PDA

View Full Version : patriots vs. falcons update


tony hipchest
08-11-2006, 09:45 PM
m. cassell showed great resolve after missing a wide open wr by 10 yds on a 30 yard pass, by throwing a 5 yard dart to p. cobbs on a screen play that went for a 57 yd td in what has to be the play of the game.

if cassell can continue doing exactly what is drawn up by the coaches and told to him over the headset, rather than actually trying to throw the ball, i predict he could actually lead the league in passing some day.

brady had a stellar preformance too, completing 75% of his passes for 23 yards but it is obvious that with cassell clearly throwing for more yards that he was the better qb in this game.

tony hipchest
08-11-2006, 09:57 PM
gramattica ties the game with 2:40 left with a 30 yd kick. so far he is 2/2 adding a 26 yarder. i think its safe to say that vinatieris replacement has been found. assuming brady or cassell is the qb and belichick is there to fart on his foot, how could he possibly miss?

MattsMe
08-11-2006, 10:01 PM
:sofunny: Don't forget the Patriots impressive runs against that tough Atlanta run defense.

tony hipchest
08-11-2006, 10:09 PM
:sofunny: Don't forget the Patriots impressive runs against that tough Atlanta run defense.
the commentators just mentionned how great the pats have run the ball. too bad the falcons have have out matched them by more than 40 yards to the tune of 200+ yards.

btw- vick had a bradyesque preformance. 3/4 26 yds. actually vick proved to be better tonight.

falcons win with a vinatieriesque last second kick from 40.

i love dick enberg signing off saying the falcons win over a very talented patriots team "although the patriots sidelined many of their starters early", as if the falcons didnt.

MattsMe
08-11-2006, 10:11 PM
And with a tied ball game, the Patriots lose on a last second field goal. Kind of ironic.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 01:33 AM
Pre-season defeat is a definite pre-cursor to a disastrous regular season campaign - just ask last years Steelers.

Its good to see that the pain of those defeats in the AFCCG's hasn't faded yet. :chuckle:

It was a nice work out for young Cassell - he threw for 220 yards for a TD and no INT's - and still he knows that he didnt fully realise his potential.

I look forward to watching Bradshaw...I mean...Big Ben rip open the Arizona defense with his usual surgical precision (no pun intended).

NM

MattsMe
08-12-2006, 02:21 AM
Pre-season defeat is a definite pre-cursor to a disastrous regular season campaign - just ask last years Steelers.

Its good to see that the pain of those defeats in the AFCCG's hasn't faded yet. :chuckle:

It was a nice work out for young Cassell - he threw for 220 yards for a TD and no INT's - and still he knows that he didnt fully realise his potential.

I look forward to watching Bradshaw...I mean...Big Ben rip open the Arizona defense with his usual surgical precision (no pun intended).

NM

No one said anything about preseason being a prediction of the regular season.

The game being discussed actually occured during this season, unlike the AFCCG's. They have nothing to do with the topic.

Cassell knows he didn't fully realize his potential, good for him. So does every decent player after every game. Nearly every player knows he can top his last performance.

Bradshaw? Funny you should bring him up here, as you've been very quiet in the other thread about him.

Last year's Steelers, the AFCCG's, Bradshaw, none of these have anything to do with the current season, or the game being discussed. Someone is obviously living in the past.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 02:50 AM
No one said anything about preseason being a prediction of the regular season.

The game being discussed actually occured during this season, unlike the AFCCG's. They have nothing to do with the topic.

Cassell knows he didn't fully realize his potential, good for him. So does every decent player after every game. Nearly every player knows he can top his last performance.

Bradshaw? Funny you should bring him up here, as you've been very quiet in the other thread about him.

Last year's Steelers, the AFCCG's, Bradshaw, none of these have anything to do with the current season, or the game being discussed. Someone is obviously living in the past.

Wow what a clever reference to my username Mattsme - haven't heard that one before ha ha.

Unfortunately I wasn't posting on this forum at the time of those two games - maybe you'd like to give me a run through your thoughts about those AFCCG's - I know it cant be easy to get so badly owned in the big AFC game - at home - wow that really must hurt - even all these years later.

I post on whichever topic suits me at the time, im under no obligation to reply to anything you have to say.

The Bradshaw topic was fast becoming a real yawner - no offense....(geddit...no 'offense'?)

But I knew you'd bite soon enough on reference to him on here :sofunny:

NM

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 10:31 AM
Pre-season defeat is a definite pre-cursor to a disastrous regular season campaign - just ask last years Steelers.

Its good to see that the pain of those defeats in the AFCCG's hasn't faded yet. :chuckle:

It was a nice work out for young Cassell - he threw for 220 yards for a TD and no INT's - and still he knows that he didnt fully realise his potential.

I look forward to watching Bradshaw...I mean...Big Ben rip open the Arizona defense with his usual surgical precision (no pun intended).

NMwow! even a preseason loss of the patriots irks you to the point of making snide sarcastic remaks.

you seize the cape of captain obvious if you are saying that a pre-season defeat is definitely NOT a pre cursor to a disasterous regular season campaign. we all know this. case in point 2005 colts, who lost 5 in a row then went on to post the longest winning streak of the season.

in fact the steelers historically dont come out of the gate strong. 6 times under cowher theyve had a losing pre season, and 3 times theyve been .500. but to illustrate your much too obvious point theyve reached the afcc game 6 times and put up more wins than any other team during that time.

preseason is really a time for the steelers to figure out which scraps we will be tossing to the pats. good luck. you may land a nice wr like q. morgan. we have too many!

