008.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 04:48 PM
So, Steelers missed the playoffs in 2000, 2003 and 2009. The Patriots missed them in 2000, 2002 and 2008. Therefore, both teams are equal.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 05:00 PM
Division Championships: Steelers won 6, Patriots 9.
Conference Championships: Steelers 3, Patriots 4.
Playoffs: Both Patriots and Steelers missed the playoffs three times during the decade.
Super Bowls: Patriots won three superbowls, Steelers won two.

Note: Patriots essentially relied on their kicker for a win in each Super Bowl they won. Adam V. nailed two game winning kicks in their first two Super Bowl wins, and also the last score of their third. The Steelers won their first Super Bowl by 11 points, and their last score was a touchdown. Also, Ben Roethlisberger engineered a comeback win against the Cardinals in their last.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you think the Patriots truly earned their rings.

lipps83
10-26-2011, 06:39 PM
And the Patriots missed the playoffs once. The Steelers missed the playoffs the year Ben Roethlisberger had his accident, if i'm not mistaken.

Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

joeyssteelcurtain
10-26-2011, 06:51 PM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

The pats cheated to get ALL 3 RINGS... Better yet they have not even won a freaking playoff game after the spy gate season.

Sixburgher
10-26-2011, 06:57 PM
You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

If he was convicted, wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd be in jail right now? You may want to check your "reality" before you lecture others about being objective there, guy.

Ricco Suavez
10-26-2011, 06:59 PM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been ACCUSED of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

Fixed to be correct. Only person convicted was Bellicheat of what he does best CHEAT!!!!!!

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 07:02 PM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

Instead of using my head, I used Wikipedia, and they listed Steelers as making the playoffs in '06. That's what I get for using wikipedia, hell, I watched the whole damn season!

The Patriots have won plenty of games due to bad calls. Hell, they've probably won a majority of their Super Bowls that way. It's already a fact that they've won multiple playoff games that way. It's also proven they flat out cheated with surveillance techniques which likely contributed to all of their success this decade!

As for the alleged sexual misconduct cases: They're off field issues. Sure, they can be considered a downfall for a team, but does sexual misconduct show up on a stat sheet? No.

Bottom line is, off field incident's don't show up in the statistics sheet and bad calls are made in virtually every game.

When I said controversy I meant controversy that effected, or should have effected a teams season. Ben Roethlisberger was ALLEGEDLY involved in some bad things during the offseason, and he served a suspension.

Patriots we're PROVEN to have cheated during a period of time undetermined, and not a single win was taken away.

joeyssteelcurtain
10-26-2011, 07:07 PM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

Hey take a look at this for me and tell me what u think.
http://youtu.be/fOwfRyd9avY

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 07:11 PM
Hey take a look at this for me and tell me what u think.
http://youtu.be/fOwfRyd9avY

As amazing as that song is, it's no use trying to convince him. He has complained after every win and loss we've had so far this year. Probably just a Pat's fan in disguise.

joeyssteelcurtain
10-26-2011, 07:13 PM
As amazing as that song is, it's no use trying to convince him. He has complained after every win and loss we've had so far this year. Probably just a Pat's fan in disguise.

LOL I thought he was a pats fan.

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 07:15 PM
LOL I thought he was a pats fan.

He always refers to the Steelers as "we" when he's dissing them. So he's either a Pat's fan, or a Mentally unstable Steelers fan. Or just a grandpa.

Fire Arians
10-26-2011, 07:31 PM
You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

if you think convicted and accused mean the same thing, then you are heavily mistaken

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 07:35 PM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

Wow convicted by who???? A jury, a judge????? Here you go you are right the media, the public and of course maybe the "Supreme Court" Justice Roger Goodell all convicted Ben. Wow man, please show me a SB that does not have controversial plays/calls. I mean really, all that matters is the win and loss category, not the controversial calls that go with it. Now if you seriously wanna down play the Steelers by playoffs missed, why not join the Browns or Bengals boards, those teams with playoffs missed will make your posts longer and quite frankly you will have validity on their boards. Dude, don't be a douche!!!!

lipps83
10-26-2011, 07:46 PM
He always refers to the Steelers as "we" when he's dissing them. So he's either a Pat's fan, or a Mentally unstable Steelers fan. Or just a grandpa.

Mentally unstable obviously since I wrongly used the word convicted instead of accused.

It's not that I hope the Steelers lose or anything like that. I just call it as I see it. I am not going to kneel down and bow to every single thing the Steelers regardless of how I much I agree with it or disagree.

That being said, you don't think that your being a Steelers fan has anything whatsoever to do with saying the Steelers are the team of the decade over the Patriots?

Try looking at it objectively instead of subjectively.

Fewer Superbowl wins
Fewer Superbowl appearances
Fewer Playoff appearances
Fewer Division titles
Fewer Wins overall
More Losing seasons
Fewer points scored

I mean, really? You don't think any of that matters?

Steelers are still team of the decade in your eyes because you like them?

Are you wearing a Steelers shirt with the slogan "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?

joeyssteelcurtain
10-26-2011, 07:50 PM
This a so funny the best one yet

http://youtu.be/UD1GiJEi1cY

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 07:52 PM
Mentally unstable obviously since I wrongly used the word convicted instead of accused.

It's not that I hope the Steelers lose or anything like that. I just call it as I see it. I am not going to kneel down and bow to every single thing the Steelers regardless of how I much I agree with it or disagree.

That being said, you don't think that your being a Steelers fan has anything whatsoever to do with saying the Steelers are the team of the decade over the Patriots?

Try looking at it objectively instead of subjectively.

Fewer Superbowl wins
Fewer Superbowl appearances
Fewer Playoff appearances
Fewer Division titles
Fewer Wins overall
More Losing seasons
Fewer points scored

I mean, really? You don't think any of that matters?

Steelers are still team of the decade in your eyes because you like them?

Are you wearing a Steelers shirt with the slogan "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?

Quite frankly I am wearing a hoodie that says AFC Conference Champs, but to be honest you must be wearing a shirt that says "I'm With Stupid", so tell whoever from the Pats is asking you to pollute this board, tell them they've been discovered!!!!

lipps83
10-26-2011, 08:00 PM
Quite frankly I am wearing a hoodie that says AFC Conference Champs, but to be honest you must be wearing a shirt that says "I'm With Stupid", so tell whoever from the Pats is asking you to pollute this board, tell them they've been discovered!!!!

What does one year have to do with a Decade? It's relevance is exactly only 10%.

Do you know what a decade is? Are you sure I am the one with the shirt that says "I'm With Stupid"?

And just because I don't think the Steelers are deserving of the moniker "Team Of The Decade" over the Patriots, I am a Pats fan?

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:06 PM
What does one year have to do with a Decade? It's relevance is exactly only 10%.

Do you know what a decade is? Are you sure I am the one with the shirt that says "I'm With Stupid"?

And just because I don't think the Steelers are deserving of the moniker "Team Of The Decade" over the Patriots, I am a Pats fan?

Dude, why would you come on here and make a mockery of the Steelers. Do you have any sense????? After what happened last year, you are really going to come on here and really slam the Steelers during the Cowher era and Tomlin era. Call it what you want truth or fact. Bottom line I would dare you to do this at Heinz Field, can you say your ass would be beat??? Ohh and Louis Lipps left the Steelers for money, he did what Plaxico did, show me the money!!!!!

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:12 PM
Dude, why would you come on here and make a mockery of the Steelers. Do you have any sense????? After what happened last year, you are really going to come on here and really slam the Steelers during the Cowher era and Tomlin era. Call it what you want truth or fact. Bottom line I would dare you to do this at Heinz Field, can you say your ass would be beat??? Ohh and Louis Lipps left the Steelers for money, he did what Plaxico did, show me the money!!!!!