CantStop85
08-12-2006, 12:18 PM
Cassell and Maroney looked great for the patriots...the one thing I would be worried about if I were a patriots fan is the secondary.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 12:24 PM
wow! even a preseason loss of the patriots irks you to the point of making snide sarcastic remaks.

you seize the cape of captain obvious if you are saying that a pre-season defeat is definitely NOT a pre cursor to a disasterous regular season campaign. we all know this. case in point 2005 colts, who lost 5 in a row then went on to post the longest winning streak of the season.

in fact the steelers historically dont come out of the gate strong. 6 times under cowher theyve had a losing pre season, and 3 times theyve been .500. but to illustrate your much too obvious point theyve reached the afcc game 6 times and put up more wins than any other team during that time.

preseason is really a time for the steelers to figure out which scraps we will be tossing to the pats. good luck. you may land a nice wr like q. morgan. we have too many!

Snide sarcastic remarks?

Im only following your well worn lead Tony - your lead post is practically dripping with poor attempts at irony.

Thanks for spending all that time re-iterating a point I made more succinctly in a couple of lines.

Just because I find your posts amusing in way you did not intend - doesn't mean I am 'irked' by a Patriots pre-season loss.

There were plenty of positives to be taken from that game - some of which I have already highlighted.

NM

lilyoder6
08-12-2006, 12:25 PM
Maroney looked great yesterday in my opion.. he is a tough back that will be good in the league and prob take the starting position from cory

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 12:28 PM
Cassell and Maroney looked great for the patriots...the one thing I would be worried about if I were a patriots fan is the secondary.

Cassell has looked pretty good so far in limited action - he has tremendous upside, but alot to learn after hardly playing at college.

Im excited by Maroney, and the combination he can put together with a fitter Dillon - I think the Patriots will run the ball alot more this year than in years gone past with our improved O-Line and H-back options.

The secondary definitely needs some work, as much as I hate to admit it we do need Harrison back there until one of the younger guys becomes confident enough to start taking the lead.

NM

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 12:40 PM
Cassell and Maroney looked great for the patriots...the one thing I would be worried about if I were a patriots fan is the secondary.all the patriots losses last year came against a top notch pro bowl calibur qb. with exception to beating the steelers and big ben all their wins came against sub par qb's.

luckily for the pats they wont need a secondary against the likes of losman or whichever qb the jets throw out. they will have their usual split with miami. i will give them a loss if they face palmer, plummer, and manning. thats 4 losses. the 2 toss up games are how they fare against an ex star in farve and a potential star in leftwhich.

brad johnson
david carr
jon kitna
rex grossman
and b. volek are not gonna give even their weak secondary problems.

12-4 is possible but 10-6 is likely with even me and you in the secondary. if anyone thinks the pats can beat the colts, denver, miami twice, and the bengals they might as well guarantee a 16-0 season.

Sharkissle29
08-12-2006, 12:57 PM
i have a question....why arnt the patriots on our schedule this year? bush league

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 01:10 PM
i have a question....why arnt the patriots on our schedule this year? bush league
its because the scheduling isnt random. it follows the same pattern every year. the steelers will play 6 games vs. its afc north opponents. tha afc north will play 4 games against the afc west, and the nfc south wich is set up on a rotational basis. that leaves 2 games both against afc opponents in the 2 remaining afc divisions we dont already play. (afc south and afc east.) since we finished 2nd in our division last year, we will play the 2nd place finisher in each of these divisions which is miami and jacksonville.

since the bengals finished 1st in our division they get to face the 1st place finishers of the colts and patriots. this is the same format used every year. browns will play the texans and jets.(all finished last in their respective division) this is really where the strength of schedule comes into play. other than 4 games all teams face pretty much the same strength of schedule.

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 01:19 PM
Im only following your well worn lead Tony - your lead post is practically dripping with poor attempts at irony.



NM my lead post was an update of the only game that happened to be televised. you seem quite irritable lately. im sure the dissention amongst the pats org is just a phase that will soon pass once the season starts. no need to be so defensive, and thank you for being so succinct.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 02:42 PM
my lead post was an update of the only game that happened to be televised. you seem quite irritable lately. im sure the dissention amongst the pats org is just a phase that will soon pass once the season starts. no need to be so defensive, and thank you for being so succinct.

No one doubts your ability and your unending stamina to be irritating Tony - that was obvious about 2 days after you started posting here.

I find myself to be mostly unaffected by this charming trait of yours though - I just think of of them AFCCG's and smile to myself.

No amount of lame preseason smack regarding our back-up QB is going to change that.

NM

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 02:45 PM
all the patriots losses last year came against a top notch pro bowl calibur qb. with exception to beating the steelers and big ben all their wins came against sub par qb's.

luckily for the pats they wont need a secondary against the likes of losman or whichever qb the jets throw out. they will have their usual split with miami. i will give them a loss if they face palmer, plummer, and manning. thats 4 losses. the 2 toss up games are how they fare against an ex star in farve and a potential star in leftwhich.

brad johnson
david carr
jon kitna
rex grossman
and b. volek are not gonna give even their weak secondary problems.

12-4 is possible but 10-6 is likely with even me and you in the secondary. if anyone thinks the pats can beat the colts, denver, miami twice, and the bengals they might as well guarantee a 16-0 season.

Its funny you should mention the Patriots losses aginst top quality QB's - makes the win over the mightly Ben R. even more impressive wouldnt you say?

NM

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 02:53 PM
Its funny you should mention the Patriots losses aginst top quality QB's - makes the win over the mightly Ben R. even more impressive wouldnt you say?

NMno. but it does make their loss to denver in the playoffs much more understandable.

too bad gramattica cant make that kick at heinz field to win it at the end huh? :bouncy:

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 02:54 PM
No one doubts your ability and your unending stamina to be irritating Tony - that was obvious about 2 days after you started posting here.


NM

:cool: - finally you have something nice to say!

thats pretty defensive to think im running smack on cassell. someone a bit more intuitive could clearly see im making fun of the patriots scheme. dont let it get under your skin. think of your teams 3 sb wins and be happy :smile:

MattsMe
08-12-2006, 03:31 PM
Wow what a clever reference to my username Mattsme - haven't heard that one before ha ha.

Unfortunately I wasn't posting on this forum at the time of those two games - maybe you'd like to give me a run through your thoughts about those AFCCG's - I know it cant be easy to get so badly owned in the big AFC game - at home - wow that really must hurt - even all these years later.

I post on whichever topic suits me at the time, im under no obligation to reply to anything you have to say.

The Bradshaw topic was fast becoming a real yawner - no offense....(geddit...no 'offense'?)

But I knew you'd bite soon enough on reference to him on here :sofunny:

NM

Nice to see you avoid all of my points. Again.

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 03:37 PM
Nice to see you avoid all of my points. Again.in order to get a response youre gonna have to be much more irritating than that. if only you had gotten under his skin within your 1st 2 days of posting....

btw ben and his surgical precision prove to be in superior form as the reigning sb champ goes 3/4 for 29 yds.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 05:40 PM
Apologies mattsme - I sometimes forget you hang on my every word.

No one said anything about preseason being a prediction of the regular season.

The game being discussed actually occured during this season, unlike the AFCCG's. They have nothing to do with the topic. .

If I waited for permission to bring certain subjects into the thread, id probably be waiting a long time. If you dont want to address the points I make than feel free to ignore them - I do the same to alot of your posts.

Cassell knows he didn't fully realize his potential, good for him. So does every decent player after every game. Nearly every player knows he can top his last performance..

Are you suggesting that players know that they can improve on their previous performance in every game?

That seems highly unlikely to me - players have good and bad games - rookies and players with less experience tend to have more of the latter.

My comment about Cassell saying he could do better impressed me because he had a good game - instead of dwelling on his achievements he was already looking ahead.

Bradshaw? Funny you should bring him up here, as you've been very quiet in the other thread about him..

The Bradshaw thread bored me. So Brady doesnt have as many rings as Bradshaw yet has 3 times the number Ben has?

Bradshaw has a high QB rating because he hardly threw a pass for 2 of the 4 SB apperances.

You like to pretend that I said that QB rating means everything - when in fact I said it was an indicator of performance.

I dont expect this to register, and fully expect you to make some remark, in the near future, about how QB rating is all......you are nothing if not predictable.

Last year's Steelers, the AFCCG's, Bradshaw, none of these have anything to do with the current season, or the game being discussed. Someone is obviously living in the past.

I gave this particular sentence the treatment it deserve.

A risible effort at making a play on my name that has already been made a 1001 times on this forum.

The guy with livinginthepast as a name is....livinginthepast.....I dont think Seinfeld will be sweating his standup spot.

I hope this response validated your earlier post - id hate to think you felt you were wasting your time.

NM

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 05:49 PM
way to go mattsme! i think youve irritated him.

Livinginthe past
08-12-2006, 05:53 PM
way to go mattsme! i think youve irritated him.

Hows that cards game working out for you?

Oh its just practice and Cowher "isn't trying to win".

Sounds like denial to me.

Matt Cassell > boyd + batch

Take it easy.

NM

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 05:57 PM
Hows that cards game working out for you?

Oh its just practice and Cowher "isn't trying to win".

Sounds like denial to me.

Matt Cassell > boyd + batch

Take it easy.

NM

hahahahahahaha!

winning the sb > losing to jake plummer and the broncos.

good to know the pats can let go of brady and the owner pocket alot of cash as long as 'chick is the coach. good luck with that one! i cant wait to see cassell in some real game action.

the cards game went pretty well. we warmed up several future patriots for ya!

MattsMe
08-12-2006, 06:06 PM
No one said anything about preseason being a prediction of the regular season.

The game being discussed actually occured during this season, unlike the AFCCG's. They have nothing to do with the topic.

Cassell knows he didn't fully realize his potential, good for him. So does every decent player after every game. Nearly every player knows he can top his last performance.

Bradshaw? Funny you should bring him up here, as you've been very quiet in the other thread about him.

Last year's Steelers, the AFCCG's, Bradshaw, none of these have anything to do with the current season, or the game being discussed. Someone is obviously living in the past.

Fact: You were the first to bring up preseason as an indicator of the regular season.

Fact: The AFCCG's have nothing to do with the game being discussed for two obvious reasons. The game actually occured this year, and the Steelers didn't play in it.

Fact: You criticized Bradshaw's SB performances, and said Brady is a better SB QB than Bradshaw and Dilfer combined. You actually said Bradshaw had just 1 good SB performance out of 4. These are opinions. I pointed out facts which clearly prove Bradshaw performed better in the SB than Brady.

Fact: Most players believe they always have room for improvement.

Fact: This thread was about a game that was currently in progress. Other than the comment about Cassell, all of your points were on topics from the past.

I will not get into an argument with you using opinion versus opinion. It's pointless. Spin them, avoid them, ignore them, and distort them as much as you want. You cannot argue facts.

tony hipchest
08-12-2006, 06:11 PM
Fact: You were the first to bring up preseason as an indicator of the regular season.

Fact: The AFCCG's have nothing to do with the game being discussed for two obvious reasons. The game actually occured this year, and the Steelers didn't play in it.

Fact: You criticized Bradshaw's SB performances, and said Brady is a better SB QB than Bradshaw and Dilfer combined. You actually said Bradshaw had just 1 good SB performance out of 4. These are opinions. I pointed out facts which clearly prove Bradshaw performed better in the SB than Brady.

Fact: Most players believe they always have room for improvement.

Fact: This thread was about a game that was currently in progress. Other than the comment about Cassell, all of your points were on topics from the past.