Ohh yeah, after Lipps left the Steelers he went to the Saints, one ball caught for one yard!!!! Oh yes, I must be wearing the "I'm With Stupid Shirt"!!!!!!!

lipps83
10-26-2011, 08:16 PM
Dude, why would you come on here and make a mockery of the Steelers. Do you have any sense????? After what happened last year, you are really going to come on here and really slam the Steelers during the Cowher era and Tomlin era. Call it what you want truth or fact. Bottom line I would dare you to do this at Heinz Field, can you say your ass would be beat??? Ohh and Louis Lipps left the Steelers for money, he did what Plaxico did, show me the money!!!!!

All I was originally trying to do was bring logic and reason into the argument that the Patriots, in just about every way imaginable, had a better overall decade.

Those are the facts.

All it seems most everyone else on here can do is grunt and yell "Steelers Rule!" and call everyone who thinks differently a 'Pats Fan" instead of having a logical, well thought out discussion.

I am not trying to make a mockery of the Steelers. I am trying to bring what you call 'sense' into the discussion.

Again, last year has only 1/10th of relevance when discussing a term of 10 years.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

So what if Lipps left for money, what does that have anything to do whatsoever with this discussion?

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:16 PM
What does one year have to do with a Decade? It's relevance is exactly only 10%.

Do you know what a decade is? Are you sure I am the one with the shirt that says "I'm With Stupid"?

And just because I don't think the Steelers are deserving of the moniker "Team Of The Decade" over the Patriots, I am a Pats fan?

Yep "I'm With Stupid", Lipps left the Steelers only to join the Saints, he caught one ball for one yard!!!!!! Wait a minute, sounds like someone had a childhood hero (Louis Lipps) that left via the Steelers "releasing" him, someone feels empty and disappointed with the Steelers because they parted ways with Louis Lipps.

mikegrimey
10-26-2011, 08:17 PM
I think the pats r the team of the decade and it's not even close.

We had a chance in the last 2 years to pass them up but fell short

2 SB wins and 3 SB appearances isn't anything to be ashamed of though

lipps83
10-26-2011, 08:20 PM
Yep "I'm With Stupid", Lipps left the Steelers only to join the Saints, he caught one ball for one yard!!!!!! Wait a minute, sounds like someone had a childhood hero (Louis Lipps) that left via the Steelers "releasing" him, someone feels empty and disappointed with the Steelers because they parted ways with Louis Lipps.

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh, I get it, you are trying to 'hurt' me. Ouch.

Mercy. No mas. I tap.

This is too much for me to handle. You ability to assess the situation and come up with such a scorching zinger has overwhelmed me.

You win, Steelers should be "Team Of The Decade".

lipps83
10-26-2011, 08:22 PM
I think the pats r the team of the decade and it's not even close.

We had a chance in the last 2 years to pass them up but fell short

2 SB wins and 3 SB appearances isn't anything to be ashamed of though

Right, exactly. That's all I was trying to say.

Now I am labeled a Pats fan. I also apparently was a former Steelers fan but have hung onto a grudge since Cowher released Lipps who was apparently my childhood hero and not just a quick nickname I figured wouldn't be taken on a Steelers forum.

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:23 PM
Well, it may be close but how many of those were proven they cheated. I would willingly concede the thought if it wasn't documented they CHEATED!!!! How many have they won, since the facts were exposed??????

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:25 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

Oh, I get it, you are trying to 'hurt' me. Ouch.

Mercy. No mas. I tap.

This is too much for me to handle. You ability to assess the situation and come up with such a scorching zinger has overwhelmed me.

You win, Steelers should be "Team Of The Decade".

Damn Right, they didn't CHEAT!!!!!

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 08:29 PM
Mentally unstable obviously since I wrongly used the word convicted instead of accused.

It's not that I hope the Steelers lose or anything like that. I just call it as I see it. I am not going to kneel down and bow to every single thing the Steelers regardless of how I much I agree with it or disagree.

That being said, you don't think that your being a Steelers fan has anything whatsoever to do with saying the Steelers are the team of the decade over the Patriots?

Try looking at it objectively instead of subjectively.

Fewer Superbowl wins
Fewer Superbowl appearances
Fewer Playoff appearances
Fewer Division titles
Fewer Wins overall
More Losing seasons
Fewer points scored

I mean, really? You don't think any of that matters?

Steelers are still team of the decade in your eyes because you like them?

Are you wearing a Steelers shirt with the slogan "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?

You can have your opinion buddy, I don't want it. I always thought it was wrong to cheat and not be punished. The investigation over the cheating accusations of New England concluded after a study of the years they won the Super Bowl. All of which they we're PROVEN to have illegally recorded signals!

I mean, really? You don't think cheating is wrong?

Patriots are the team of the decade even after they cheating their way to three Super Bowl championships?

Are you aware they haven't won one since being caught??

Are you wearing a Steelers shirt with the slogan "I reject sportsmanship and agree with the act of cheating"?

mikegrimey
10-26-2011, 08:29 PM
Right, exactly. That's all I was trying to say.

Now I am labeled a Pats fan. I also apparently was a former Steelers fan but have hung onto a grudge since Cowher released Lipps who was apparently my childhood hero and not just a quick nickname I figured wouldn't be taken on a Steelers forum.

Yea I'm not supriswd some people on hereould accuse u of being a pats fan for just looking at the facts. I imagine they're thinking of some sophomoric homophobic jokes to make about u too

I think the steelers r the 2nd team of the decade, with the colts a distant third (even though I noticed of all their playoff collapses they were one of only 3 teams to appear in more than 1 SB during the decade

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 08:36 PM
Yea I'm not supriswd some people on hereould accuse u of being a pats fan for just looking at the facts. I imagine they're thinking of some sophomoric homophobic jokes to make about u too

I think the steelers r the 2nd team of the decade, with the colts a distant third (even though I noticed of all their playoff collapses they were one of only 3 teams to appear in more than 1 SB during the decade

mike grimey, when I leave the military, may I have some of what you are smoking???

MaidenIndiana
10-26-2011, 08:47 PM
Who gives a sh*t about who was the team of the LAST decade. Let's concentrate on this decade:tt04:

Goldsteel86
10-26-2011, 09:08 PM
Who gives a sh*t about who was the team of the LAST decade. Let's concentrate on this decade:tt04:

That's exactly what some of us would agree with, but some would like to focus on the Pats, not this guy though!!!!

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 10:51 PM
The fact is, the team that's considered the better franchise of the last decade, is playing us this weekend. We have a two super bowl lead in the overall NFL ring count, and we took that lead in the last decade.

I made this thread because I think we're the better team, and i'm hoping to see us prove that on Sunday.

Thanks for all your comments!


GO STEELERS!

Yehoodi
10-26-2011, 11:27 PM
Hi All, pats fan here and my first post . . . and what better way to get started than respond to this threat . . . :hatsoff:

regarding the decade I will look to the years starting with '01, so for me the decade is 2001 to 2010 . . .

for me I have to go with the Pats for the following reasons . . .