I will not get into an argument with you using opinion versus opinion. It's pointless. Spin them, avoid them, ignore them, and distort them as much as you want. You cannot argue facts.

your facts bore me. i will no longer post in this thread :sofunny:

MattsMe
08-12-2006, 06:12 PM
your facts bore me. i will no longer post in this thread :sofunny:

They do seem to have that sudden effect. :sofunny:

SteelShooter
08-12-2006, 07:19 PM
It was a really good game!

Livinginthe past
08-13-2006, 01:35 AM
your facts bore me. i will no longer post in this thread :sofunny:

Unfortunately they expect me to actually do some work now and then at my place of employment.

Just like you to claim victory prematurely.

NM

Livinginthe past
08-13-2006, 01:37 AM
hahahahahahaha!

winning the sb > losing to jake plummer and the broncos.

good to know the pats can let go of brady and the owner pocket alot of cash as long as 'chick is the coach. good luck with that one! i cant wait to see cassell in some real game action.

the cards game went pretty well. we warmed up several future patriots for ya!

BB's 3 SB's > Cowhers 1 SB

Winning 3 out of 4 SB's > Getting owned at home on two occasions in the AFCCG.

Patriots own you and your team.

Get used to it.

NM

Livinginthe past
08-13-2006, 02:00 AM
Fact: You were the first to bring up preseason as an indicator of the regular season..

I was the first to bring it up in the sense that it isn't an indicator.

Nice try.

Fact: The AFCCG's have nothing to do with the game being discussed for two obvious reasons. The game actually occured this year, and the Steelers didn't play in it. .

I didn't say that it did have anything to do with it.

I also said that I can bring the discussion in any direction I please, if you want to follow thats up to you.

Fact: You criticized Bradshaw's SB performances, and said Brady is a better SB QB than Bradshaw and Dilfer combined. You actually said Bradshaw had just 1 good SB performance out of 4. These are opinions. I pointed out facts which clearly prove Bradshaw performed better in the SB than Brady. .

Well it depends on what 'facts' we use doesnt it?

Brady throws for 6TD's for every INT.
Bradshaw throws for 2.25 TD's for every INT.

Brady throws for an average of 245 yards.
Bradshaw throws for an average of 233 yards.

Brady completes 66% of his passes.
Bradshaw completes only 58% of his passes.

Fact: Most players believe they always have room for improvement. .

Thats an opinion, learn the difference if you are going to try and lecture me on the very same point.

Fact: This thread was about a game that was currently in progress. Other than the comment about Cassell, all of your points were on topics from the past..

And?

I've already stated I can post on whatever I choose.

I will not get into an argument with you using opinion versus opinion. It's pointless. Spin them, avoid them, ignore them, and distort them as much as you want. You cannot argue facts.

I just did.

NM

MattsMe
08-13-2006, 02:16 AM
I was the first to bring it up in the sense that it isn't an indicator.

Nice try.



I didn't say that it did have anything to do with it.

I also said that I can bring the discussion in any direction I please, if you want to follow thats up to you.



Well it depends on what 'facts' we use doesnt it?

Brady throws for 6TD's for every INT.
Bradshaw throws for 2.25 TD's for every INT.

Brady throws for an average of 245 yards.
Bradshaw throws for an average of 233 yards.

Brady completes 66% of his passes.
Bradshaw completes only 58% of his passes.



Thats an opinion, learn the difference if you are going to try and lecture me on the very same point.



And?

I've already stated I can post on whatever I choose.



I just did.

NM

Go back and read as many player interviews as you can, especially during the offseason. Find one player who says "I don't think I can get any better." Then you'll have a valid point.

The reality is you haven't argued a single one of the facts, because they're just that, facts. I wasn't trying to start an argument, because there is not here to be started. What part of that don't you get?

Word it any way you want, it just can't be done. The fact that you actually think there is a "victory" to be won here says plenty. So I will leave it up to you to claim it, even if it's only in your head.

Livinginthe past
08-13-2006, 02:58 AM
Go back and read as many player interviews as you can, especially during the offseason. Find one player who says "I don't think I can get any better." Then you'll have a valid point.

The reality is you haven't argued a single one of the facts, because they're just that, facts. I wasn't trying to start an argument, because there is not here to be started. What part of that don't you get?

Word it any way you want, it just can't be done. The fact that you actually think there is a "victory" to be won here says plenty. So I will leave it up to you to claim it, even if it's only in your head.

So you are saying that I haven't argued your facts - because they are...... facts?

So what am I supposed to be doing here?

You want me to try and argue them or not?

I haven't disputed any of your 'facts' - just the conclusions you draw from them.

Bradshaw has a better passer rating than Brady over their Sb careers to date - Fact.

Bradshaw is a better SB QB than Brady - Opinion.

Like I say, learn the difference before you accuse me of avoiding your 'points'.

NM

MattsMe
08-13-2006, 04:34 AM
So you are saying that I haven't argued your facts - because they are...... facts?

So what am I supposed to be doing here?

You want me to try and argue them or not?

I haven't disputed any of your 'facts' - just the conclusions you draw from them.

Bradshaw has a better passer rating than Brady over their Sb careers to date - Fact.

Bradshaw is a better SB QB than Brady - Opinion.

Like I say, learn the difference before you accuse me of avoiding your 'points'.

NM

Perhaps you missed it when I said "I wasn't trying to start an argument here, because there is not one to be started. What part of that don't you get?" You quoted me on it, but obviously still didn't get it.

Bradshaw is a better SB QB than Brady is an opinion? Let's see, Bradshaw has a better SB passer rating than Brady, but that wasn't enough for you. Fair enough. You pointed out individual stats where Brady clearly had the edge. That's nice. Where do those stats fall in relation to winning games? Surely you would agree that the most important stats for a QB to excel in are the ones that translate into wins, wouldn't you?