1) Pats 3-2 in the SB count
2) Pats 4-3 in the SB appearance count
3) Pats have more division titles
4) Pats have more overall wins
5) Pats have missed the playoffs 2-3 to the Steelers misses and our two playoff misses are due to a tiebreaker (2002) and a season without Brady (and we had 11 wins to boot
6) Head to Head in the playoffs we are 2-0 (both AFCCGs)
7) Head to Head overall we are 6-2 (with one lose without TB)

It is really not that different than trying to decide who is the team of the 1970s . . . who do you guy choose? . . . I bet a some of you would pick the Steelers, but why not the Cowboys? I think the Steelers are the team of the decade, and the numbers really arent any different than above

1) Steelers are 4-2 in SB count
2) Teams are even in SB appearances (4)
3) Cowboys have more wins 107 to 103
4) Steelers have more division tiles 7 to 6
5) Cowboys have more playoff appearances 9 to 8
6) Steelers have the edge in head to head in the playoffs 2-0 (both SBs)

the two teams are basically equal with the exception of the 2-0 head to head in the SBs, , , if two teams that are even and the one which is crown team of the decade is due to their head to head in the playoffs . . then one really not say that the Pats are not the team of the 00s, just as the 70s Steelers beat the Cowboys due to a 2-0 record in the playoffs, the Pats take the crown on the 2-0 head to head in the playoffs versus the 00s version of the steelers . . .

my two cents . . . .

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 11:40 PM
Hi All, pats fan here and my first post . . . and what better way to get started than respond to this threat . . . :hatsoff:

regarding the decade I will look to the years starting with '01, so for me the decade is 2001 to 2010 . . .

for me I have to go with the Pats for the following reasons . . .

1) Pats 3-2 in the SB count
2) Pats 4-3 in the SB appearance count
3) Pats have more division titles
4) Pats have more overall wins
5) Pats have missed the playoffs 2-3 to the Steelers misses and our two playoff misses are due to a tiebreaker (2002) and a season without Brady (and we had 11 wins to boot
6) Head to Head in the playoffs we are 2-0 (both AFCCGs)
7) Head to Head overall we are 6-2 (with one lose without TB)

It is really not that different than trying to decide who is the team of the 1970s . . . who do you guy choose? . . . I bet a some of you would pick the Steelers, but why not the Cowboys? I think the Steelers are the team of the decade, and the numbers really arent any different than above

1) Steelers are 4-2 in SB count
2) Teams are even in SB appearances (4)
3) Cowboys have more wins 107 to 103
4) Steelers have more division tiles 7 to 6
5) Cowboys have more playoff appearances 9 to 8
6) Steelers have the edge in head to head in the playoffs 2-0 (both SBs)

the two teams are basically equal with the exception of the 2-0 head to head in the SBs, , , if two teams that are even and the one which is crown team of the decade is due to their head to head in the playoffs . . then one really not say that the Pats are not the team of the 00s, just as the 70s Steelers beat the Cowboys due to a 2-0 record in the playoffs, the Pats take the crown on the 2-0 head to head in the playoffs versus the 00s version of the steelers . . .

my two cents . . . .

The only reason I really made this thread was to gather opinions. I understand that as a fan of a team, the fan will stick up for his team. And when your a fan of a contending team, you'll be there to support them to the fullest.

When a discussion like this comes up in a teams forum, a majority of every post in the discussion will be positive towards said team. It's common knowledge. But there are a few users in this forum who constantly complain of the team, whether we're doing good or bad.

So with this thread I anticipated that, and sure enough, it didn't take long. I agree with opinions, but it seems some of the Steelers fans in here got bent out of shape with even the slightest though that the Steelers deserved recognition of it's history making decade of play.

I guess every forum has it's negative nancy's, just as everyone has entitled to their own opinion. Anywho, welcome to the forum yehoo. This isn't a threat thread, it's opinionated :chuckle:

Yehoodi
10-26-2011, 11:47 PM
I guess every forum has it's negative nancy's, just as everyone has entitled to their own opinion. Anywho, welcome to the forum yehoo. This isn't a threat thread, it's opinionated :chuckle:

thanks Bayz . . . I am sure it will be a lot of fun to partake in ideas on this forum . . .

Bayz101
10-26-2011, 11:51 PM
thanks Bayz . . . I am sure it will be a lot of fun to partake in ideas on this forum . . .

I don't have a problem with 'ya because your being respectful. However, as for some of these other guys...Let's just say this, if you beat us. Wear a vest upon logging in :chuckle:

Kidding aside. If anyone's ignorant, pay no mind. Good luck Sunday, just not too much!

Riddle_Of_Steel
10-27-2011, 12:10 AM
"Team of the Decade" is a cryptic title at best, one that is not in the record books and only matters to the fans.

But as far as that discussion is concerned, as much as I CAN'T STAND Tom Brady, his haircut, his turd of a coach, Rodney Harrison, or anything else Foxborough, I have to concede that moniker to them.

Besides the most SB victories this decade (we can never know how much of a factor Spygate really was), they also had the undefeated season, and most of all-- no other team has generated more hatred, jealousy, and controversey than the Patriots this decade. They have been the best at nearly everything at some point in time this decade-- whether it be Brady's 50 TD record, their undefeated season, or their high-flying offense.

Granted, the Steelers are a franchise that comes in at a close second-- overall, no team this decade has been able to match our consistent defensive production year in and year out, we did have a historic defense in 2008, we are perrenial playoff contenders, and we have our multiple SB victories, but we never got past the Pats (except for a meaningless regular season win in 2005), and that is the truth, no matter how much we love our team.

SunshineMan21
10-27-2011, 12:20 AM
Were it not for the videotaping controversy, it would obviously be the Patriots, with us second. I don't see how you can possibly construct an argument for us being ahead of them simply on the merits of wins on the field of play.

So it essentially depends on how you weight the cheating.

Bayz101
10-27-2011, 12:23 AM
Were it not for the videotaping controversy, it would obviously be the Patriots, with us second. I don't see how you can possibly construct an argument for us being ahead of them simply on the merits of wins on the field of play.

So it essentially depends on how you weight the cheating.

That's pretty much what I thought of it. But truthfully, as riddle said above, this labeling has no significance. It's a label created by the media. I just made this thread for opinions and to see if the negative nancy trolls would pop their heads in. Both of which I got.

bornaSteelersfan
10-27-2011, 12:43 AM
OK, guys, spygate, wins/losses aside. The only reason The Patriots really won was because of their incredible kicker, Adam Vinatieri. Without his kicks, we know Pats lose. Notice when he went to Indy, THEY won a SB as well? Without him, they lost. He is arguably the greatest clutch kicker ever.

Steelers cannot be considered team of the decade because we all know that the Pats have consistantly been the "monkey on our backs".

MACH1
10-27-2011, 01:07 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17/PGHLADYmlg/TomBradySkirt.jpg

Bayz101
10-27-2011, 01:18 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17/PGHLADYmlg/TomBradySkirt.jpg

ROFL

tony hipchest
10-27-2011, 01:26 AM
Hi All, pats fan here and my first post . . . and what better way to get started than respond to this threat . . . :hatsoff:

3) Pats have more division titles
my two cents . . . .welcome to the board.

since you have offered your 2 cents i ask if i can borrow a dime of your time.

please answer this honest question-

youre excellent division record is as much a testament to its ineptitude as it is a sign of the patriots greatness.

would patriot fans have prefered playing the last decade in a divison with the steelers, ravens, and post ryan jets, as opposed to the scrubs known as the dolphins, bills, and pre-ryan jets?

Bayz101
10-27-2011, 01:29 AM
welcome to the board.

since you have offered your 2 cents i ask if i can borrow a dime of your time.

please answer this honest question-

youre excellent division record is as much a testament to its ineptitude as it is a sign of the patriots greatness.

would patriot fans have prefered playing the last decade in a divison with the steelers, ravens, and post ryan jets, as opposed to the scrubs known as the dolphins, bills, and pre-ryan jets?

DAYUM. Didn't see this coming :rofl:

MDSteel15
10-27-2011, 09:45 AM
The Patriots went to 4 SB's and won 3 as opposed to us going to 3 and winning 2 (actually does last year even count from 2000-2010?).