Well here's the top four QB stats that matter, ranked in order of importance when it comes to winning games.

Yards per attempt

Passer rating

TD passes

Passing yards

QB's who win the YPA battle win the highest percentage of games.

QB's with a higher passer rating have the second highest winning percentage.

TD passes, third highest percentage.

Passing yards, fourth highest.

So let's see how the two stack up in SB's.

Bradshaw, 11.1 YPA Brady, 6.8

Bradshaw, 112.8 rating. Brady, 99.9

Bradshaw 2.25 TD's per game. Brady, 2.

Bradshaw, 233 yards. Brady, 245.

Congratulations, Brady loses the battle in the three most important categories, but he sure got him on number four. This must mean Brady's the better SB QB. If it doesn't, then what are we left with? Bradshaw as the better SB QB? No, it can't be!

Accepting the facts is not the end of the world, life will go on. Football did actually exist before the 2001 season, and it will exist long after Brady retires, probably as a future hall of famer. No one is saying Brady sucks, so lighten up.

I've really left nothing open for debate on this subject, but since when has that mattered? Regardless, this is my final reply on the topic.

Livinginthe past
08-13-2006, 05:06 AM
Perhaps you missed it when I said "I wasn't trying to start an argument here, because there is not one to be started. What part of that don't you get?" You quoted me on it, but obviously still didn't get it.

Bradshaw is a better SB QB than Brady is an opinion? Let's see, Bradshaw has a better SB passer rating than Brady, but that wasn't enough for you. Fair enough. You pointed out individual stats where Brady clearly had the edge. That's nice. Where do those stats fall in relation to winning games? Surely you would agree that the most important stats for a QB to excel in are the ones that translate into wins, wouldn't you?

Well here's the top four QB stats that matter, ranked in order of importance when it comes to winning games.

Yards per attempt

Passer rating

TD passes

Passing yards

QB's who win the YPA battle win the highest percentage of games.

QB's with a higher passer rating have the second highest winning percentage.

TD passes, third highest percentage.

Passing yards, fourth highest.

So let's see how the two stack up in SB's.

Bradshaw, 11.1 YPA Brady, 6.8

Bradshaw, 112.8 rating. Brady, 99.9

Bradshaw 2.25 TD's per game. Brady, 2.

Bradshaw, 233 yards. Brady, 245.

Congratulations, Brady loses the battle in the three most important categories, but he sure got him on number four. This must mean Brady's the better SB QB. If it doesn't, then what are we left with? Bradshaw as the better SB QB? No, it can't be!

Accepting the facts is not the end of the world, life will go on. Football did actually exist before the 2001 season, and it will exist long after Brady retires, probably as a future hall of famer. No one is saying Brady sucks, so lighten up.

I've really left nothing open for debate on this subject, but since when has that mattered? Regardless, this is my final reply on the topic.

The most important factor is that Bradshaw had better WR's to throw to.

Like you said, there is no arguing that point.

NM

hardwork
08-13-2006, 07:38 PM
The most important factor is that Bradshaw had better WR's to throw to.

Like you said, there is no arguing that point.

NM

Clearly. All Bradshaw had to do was throw the ball down field and watch Swann or Stallworth run under it. I think even Ben Motorcycle could have gotten a QB rating of over 25 with those two.

These Steelers win 1 SB and their fans think they have all the answers.

tony hipchest
08-13-2006, 08:21 PM
Clearly. All Bradshaw had to do was throw the ball down field and watch Swann or Stallworth run under it. I think even Ben Motorcycle could have gotten a QB rating of over 25 with those two.

These Steelers win 1 SB and their fans think they have all the answers.
youre defending litp's weak excuses to why brady is clearly inferior to bradshaw? :busted:

classic!

if brady could throw the ball downfield on a consistant basis and if your teams owner werent such a tightwad maybe branch and givens coulda put up numbers like lynn and swann (doubtful but possible).

the inferiority complex the patfans have in regards to the steelers is amazing.

hardwork
08-14-2006, 12:19 AM
youre defending litp's weak excuses to why brady is clearly inferior to bradshaw? :busted:

classic!

if brady could throw the ball downfield on a consistant basis and if your teams owner werent such a tightwad maybe branch and givens coulda put up numbers like lynn and swann (doubtful but possible).

the inferiority complex the patfans have in regards to the steelers is amazing.

Good lord, come to Boston and take some adult education courses. Stop embarrassing yourself. Your team got lucky and won one SB. Congratulations, you had enough chances. Meanwhile, bow down to New England and pray you ever attain our level of consistent excellence.

God we're good.

tony hipchest
08-14-2006, 12:29 AM
Good lord, come to Boston and take some adult education courses. Stop embarrassing yourself. Your team got lucky and won one SB. Congratulations, you had enough chances. Meanwhile, bow down to New England and pray you ever attain our level of consistent excellence.

God we're good.

were good.

+ belichick

- weiss, mangina, crenell, mcginnest, vinatieri, bruschi, law, harisson, givens, branch =

HAHAHAHAHA! :sofunny:

btw cowher has a better winning % than 'chick and is worth more on the free market. 'chick has let his family down and nothing more than jimmy johnson without the hairdo.

Livinginthe past
08-14-2006, 01:06 AM
Good lord, come to Boston and take some adult education courses. Stop embarrassing yourself. Your team got lucky and won one SB. Congratulations, you had enough chances. Meanwhile, bow down to New England and pray you ever attain our level of consistent excellence.

God we're good.

I dont know about you, but im sick of this inferiority complex us Patriots fans have in regard to the Steelers.

They march into our house, in the AFCCG no less, on two occasions and own us in front of our own fans.

The current administration that we always find the time to mock has won no less than 3 SB's in the era of football parity which puts them waaaaay ahead of the competition.

They have the best modern day QB at their disposal, recipient of MVP's in two of his three SB victories and a coach that continues to push back the boundaries of coaching skill.