A decade is 10 seasons, you have 11! And last years Super Bowl is considered the 2010 season so YES it does count, and NO they have won only once... :popcorn:

MDSteel15
10-27-2011, 09:56 AM
Sorry but there is no way the Steelers take team of the decade over the Pats.

You all seem to forget that outside of Steeler Nation, there was plenty of controversy in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks with what, objectively, does look like some favored calls.

You seem to forget that our QB has been convicted of Sexual Misconduct, not once, but twice. If you don't think this affects the team overall, you are heavily mistaken.

The Steelers have missed the playoffs 4x since 2000.

2000
2003
2006
2009

The Steelers have 2 seasons without a winning record at the end of the season (Patriots have 0).

I really could go on, but I don't want reality to have too much of an affect on you.

OK, with your screen name I thought you may be kinda smart but after reading this, I was wrong! First off Ben was NEVER convicted of anything!!! Other than that, if you just base it on regular season wins they can have the title! I'll take the SB wins... Oh yeah, and Mr Clean Tom Brady impregnated his now wife while with the ex- so he's not f''ng perfect either! :coffee:

StainlessStill
10-27-2011, 10:34 AM
Is it possible to hate N.E and their fanbase even more than I already do? Yes. These people are ****ing crybabies. They are just dying for something to bitch about. They are pissed at Ben for saying Brady looks flat-footed in the pocket. That's what they are upset about. LMAO. Their fanbase has turned into the same pricks and wuss's their QB portrays every week when he crys for a flag. I ****ing hate this team and their arrogant fans. Most arrogant I've ever come across it's not even close. Puts boobyjr to shame.

mizzouristeeler
10-27-2011, 10:46 AM
Is it possible to hate N.E and their fanbase even more than I already do? Yes. These people are ****ing crybabies. They are just dying for something to bitch about. They are pissed at Ben for saying Brady looks flat-footed in the pocket. That's what they are upset about. LMAO. Their fanbase has turned into the same pricks and wuss's their QB portrays every week when he crys for a flag. I ****ing hate this team and their arrogant fans. Most arrogant I've ever come across it's not even close. Puts boobyjr to shame.

The cheatriots are a bunch of whine asses that complain about anything that doesn't go their way. I would give away a kidney to see those bastards have 5 straight losing seasons.

Exordium
10-27-2011, 12:50 PM
I think the Patriots admitted to cheating and haven't won a Super Bowl since being caught tells you all you need to know about their team.

4xSBChamps
10-27-2011, 02:32 PM
The Patriots went to 4 SB's and won 3 as opposed to us going to 3 and winning 2 (actually does last year even count from 2000-2010?). They also almost nearly went undefeated and have beaten us almost every head-to-head matchup with their starting QB. We've easily been the best team since Ben arrived but if you count 2000-2003, then the Pats have the edge.

:thumbsup:

I hate the Cheatriots * as-much-as the next guy, but to refuse admittingto yourself that their franchise wasn't the best of the last decade is like Philthadelphia Phailure hockey-fans, telling Penguin fans they suck, while boasting despite having won their last Championship 36 years ago

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/Glensgages/football/Patriotfansest2002.jpg

which franchise has tradition & history, which is admired & envied, and which would you rather-be associated with?

Yehoodi
10-27-2011, 09:08 PM
welcome to the board.

since you have offered your 2 cents i ask if i can borrow a dime of your time.

please answer this honest question-

youre excellent division record is as much a testament to its ineptitude as it is a sign of the patriots greatness.

would patriot fans have prefered playing the last decade in a divison with the steelers, ravens, and post ryan jets, as opposed to the scrubs known as the dolphins, bills, and pre-ryan jets?

Tony, thank you so very much for the warm welcome, I look forward to joining the discussion on this site . . . :hatsoff:

I will answer your question, and may give you two bits of my time . . . :coffee: . . . I think the perception of fans outside AFC East might be more of a myth than of one of reality . . . this might be a long post so you all might want to get your popcorn ready . . . :popcorn:

but before I start I think we all need to remember that that Cleveland Browns and Cincinnati Bengals are in the AFC North . . . :wave:

Regarding the relative strength of the AFC East, lets compare it with the AFC North . . . and we can use the same sample size, years 2001 to 2010. Just as note in 2001 we still had the old 3 divisions, so for the figures below I just use mia, nyj, buf and NE for '01 for their division and the same with the four teams in your division . . .

If we look at the records we have the following:

The combine records of our teams' three opponents is as follows:

NE (Buf/Mia/NYJ) is 219-261 = 0.456 win%
Pitt (cin/bal/cle) is 219-261 = 0.456 win% , so the same

Our Divisional records

NE is 46-14 = 0.767 win%
Pit is 43-17 = 0.717 win %

so at first look the two division have the same record. However if we look at the teams minus the damage our teams have done to our repsective division, we can see how strong our division is outside of the games that we have play our respective divisions

the numbers are now

AFC East 205-215 = 0.488 win %
AFC North 202-218 = 0.480 win %

so we can see that outside of playing our own teams the AFC East teams actually have a higher percentage that the teams from the AFC North :wink02:

lets take a look at how our teams fair against there other's division, each team has played 20 games

NE is 16-4 (0.800%) against the AFC South, and Pitt is 13-7 (0.650%) against the AFC East . . . now head to head NE is 4-2 against Pitt, so if we take that out we can see how our teams do against the three other opponents respective divisions . . . in doing that we get NE at 12-2 (0.857%) and Pitt at 11-3 (0.786%) . . . .

if one cares to subtract our teams record against the other divisions three teams (and thus remove all games of our games against our six divisions rivals) we have the following

AFC East 202-204 = 0498%
AFC North 200-206 = 0.492% . . . so slight edges still to AFC East . . .

just a few more points, Pitt has won 6 division titles and each time their record would have beaten the second best team in the AFC East. NE has won 8 divisions and 7 times they would have beaten the second best team in the AFC North. (with one year being 2005, in which interestingly the Pats "lost" the last game against MIa and avoided playing you guys, had we won that game we would of been the 3# ahead of Cinn, otherwise we would be 8 for 8) . .. i just bring this up so we all know that it is not like either of our division are so weak, that one team did not win a division and would not also won it had the team been in the other's division.

But to rap all of this up we have the following

1) Both divisions have the same record

2) When we look at the teams outside of us playing them, the AFC East has a BETTER record than the AFC North, and even slightly better if we remove the cross over games

3) NE has a better winning percentage against their own divisions (46-14 (0.767%) to 43-17 (0.717)

4) Pitt has a slightly higher winning percentage against the AFC East (11-3 (0.786%) or 46-14 (0.767%)

5) NE has a better winning percentage against the AFC North (12-2 (0.857%) to 43-17 (0.717%).

so no matter how you slice it, the AFC East opponent teams have a equal or higher winning percentage than the AFC North teams . . . NE has a higher divisional record and a better record than Pitt against the AFC North . . . . :popcorn:

now to answer your question . . . I do not mind having played the AFC East opponents between the time period of 2001-2010

I do have one quick question for you tho . . . if the AFC East teams are "inept" what does that say about the AFC North teams which have the same to worse winning percentage against the rest of the league in the years between 2001 and 2010? :wave:

tony hipchest
10-27-2011, 09:15 PM
now to answer your question . . . I do not mind having played the AFC East opponents between the time period of 2001-2010

great post w/ alot of quality research. theres no doubt that the bengals and browns suck. thats a given. but even the bungles have been descent enough to win the division twice in that span.

the patriots have never had a quality division rival like the ravens in the past 10 years. them winning their division is pretty much a given.

the afc north is a battle to the end, every single years. with seldom a team winning it 2x in a row.

therefore i beleive the afc north is tougher.