Their players and coaching staff are continuously head hunted by other teams looking to tap into the magic they generate season in, season out.

In my desperation im probably going to have to list these players and coaches in order to make it seems as if they are going to go 6-10 next year (we know what thats like, right?) rather than praising them for being a modern day conveyor belt for excellence.

Im also probably going to have to keep harping back to the 70's in order to even up the score in terms of success - yes, its 30 years ago...but like I said - im desperate.

You know how you can tell im envious of the Steelers?

Its because I cant stop posting smack about them?

I'll even go as far as to make jokes about strokes - yep, im desperate and envious alright.

NM

MattsMe
08-14-2006, 03:23 AM
The current administration that we always find the time to mock has won no less than 3 SB's in the era of football parity which puts them waaaaay ahead of the competition.
NM


Notice the date: December 16, 2004

Parity has been a buzzword in NFL circles for about a decade, at least since the dawn of the salary-cap era in 1994. Each time there?s a tight game or a bottleneck of teams fighting for playoff spots late in the season the ?pundits? reach for their flask of clich?s and take a big swig of 100-proof parity.

But parity this year is nothing more than an intoxicating elixir that clouds judgment and historical perspective and inspires irrational behavior. In the interest of maintaining law and order in Pigskin County, we turned to a portly, donut-munching constable called the Cold, Hard Football Facts to beat down the ?pundits?? door, confiscate their moonshine and inform them that the parity?s over. Here?s our search warrant.

Dominant teams are back with a vengeance. After a brief period in which each year?s Super Bowl champion seemed a surprise, the league has settled into a more historically rational pattern in which a handful of teams can be counted on to compete for a title each season.

The Eagles (12-1) have been in three straight conference title games and are an overwhelming favorite to represent the NFC in Super Bowl XXXIX. Sure, the Steelers (12-1) were 6-10 in 2003. But they have the second most wins in the salary-cap era (110) and are poised to appear in their fifth AFC title game since 1994. The Patriots (12-1) stand alone as the first budding dynasty of the 21st century. They?ve clinched a playoff spot for the sixth time in nine seasons and could become just the fourth team in NFL history to win three titles in four years, joining the Bears ( ?40, ?41, ?43), Packers (?65, ?66, ?67) and Cowboys (?92, ?93, ?95).

You can also add the Colts and Packers to the list of local deputies breaking up the drunken barn dance of parity. The Colts (10-3) have clinched their fifth playoff appearance in six years and are on pace to set an NFL single-season scoring record. The Packers (8-5) lead the league with 116 wins in the salary-cap era, have not had a losing season since 1991, and are positioned to make their 10th playoff appearance in 12 years.

The return of dominant powers has been punctuated by a season in which, for the first time in NFL history, three teams are 12-1. Only three teams have gone 15-1 in the regular season since the league went to a 16-game schedule in 1978. Three could turn that trick in 2004, handcuffing the idea that the league is defined by parity.

Games are less competitive this season. Since the AFL-NFL merger, there?s been a gradual rise in the competitiveness of NFL games. In the 1970s, 40.8 percent of all NFL games were decided by seven points or less; in the 1980s, 45.7 percent; in the 1990s, 46.4 percent. The trend continued into the 21st century and peaked in 2001 (48.8 percent), 2002 (49.2 percent) and 2003 (48.4 percent). This phenomenon, more than anything, spawned the parity buzzword.
But that trend toward tighter ballgames has made a sudden reversal this season: just 42.8 percent of NFL games this year (89 of 208 through Week 14) have been decided by seven points or less. Only four times in the last 28 seasons (and not once since 1992, before the dawn of the salary-cap era) have a lower percentage of games been decided by seven points or less. Little more than one in five games (21.6 percent) this season have been decided by a field goal or less. That?s the sixth lowest rate since 1978.
***
Despite the lockdown by the long arm of pigskin law, the ?pundits? continue to pour stale stories about parity from a rusty old keg of gridiron ignorance. Apparently, it?s easier than tapping into a fresh, frothy storyline. Part of the problem with the "pundits" is that their addiction to parity clouds their sense of historical perspective. They insist that the great teams of the past are better than the great teams of today, or that the crowd of clubs fighting for a playoff spot late in the season is a modern phenomenon. But here?s the historical truth according to the Rosco P. Coltrane of the local pigskin constabulary, the Cold, Hard Football Facts.

This year?s playoff logjam is not unusual. With three weeks left in the 2004 season, 23 of 32 teams (72 percent) have either clinched a playoff spot or still have a shot at postseason play. This number has been cited as an example of modern NFL parity. But it?s completely normal by historical standards. In 1983 the league fielded just 28 teams, but 24 (86 percent) had clinched a postseason spot or still had a shot at one with three weeks to play. In 1995, 27 of 30 teams (90 percent) were in the playoffs or the playoff hunt with three weeks left. Back in 1981, 16 of 28 teams (57 percent) were still alive heading into the very last week of the season.

These historical numbers are more impressive when you consider that from 1978 to 1993 the NFL playoff format included just 10 teams. Today, 12 teams make the playoffs.

Livinginthe past
08-14-2006, 03:53 AM
Notice the date: December 16, 2004

Parity has been a buzzword in NFL circles for about a decade, at least since the dawn of the salary-cap era in 1994. Each time there’s a tight game or a bottleneck of teams fighting for playoff spots late in the season the “pundits” reach for their flask of clich?s and take a big swig of 100-proof parity.

But parity this year is nothing more than an intoxicating elixir that clouds judgment and historical perspective and inspires irrational behavior. In the interest of maintaining law and order in Pigskin County, we turned to a portly, donut-munching constable called the Cold, Hard Football Facts to beat down the “pundits’” door, confiscate their moonshine and inform them that the parity’s over. Here’s our search warrant.