ZoneBlitzer
10-27-2011, 10:40 PM
Patriots win team of the decade hands down. Cheating or no cheating. They did it with subpar cast-offs that nobody else wanted and a relative unknown at QB when they won. The titles that they won were also done so by the skin of their teeth. Along the way they also nearly had the perfect season.

LVSteelersfan
10-27-2011, 11:09 PM
The whole cheating argument is asinine. I don't believe that filming had that much to do with the wins. Questionable calls had a lot to do with it. But everyone who wins the big game gets questionable calls along the way. That is football. Please drop the whole cheating argument. It is a waste of time and makes Steelers fans look whiny. The Steelers always get totally outcoached by the Patsies. That is the bottom line. Sorry, but Belicheat is a better strategist than Tomlin or Cowher ever were. He knows how to make adjustments mid-game unlike either of our coaches.

joeyssteelcurtain
10-28-2011, 11:17 AM
The whole cheating argument is asinine. I don't believe that filming had that much to do with the wins. Questionable calls had a lot to do with it. But everyone who wins the big game gets questionable calls along the way. That is football. Please drop the whole cheating argument. It is a waste of time and makes Steelers fans look whiny. The Steelers always get totally outcoached by the Patsies. That is the bottom line. Sorry, but Belicheat is a better strategist than Tomlin or Cowher ever were. He knows how to make adjustments mid-game unlike either of our coaches.


No no.. You are wrong. If the qb knows the safety is coming on a blitz. He is going to go over the top for a td. There are a lot of ways you could take advantage bye knowing the D plays. If you don't know that then you don't know football.

cloppbeast
10-28-2011, 12:30 PM
All it seems most everyone else on here can do is grunt and yell "Steelers Rule!" and call everyone who thinks differently a 'Pats Fan" instead of having a logical, well thought out discussion.

Welcome to Steelers Fever! :chuckle:

steelcity1974
10-28-2011, 12:39 PM
What's cheating about watching the other team's video? Just because they had a random guy in the stands filming and it's against the rules? In the end, all teams watch film on each other. I just don't understand what the big deal is. Other than the 2001 AFC Championship game, most other games they beat us weren't even close. Including last year's game....were they still cheating then? That's such a lame excuse.

steelcity1974
10-28-2011, 12:41 PM
The whole cheating argument is asinine. I don't believe that filming had that much to do with the wins. Questionable calls had a lot to do with it. But everyone who wins the big game gets questionable calls along the way. That is football. Please drop the whole cheating argument. It is a waste of time and makes Steelers fans look whiny. The Steelers always get totally outcoached by the Patsies. That is the bottom line. Sorry, but Belicheat is a better strategist than Tomlin or Cowher ever were. He knows how to make adjustments mid-game unlike either of our coaches.

Agree

cloppbeast
10-28-2011, 12:47 PM
Are you aware they haven't won one since being caught??

First of all, you "Steelers Rule! The Patriots suck because they cheated!" crowd mistakenly overrate the significance of the Patriots escapades, as evidenced by the facts. The Patriots have still been one of the most consistent and successful teams since the scandal.

They did go 16-0 - the only team ever. not a big deal though? :noidea:

They've made the playoffs every year since then, except the year Brady went down, and they still had a damn good record of 11-5 that year. This also happened to be the year the Steelers beat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. Dare I speculate a different team may have represented the AFC had not Bernard Pollard blown up pretty-boy's knee in Week 1? Valid point, don't deny it.

In a nut shell, tlthough they haven't won a championship, the Pats have been pretty successful since spy-gate. Read it.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14548114/patriots-winning-ways-puts-spygate-handwringing-to-rest

Also, after the scandal, a guy who knows more about football than any of you, goes by the name of Jimmy Johnson said: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us. Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it. But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make [Belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."

So, on top of all that, according to Jimmy Johnson, other teams were doing it anyway.

More super bowls + more super bowl appearances + more play off appearances + more victories + more winning seasons + more undefeated seasons = New England is the team of the decade. Common sense. Go get some.

stlrtruck
10-28-2011, 02:31 PM
It's also common sense that they cheated and everyone knows that cheating aides you in some way or another, even years after the fact.

No one truly knows how deep the cheating scandal went, the videos were destroyed before anyone got a chance to view them. Outside of Roger Goodell, Bill Belichick, and the rest of the patriots* team and staff. And no, the so-called copies were not good enough evidence for me.

You may think it's common sense to dub them team of the decade but it's common sense to me that cheaters don't get rewarded or lavished with such titles.

patriots* = cheaters = no team of the decade. It's Logic. Use some!

cloppbeast
10-28-2011, 02:42 PM
It's also common sense that they cheated and everyone knows that cheating aides you in some way or another, even years after the fact.

No one truly knows how deep the cheating scandal went, the videos were destroyed before anyone got a chance to view them. Outside of Roger Goodell, Bill Belichick, and the rest of the patriots* team and staff. And no, the so-called copies were not good enough evidence for me.

You may think it's common sense to dub them team of the decade but it's common sense to me that cheaters don't get rewarded or lavished with such titles.

patriots* = cheaters = no team of the decade. It's Logic. Use some!

have u made a habit of only reading the last sentence of posts?

ive addressed everything youve said in my previous post. go read it, the whole thing this time.

stlrtruck
10-28-2011, 02:56 PM
have u made a habit of only reading the last sentence of posts?

ive addressed everything youve said in my previous post. go read it, the whole thing this time.

I read it, even understood it. Just didn't agree with it and figured if you were going to be smug about other's opinions, why not let you taste the flavor.

I don't agree with your assessment of them being the team of the decade. I find it comical that anyone (players, coaches, announcers - except maybe Chris Collinsworth, owners) would think they were a team of the decade in light of spygate.

Most people want to sweep that under the rug, and most have. That doesn't make it right and it certainly in hell doesn't make them a team of the decade (I don't care what Goodell, the NFL, or the announcers have to say about it).

cloppbeast
10-28-2011, 03:33 PM
I read it, even understood it. Just didn't agree with it and figured if you were going to be smug about other's opinions, why not let you taste the flavor.

I don't agree with your assessment of them being the team of the decade. I find it comical that anyone (players, coaches, announcers - except maybe Chris Collinsworth, owners) would think they were a team of the decade in light of spygate.

Most people want to sweep that under the rug, and most have. That doesn't make it right and it certainly in hell doesn't make them a team of the decade (I don't care what Goodell, the NFL, or the announcers have to say about it).

i find it comical u think the patriots were the only team doing it. i also find it comical u cant recognize theyre success following the scandal as a clue. oh well. if it makes u feel better......

stlrtruck
10-28-2011, 03:36 PM
i find it comical u think the patriots were the only team doing it. i also find it comical u cant recognize theyre success following the scandal as a clue. oh well. if it makes u feel better......

I believe the patriots* were the only one going to the extreme that they did. And there has been no evidence to prove otherwise (unless you want to count former coaches who wouldn't sell out their own 'brothers' if you paid them).

I recognize their success following the scandal, but it doesn't take away the fact that they cheated.

I find it comical that you want to ball wash them regardless of the scandal. But what ever floats your boat skippy.

Yehoodi
10-28-2011, 05:39 PM
I read it, even understood it. Just didn't agree with it and figured if you were going to be smug about other's opinions, why not let you taste the flavor.

I don't agree with your assessment of them being the team of the decade. I find it comical that anyone (players, coaches, announcers - except maybe Chris Collinsworth, owners) would think they were a team of the decade in light of spygate.

Most people want to sweep that under the rug, and most have. That doesn't make it right and it certainly in hell doesn't make them a team of the decade (I don't care what Goodell, the NFL, or the announcers have to say about it).