Dominant teams are back with a vengeance. After a brief period in which each year’s Super Bowl champion seemed a surprise, the league has settled into a more historically rational pattern in which a handful of teams can be counted on to compete for a title each season.

The Eagles (12-1) have been in three straight conference title games and are an overwhelming favorite to represent the NFC in Super Bowl XXXIX. Sure, the Steelers (12-1) were 6-10 in 2003. But they have the second most wins in the salary-cap era (110) and are poised to appear in their fifth AFC title game since 1994. The Patriots (12-1) stand alone as the first budding dynasty of the 21st century. They’ve clinched a playoff spot for the sixth time in nine seasons and could become just the fourth team in NFL history to win three titles in four years, joining the Bears ( ’40, ’41, ’43), Packers (’65, ’66, ’67) and Cowboys (’92, ’93, ’95).

You can also add the Colts and Packers to the list of local deputies breaking up the drunken barn dance of parity. The Colts (10-3) have clinched their fifth playoff appearance in six years and are on pace to set an NFL single-season scoring record. The Packers (8-5) lead the league with 116 wins in the salary-cap era, have not had a losing season since 1991, and are positioned to make their 10th playoff appearance in 12 years.

The return of dominant powers has been punctuated by a season in which, for the first time in NFL history, three teams are 12-1. Only three teams have gone 15-1 in the regular season since the league went to a 16-game schedule in 1978. Three could turn that trick in 2004, handcuffing the idea that the league is defined by parity.

Games are less competitive this season. Since the AFL-NFL merger, there’s been a gradual rise in the competitiveness of NFL games. In the 1970s, 40.8 percent of all NFL games were decided by seven points or less; in the 1980s, 45.7 percent; in the 1990s, 46.4 percent. The trend continued into the 21st century and peaked in 2001 (48.8 percent), 2002 (49.2 percent) and 2003 (48.4 percent). This phenomenon, more than anything, spawned the parity buzzword.
But that trend toward tighter ballgames has made a sudden reversal this season: just 42.8 percent of NFL games this year (89 of 208 through Week 14) have been decided by seven points or less. Only four times in the last 28 seasons (and not once since 1992, before the dawn of the salary-cap era) have a lower percentage of games been decided by seven points or less. Little more than one in five games (21.6 percent) this season have been decided by a field goal or less. That’s the sixth lowest rate since 1978.
***
Despite the lockdown by the long arm of pigskin law, the “pundits” continue to pour stale stories about parity from a rusty old keg of gridiron ignorance. Apparently, it’s easier than tapping into a fresh, frothy storyline. Part of the problem with the "pundits" is that their addiction to parity clouds their sense of historical perspective. They insist that the great teams of the past are better than the great teams of today, or that the crowd of clubs fighting for a playoff spot late in the season is a modern phenomenon. But here’s the historical truth according to the Rosco P. Coltrane of the local pigskin constabulary, the Cold, Hard Football Facts.

This year’s playoff logjam is not unusual. With three weeks left in the 2004 season, 23 of 32 teams (72 percent) have either clinched a playoff spot or still have a shot at postseason play. This number has been cited as an example of modern NFL parity. But it’s completely normal by historical standards. In 1983 the league fielded just 28 teams, but 24 (86 percent) had clinched a postseason spot or still had a shot at one with three weeks to play. In 1995, 27 of 30 teams (90 percent) were in the playoffs or the playoff hunt with three weeks left. Back in 1981, 16 of 28 teams (57 percent) were still alive heading into the very last week of the season.

These historical numbers are more impressive when you consider that from 1978 to 1993 the NFL playoff format included just 10 teams. Today, 12 teams make the playoffs.

Well thats certainly a convincing argument against the existence of parity - one which I have already read by the way.

I was in fact the poster who introduced the CHFF to this forum many moons ago, of course not many posters here enjoyed it as it didnt have many great things to say about Cowher and his consistently underachieving Steelers - times change I guess.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=1912&highlight=cold

Anyway, you are quite right with the point you make - parity has turned out to be a bit of a damp squib - the draft tends to get the poor teams overpaying for rookies that have proved nothing, and shortly after into salary cap problems.

NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Good lord, come to Boston and take some adult education courses. Stop embarrassing yourself. Your team got lucky and won one SB. Congratulations, you had enough chances. Meanwhile, bow down to New England and pray you ever attain our level of consistent excellence.

God we're good.

That's interesting you talk about luck. See, to me, kicking the game winning FG in the last seconds of the SB is pretty darn lucky. The Steelers made big plays at crucial moments in the SB to win the game. I don't consider that luck. Randel El throwing the game closing TD pass to Hines Ward isn't luck, that's skill. Hines Ward coming up huge on third down and catching a near impossible ball is skill, not luck. If your referring to some questionable calls, I wish people would just give it up already. Even though this is all opinion, I find it ironic that you talk about luck when the pats been pretty lucky in the past as well.

I certaintly don't think we will bowing down any time soon either. If you ask me, the regular season game in '05 was a dogfight. In fact, if I recall correctly, your beloved Rodney Harrison got his season ending injury in that game. You call that bowing down? I'm sure there will be many more nail biting steeler/pat games in the future...espcially in the playoff's. Ben has showed great improvements over the last few years, and he's only going to get better. His 05 playoff showing was excellent and putting them away in a playoff game isn't going to be easy as it was in 04.

Livinginthepast, when (and if) the steelers and pats meet up in the playoff's, I'm looking forward to the "ownage". If you ask me, your team only "owned" us once. This isn't 2004 anymore, and Ben is no longer the inexperienced QB he was in his first year. You do an excellent job predicting the future though. I'm impressed.