So then I take it that you are one of the ones in steelers nation that believes that the 1970s Cowboys (Americas Team) is the team of the 70s and NOT the Pittsburgh Steelers . . . after all the 70s Steelers were using steriods . . .. or are we going to be using two standards . . . :wink02:

Fire Arians
10-28-2011, 05:51 PM
i will continue to call the pats cheaters, i don't care how much those tapes really helped them or not, but i don't care. my hatred for the team will continue to make me think biasedly against them.

so there ;)

Yehoodi
10-28-2011, 05:56 PM
great post w/ alot of quality research. theres no doubt that the bengals and browns suck. thats a given. but even the bungles have been descent enough to win the division twice in that span.

the patriots have never had a quality division rival like the ravens in the past 10 years. them winning their division is pretty much a given.

the afc north is a battle to the end, every single years. with seldom a team winning it 2x in a row.

therefore i beleive the afc north is tougher.

I hear ya Tony, stepping back and giving a quick test I tend to agree with you that the AFC North is a tough division . . . and yes it is a dog fight to the end with three different teams winning the division at least twice and yes Baltimore is nipping at your heels . . . and yes i think that it is one of the toughest divisions in the NFL and I would certainly put it ahead of the AFC West and to a degree ahead of the AFC South . . .

but at the same time i think the Pats to a degree may be a "victim" of thier own success, we have had years with wins of 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 10, 10 and 9 in the decade and have always won or tied for first, lost the division on tie breakers twice (''02 w. 9 wins and '08 with 11 wins) and did win it once ('01, 11 wins), but other years won it outright . . . i think the pats have won division in those years as we could amass win outside of our division so as to gain some distince from our rivals . . . indeed Rex Ryan, who i like a great deal, kind of half joked/half serious asking the NFL to help and beat the pats so he can keep pace, teh two ryans brothers have done a number on us in the past three years, but the jets can't keep up with wins outside the division . . .

i think it might be one of those things, if you always win, you make your competition look worse, and if you loose here and there your copetition looks a little better . . .

i didn''t spending too much time but did take a look at the fins/ravens/jets records and they have had winnings seasons jets(6) fins (5) and ravens (7), double digets wins, fins (3), jets (4), ravens (5), the ravens have recent success with teh 13-3 season i think '06 and 12-4 in '08 . . . but things are closer than some may think . . . i know ravens rival is bitter and they always seem to be at your heels . . .but in years mia and jets have kept us on our toes . . .

either way the north is a tough hard nose division, and the afc east is not as bad as some think . . .

btw, i did spend the time on that earlier post as i spend a lot of time on a colts forum and they sometimes raze the pats fan for being in a tough division, at some point was going to run the numbers, and decide to do it then. . . .

Sixburgher
10-28-2011, 06:00 PM
So then I take it that you are one of the ones in steelers nation that believes that the 1970s Cowboys (Americas Team) is the team of the 70s and NOT the Pittsburgh Steelers . . . after all the 70s Steelers were using steriods . . ..:

Uh, yeah, so were the 70s Cowboys. Not to mention pretty much the rest of the league back in the day.

"The testimony of former players supports the charge that steroid use escalated in the NFL from the late 1970s onward. Pat Donovan, a Dallas offensive lineman for 9 years who retired in 1983, said, 'Anabolic steroids are very, very accepted in the NFL. In my last five or six years it ran as high as 60-70% on the Cowboys on the offensive and defensive lines...'"

Excerpt taken from "Anabolic steroids in sport and exercise" By Charles Yesalis, Page 60

Yehoodi
10-28-2011, 06:15 PM
Uh, yeah, so were the 70s Cowboys. Not to mention pretty much the rest of the league back in the day.

"The testimony of former players supports the charge that steroid use escalated in the NFL from the late 1970s onward. Pat Donovan, a Dallas offensive lineman for 9 years who retired in 1983, said, 'Anabolic steroids are very, very accepted in the NFL. In my last five or six years it ran as high as 60-70% on the Cowboys on the offensive and defensive lines...'"

Excerpt taken from "Anabolic steroids in sport and exercise" By Charles Yesalis, Page 60

i get it . .

So I walk into a bar in Pittsburgh and having following conversation . . .

Steeler Fan "Hey you guys tape signals of DCs"

Pats Fan: "So . . . it gave us a very small if no advantage and we did not use it in game"

Steelers Fan: "Doesn't matter I am going take away your Team of Decade status"

Pats Fan: " ...what? . . . com'n man . . . really?, are you serious? a lot of teams did it, just ask Jimmy Johnson, so it kind of evens the field "

Steelers Fan "does matter . . .and that is a lame excuse . . ."

Pats Fan: "okay whatever . . ."

Pats Fan: "hey lookie there on the TV, an old NFL films program with John Facenda talking about '75 AFCCG . . . wow i always loved that guy . . . man your Steelers were a beast in the 70s"

Steeler "you got it buddy, teams of the 70's baby . . . "

Pats Fan "but wait you guys took steriods and so . . ."

Steelers Fan "doesn't matter or effect our team of decade status as alot of guys were doing it so it kind of evens the field . . "

Pats Fan "yah but i thought you just said . . . ah . . . well whatever you say there sparky . . . "

Sixburgher
10-28-2011, 06:20 PM
i get it . .

So I walk into a bar in Pittsburgh and having following conversation . . .

Steeler Fan "Hey you guys tape signals of DCs"

Pats Fan: "So . . . it gave us a very small if no advantage and we did not use it in game"

Steelers Fan: "Doesn't matter I am going take away your Team of Decade status"

Pats Fan: " ...what? . . . com'n man . . . really?, are you serious? a lot of teams did it, just ask Jimmy Johnson, so it kind of evens the field "

Steelers Fan "does matter . . .and that is a lame excuse . . ."

Pats Fan: "okay whatever . . ."

Pats Fan: "hey lookie there on the TV, an old NFL films program with John Facenda talking about '75 AFCCG . . . wow i always loved that guy . . . man your Steelers were a beast in the 70s"

Steeler "you got it buddy, teams of the 70's baby . . . "

Pats Fan "but wait you guys took steriods and so . . ."

Steelers Fan "doesn't matter or effect our team of decade status as alot of guys were doing it so it kind of evens the field . . "

Pats Fan "yah but i thought you just said . . . ah . . . well whatever you say there sparky . . . "

No, actually I couldn't give a shit less about the stupid "team of the decade" argument. I take umbrage with the usual charges of the highly misinformed like yourself who seem to think that the Steelers were the only team with players juicing back in the 1970s, which is 100% false.

SteelCityMom
10-28-2011, 07:28 PM
i get it . .

So I walk into a bar in Pittsburgh and having following conversation . . .

Steeler Fan "Hey you guys tape signals of DCs"

Pats Fan: "So . . . it gave us a very small if no advantage and we did not use it in game"

Steelers Fan: "Doesn't matter I am going take away your Team of Decade status"

Pats Fan: " ...what? . . . com'n man . . . really?, are you serious? a lot of teams did it, just ask Jimmy Johnson, so it kind of evens the field "

Steelers Fan "does matter . . .and that is a lame excuse . . ."

Pats Fan: "okay whatever . . ."

Pats Fan: "hey lookie there on the TV, an old NFL films program with John Facenda talking about '75 AFCCG . . . wow i always loved that guy . . . man your Steelers were a beast in the 70s"

Steeler "you got it buddy, teams of the 70's baby . . . "

Pats Fan "but wait you guys took steriods and so . . ."

Steelers Fan "doesn't matter or effect our team of decade status as alot of guys were doing it so it kind of evens the field . . "

Pats Fan "yah but i thought you just said . . . ah . . . well whatever you say there sparky . . . "

Ok, I get your argument and all, but the Steelers (and every other team) were LEGALLY using steroids in the '70s. The NFL didn't even ban steroid use until the late 80's (which is the earliest of all American professional sports). You use Jimmy Johnson as an example. Now, I'm not sure of the year this rule was put in place...and I know Jimmy admitted to doing the same...but I think it was after he was a coach. Also, Belicheck was caught AFTER a memo was sent out reiterating that videotaping was against the rules, and kept doing it anyway.

Now, with that said, I don't think it gave them as much as an advantage as many think it did...but they broke the rules. We'll also never know the extent of what was videotaped, since they were all destroyed. So just like Barry Bonds records are tarnished...as are the Patriots. As unfair as that may seem to you, it is what it is.

MACH1
10-28-2011, 07:45 PM
I guess taping the walk troughs before a superbowl doesn't count.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3227245

stlrtruck
10-28-2011, 09:43 PM
So then I take it that you are one of the ones in steelers nation that believes that the 1970s Cowboys (Americas Team) is the team of the 70s and NOT the Pittsburgh Steelers . . . after all the 70s Steelers were using steriods . . .. or are we going to be using two standards . . . :wink02:

Not at all. Steroids were not illegal in the 70s, therefore it's two different concepts.

One, the Steelers weren't using anything that was against the rules at the time.

Two, the patriots* were certainly aware of the NFL rules and guidelines for video taping and blatantly and willingly disregarded them. Then were barely slapped on the wrist and prounced around like the prodigal son.

Yehoodi
10-29-2011, 09:03 AM
No, actually I couldn't give a shit less about the stupid "team of the decade" argument. I take umbrage with the usual charges of the highly misinformed like yourself who seem to think that the Steelers were the only team with players juicing back in the 1970s, which is 100% false.

I see that you missed my point . . . my point being is that in both situations, steriods in the 70s and video taping along the sidelines, were acts partaken by more than simply one team (70s steelers and 00's Pats respectfullly) and there a lot of people that like to raze and single out the pats for what they did in the 00s, even tho a lot were doing it . . .and then when defending the 70s steelers claim that a lot were doing it . . . that was the basis of my point . . .

and yes there were alot of teams doing, indeed after the memo came out in 2006, indeed, we had to remove a cameraman from the jets in our game and there was an admission by GB that they were doing it in our game against them . . .

SteelCityMom
10-29-2011, 09:42 AM
I see that you missed my point . . . my point being is that in both situations, steriods in the 70s and video taping along the sidelines, were acts partaken by more than simply one team (70s steelers and 00's Pats respectfullly) and there a lot of people that like to raze and single out the pats for what they did in the 00s, even tho a lot were doing it . . .and then when defending the 70s steelers claim that a lot were doing it . . . that was the basis of my point . . .

and yes there were alot of teams doing, indeed after the memo came out in 2006, indeed, we had to remove a cameraman from the jets in our game and there was an admission by GB that they were doing it in our game against them . . .

Again, you are comparing something that was legal and practiced by every single team, to something that is illegal and potentially practiced by some teams (who really knows how many, all we can do is speculate). And if the Patriots think that someone is videotaping on the sidelines, then they should call for an investigation (as was done with them). If they don't, then you shouldn't continue to speculate as to how many teams or what teams have done this, and continue to do it.

It's like saying that if you get caught robbing a house, that criminal violation shouldn't stand out on your record because you claim that there are a bunch of other criminals out there robbing houses. Just because other people do illegal things, that doesn't diminish your own illegal acts.

And when speaking about the recent Jets incident, this is what they had to say about it.

"On Tuesday morning, the Jets issued a response to Pro Football Talk, explaining why the cameraman was on the sideline.

According to the team, the man "works for Jets TV and shoots footage for our team programming." The team also informed the site that, according to NFL guidelines, "[c]lub video crews and video crews from television stations that produce and telecast club-licensed programming (e.g. coaches' shows, team magazine-style shows, etc.) may also be permitted to have a camera on the sidelines to shoot footage for those club-licensed programs only."

Now, nothing has been said by the NFL (yet) regarding this situation...but I'm sure someone is looking into it. If they find that they broke the rules, they'll be punished the same way the Patriots and Broncos were. And if they find that the Jets have been videotaping for some time (i.e. years in which they've done well in playoffs), you can trust that it will follow them as well.

Yehoodi
10-29-2011, 09:55 AM
Ok, I get your argument and all, but the Steelers (and every other team) were LEGALLY using steroids in the '70s. The NFL didn't even ban steroid use until the late 80's (which is the earliest of all American professional sports). You use Jimmy Johnson as an example. Now, I'm not sure of the year this rule was put in place...and I know Jimmy admitted to doing the same...but I think it was after he was a coach. Also, Belicheck was caught AFTER a memo was sent out reiterating that videotaping was against the rules, and kept doing it anyway.

Now, with that said, I don't think it gave them as much as an advantage as many think it did...but they broke the rules. We'll also never know the extent of what was videotaped, since they were all destroyed. So just like Barry Bonds records are tarnished...as are the Patriots. As unfair as that may seem to you, it is what it is.

I agreed with all of your points . . . but I would add two things . .. one, if a lot of the teams did do it, and so to a point it mitigates the "advantage" . . . secondly, and most importantingly, the real issue is, or "was", did the patriots actaully violate the rule in place? . . . it was unclear if the rule meant the game in which the teams were playing or some "game" in the future 4 years hence . . . . that is the problem with the whole Spygate thing in my book . . . .

if the drafting of the rule (as the way I see it) is talking about using the tape in the same game (and thus the signals are the same) that rule as it is written does not specifically prohibit the use of creating an archive of tape to be used for what every purpose the team wants, to look at coaches making there signals to see if one can pick up tendencies, or what ever . . . see the problem?

lets look at it a different way . . . we have all seen the Keith Jackson's Gatorade commerical where the think tank in the lab developed Gatorade for their own college's players and there was a diference in those players late game performance as opposed to the other sidelines . . . and now everyone is using it . . . and lets presume for the moment is actually helps you as opposed to drinking water . . . then lets say for kicks that some of the teams in the NFL are using it and some cant, perhaps say for financial reasons as it is say very expensive. The NFL sees this discrepency and wants to even the playing field so it comes out with a rule that says "you can't drink Gatorade for the purposes of gaining an unfair advantage during the playing of a game", now we ALL know that rule deals with drinking Gatorade during that game and specifically during game time, so there is no argument what "game" we are talking about in . . ."playing of a game" . . .

then lets say one team decides to use the excess Gatorade, which is hanging around the stadium as it can't be used on Sunday, and gives it to it players on Wednesdays and Thursdays practices, and say the players have a positive feedback and say that they felt they had a slighlty better practice, but perhaps can not directly say that it helped their play on Sunday . . . the teams then decides to buy more Gatarode for just use during the week and prohibits its use on Sunday . . . now I ask you has this team violated the rule in the proceeding paragrah? . .. true they are drinking Gatarode and true there may be an argument that in some small way it helped them "during the plaing of a game" on Sunday . . . but have they really violated the rule?

I say no . . . it come does to one of interpretation of "playing of a game" and if one want to play fast and loose with the word "game" and expand it to all games, even though was never the original intent of the rule, one would make out a violation . . .

if we fast forward to the taping sitation it is really the same as above, BB said that the rule as he seen it, and he has been in the league for 35 years, dealt with using the taping in game as was what the NFL was trying to prohibit (just like the Gatorade rule). And just like the Gatorade team was using Gatarode outside the use of the rule, BB was gathering tape outside of the rule to use as furture reference . . .. Goodell use the wider interpertation and said it applied to all games, present (in game) and future . . .

so I would think that most rational person would not really fault the team for using Gatorade during the week, and would understand that if a commisser was to made such action sanctioned, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule, likely some should understand that Goodell in the BB's case is acting outside the scope of the rule . . even tho in both cases one could say they both "violated" the rules, I think some sould realize that at times the interpertation (and original purpose) or rules should be viewed in light of ones actions and how we all view said persons actions . . .

surely if BB was using the tape in game, i would have a much different view on the matter, but just as i don't really have a big problem with a team using the Gatorade during the weak, provided there is no real benefit game come Sunday, I don't really have a problem with BB creating an archive, especially as signals are changed game to game . ..

my two and a half cents . . .

Yehoodi
10-29-2011, 09:58 AM
Not at all. Steroids were not illegal in the 70s, therefore it's two different concepts.

One, the Steelers weren't using anything that was against the rules at the time.

Two, the patriots* were certainly aware of the NFL rules and guidelines for video taping and blatantly and willingly disregarded them. Then were barely slapped on the wrist and prounced around like the prodigal son.

agreed 100% as to your points on steriods and its legality, but please see my two procdeeding posts (#90 and #92) as they should answer your points . . . it would be easier for me to reference those two posts then to draft a third here. . . thank you reading and saving me redraft time . . . :hatsoff:

Yehoodi
10-29-2011, 10:18 AM
Again, you are comparing something that was legal and practiced by every single team, to something that is illegal and potentially practiced by some teams (who really knows how many, all we can do is speculate). And if the Patriots think that someone is videotaping on the sidelines, then they should call for an investigation (as was done with them). If they don't, then you shouldn't continue to speculate as to how many teams or what teams have done this, and continue to do it.

It's like saying that if you get caught robbing a house, that criminal violation shouldn't stand out on your record because you claim that there are a bunch of other criminals out there robbing houses. Just because other people do illegal things, that doesn't diminish your own illegal acts.

And when speaking about the recent Jets incident, this is what they had to say about it.

"On Tuesday morning, the Jets issued a response to Pro Football Talk, explaining why the cameraman was on the sideline.

According to the team, the man "works for Jets TV and shoots footage for our team programming." The team also informed the site that, according to NFL guidelines, "[c]lub video crews and video crews from television stations that produce and telecast club-licensed programming (e.g. coaches' shows, team magazine-style shows, etc.) may also be permitted to have a camera on the sidelines to shoot footage for those club-licensed programs only."

Now, nothing has been said by the NFL (yet) regarding this situation...but I'm sure someone is looking into it. If they find that they broke the rules, they'll be punished the same way the Patriots and Broncos were. And if they find that the Jets have been videotaping for some time (i.e. years in which they've done well in playoffs), you can trust that it will follow them as well.

SCMom, I think you and I both agree on almost all of the points, please see my prior posts, 90, 92 and 93) . . . and i will just add a few points to respond to your post . . . first and most importantingly, I do have a problem if BB was taping DC signals and using them in game . . .and would be dissapointed, but to a lesser degree, if the rule actually covered future games, which i do not think it does nor was it the original intention of the rule . . .

I think it is important to remember when we criminalize one's acts we need to put them on notice first and let them know that the act is sanctioned. We can't, in good spirit, draft a rule, have someone take an act, then expand or redraft a rule such that it brings into the umbrella of the rule the acts taken . . . bottom line we can not criminilaze an act after it has happen (if fact this is called an ex post facto law which is unconstitutional in this country) . . . so it really comes down to what that rule covered (and the letter drafted in sept 2006 did not expand the rule it just reminded teams the rule existed, so it doesn't help if one it going to say that letter expanded the rule). . .

so before we even get to saying the Pats "did something illegal" one first has to prove that they did something that violate a rule on its face . . . and if they did so be it, but if they did not, then so be it in our favor . . .i did use the Gatorade analogy to make an example, I know Gatorade is cheap so really all teams could use it during practice, but I was trying to make a point of illustration of the breath of a rule and how we should view person acting in and around such breath. . .

ya, the point I was talking about the Jets has to do with taping in the fall of 2006 . . .i do know there was taping thing this year . . . and perhaps the team might be violation of the location of the camera guys rule a different rule, but i am not going to say as of yet they were violing the sanction against tape DC signals, which is a separate rule, the guy in '06 was taping signals . ..

and yes I do agree with you that if one gets caught violating a rule one can not claim another is doing it as an affirmative defense . . . my point about others are doing it deals more with the fact that the palying field was not slanted towards the pats and alot of teams were going it . . .also, in the pats case not so sure it was a violated as stated . . .

Kanata-Steeler
10-30-2011, 01:48 PM
/WHEN the Steelers get this SB, that will not only be the end of the Pats' "not-quite-real" dynasty, but it will fade an ignonomous DEATH!, (also because of that SORE-Loser Bellicheat) into obscurity.!

The Pittsburgh Steelers are the one-and-only "real" REIGNING DYNASY CHAMPS !!!, of ALL time, AND, Terry Bradshaw agree's with that too !
:)

Kanata-Steeler
10-30-2011, 01:57 PM
The Steelers are a flawed team this year. Also, it pains me to see this deviant playing QB

it's ok, you can come out of your "closet" now ?
:rofl:

Quasar
10-31-2011, 11:12 AM
So, Steelers missed the playoffs in 2000, 2003 and 2009. The Patriots missed them in 2000, 2002 and 2008. Therefore, both teams are equal.

How do you miss the playoffs in the middle of a "dynasty"? The Pats won the Super Bowl after the 2001, 2003 and 2004 seasons, but missed the playoffs after 2002. This harkens back to the 1980s 49ers teams. The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls in 6 seasons, and made the playoffs both seasons they did not go to the big game. In the middle of their dynasty, the 49ers lost a playoff game to the New York Giants 49-3!

That makes the Steelers decade of the 1970s a better dynasty than the 49ers of the 1980s, if you ask me. 2000-2009? Hard to say.

4xSBChamps
10-31-2011, 11:20 AM
How do you miss the playoffs in the middle of a "dynasty"?

"... what can I say???

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/Glensgages/football/BillBelicheat-hoodie.jpg

... battery in camera died..."

stlrtruck
10-31-2011, 11:36 AM
agreed 100% as to your points on steriods and its legality, but please see my two procdeeding posts (#90 and #92) as they should answer your points . . . it would be easier for me to reference those two posts then to draft a third here. . . thank you reading and saving me redraft time . . . :hatsoff:

First, the video taping was illegal, and the teams were made aware of it well before they were caught and even earlier that year. Now in terms of JJ's comments (or any former coaches comments since), I do not recall them saying that they had a camera man on the field. It is acceptable practice for a NFL team to have a camera in a separate booth, away from coaches to tape a game, but it was certainly illegal to have a 'video guy' on the sideline taping the opposing team's coaches. It's definitely an advantage if you can go back to tape and watch calls made during the game, especially if you play that team again. I also belive that certain coaches made comments to avoid putting a black eye on the NFL (well more like blackening the other eye - but that's my opinion).

Second, the steriod usage in the 70's and early 80's was not illegal. To try to compare the two is different. I don't know any player who denies the availability or usage by players during that time. But the NFL also didn't put out a stand against it's usage until the mid-late 80's.

So when I take in to account my opinion that old coaches made comments so as not to make the NFL look bad, compared to the arrogance and smug attitude with which the patriots* owner, players, and coaches approached the allegations, and the way in which the NFL dealt with it, it tells me that there was more to this than we will ever know.

I would be embarrassed as a fan if my team was caught cheating that brought a cloud of doubt over their victories. I don't think there is an argument that can defend such actions, and I wouldn't want to have to defend them. But I guess we're blessed to cheer for a team that at least has a higher standard than the patriots*.