HometownGal
08-14-2006, 02:08 PM
Clearly. All Bradshaw had to do was throw the ball down field and watch Swann or Stallworth run under it. I think even Ben Motorcycle could have gotten a QB rating of over 25 with those two.

These Steelers win 1 SB and their fans think they have all the answers.

Clearly, you weren't yet a twinkle in your daddy's eye when Bradshaw played or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:

Bradshaw played and won 4 SB rings back when football was played the way it was intended to be played - hard-nosed, physical, punch 'em in the mouth rough and tumble football instead of what the NFL has become over the last 10 years or so - a pussified league where some are men but many are still just little boys, whining and pointing fingers that the big bad boogeyman hit them too hard or a lineman gave them the hairy eyeball. The NFL back then didn't invent on the spot rules *cough* *cough* to benefit one team or another - it was..... may the team that kicked ass that day win...period.

No doubt that Brady is one of the best, if not THE best QB in the NFL right now, but he still has a ways to go to be likened to Bradshaw, imho.

BlackNGold203
08-14-2006, 02:58 PM
Clearly, you weren't yet a twinkle in your daddy's eye when Bradshaw played or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:

Bradshaw played and won 4 SB rings back when football was played the way it was intended to be played - hard-nosed, physical, punch 'em in the mouth rough and tumble football instead of what the NFL has become over the last 10 years or so - a pussified league where some are men but many are still just little boys, whining and pointing fingers that the big bad boogeyman hit them too hard or a lineman gave them the hairy eyeball. The NFL back then didn't invent on the spot rules *cough* *cough* to benefit one team or another - it was..... may the team that kicked ass that day win...period.

No doubt that Brady is one of the best, if not THE best QB in the NFL right now, but he still has a ways to go to be likened to Bradshaw, imho.

*drops to his knees and bows*

Ive NEVER heard it said better!!!

you CAN NOT compare eras...the NFL is totally different today than it was....

These QB's today (including Brady)...with radios in their helmets...every next move being laid out for them...

Brad...Staubach...Starr....Montana....called their own plays....ran THEIR OWN games....

Any mention of Brady..Ben...Favre...Manning in the same sentence with any of the classic QB's mentioned above...is at best ridiculous...and at worst moronic...


*steps down from his podium*

Let the flaming begin....:cool: :cool:

hardwork
08-14-2006, 11:26 PM
Clearly, you weren't yet a twinkle in your daddy's eye when Bradshaw played or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:

Bradshaw played and won 4 SB rings back when football was played the way it was intended to be played - hard-nosed, physical, punch 'em in the mouth rough and tumble football instead of what the NFL has become over the last 10 years or so - a pussified league where some are men but many are still just little boys, whining and pointing fingers that the big bad boogeyman hit them too hard or a lineman gave them the hairy eyeball. The NFL back then didn't invent on the spot rules *cough* *cough* to benefit one team or another - it was..... may the team that kicked ass that day win...period.

No doubt that Brady is one of the best, if not THE best QB in the NFL right now, but he still has a ways to go to be likened to Bradshaw, imho.


Like Bradshaw you couldn't spell cat if I spotted you the c and the a.

The Steelers under Bradshaw were part of the steroid era. Their record means about as much as the home run hitters of the past decade, nothing.

tony hipchest
08-14-2006, 11:28 PM
Like Bradshaw you couldn't spell cat if I spotted you the c and the a.

The Steelers under Bradshaw were part of the steroid era. Their record means about as much as the home run hitters of the past decade, nothing.
i think repeating a few k-6 courses may help you at this point.

bruschi is the steroid posterchild. bill romanowski jr.

and r. craft has chated the salary cap for years. hopefully the new commish has enough balls to start pulling draft picks away from the pats as a deterent.

Livinginthe past
08-14-2006, 11:33 PM
That's interesting you talk about luck. See, to me, kicking the game winning FG in the last seconds of the SB is pretty darn lucky. The Steelers made big plays at crucial moments in the SB to win the game. I don't consider that luck. Randel El throwing the game closing TD pass to Hines Ward isn't luck, that's skill. Hines Ward coming up huge on third down and catching a near impossible ball is skill, not luck. If your referring to some questionable calls, I wish people would just give it up already. Even though this is all opinion, I find it ironic that you talk about luck when the pats been pretty lucky in the past as well.

I certaintly don't think we will bowing down any time soon either. If you ask me, the regular season game in '05 was a dogfight. In fact, if I recall correctly, your beloved Rodney Harrison got his season ending injury in that game. You call that bowing down? I'm sure there will be many more nail biting steeler/pat games in the future...espcially in the playoff's. Ben has showed great improvements over the last few years, and he's only going to get better. His 05 playoff showing was excellent and putting them away in a playoff game isn't going to be easy as it was in 04.

Livinginthepast, when (and if) the steelers and pats meet up in the playoff's, I'm looking forward to the "ownage". If you ask me, your team only "owned" us once. This isn't 2004 anymore, and Ben is no longer the inexperienced QB he was in his first year. You do an excellent job predicting the future though. I'm impressed.

You aren't looking forward to it at all.

We beat you in your house twice in the AFCCG - thats owned no matter what the score - what did the second time transended mere 'ownage'....... it was a humiliation.

The Steelers are a good team - arguably the team to beat this year - but you bet they dont want any part of the Patriots - to us your just the Colts in Black and Gold.

NM

Livinginthe past
08-14-2006, 11:35 PM
i think repeating a few k-6 courses may help you at this point.

bruschi is the steroid posterchild. bill romanowski jr.

and r. craft has chated the salary cap for years. hopefully the new commish has enough balls to start pulling draft picks away from the pats as a deterent.

Poor Tony - the spinning top of football debate.

First Robert Kraft is too tight with his money, now he is 'cheating the salary cap'.

Thanks for the early morning laugh.

NM

hardwork
08-14-2006, 11:43 PM
bruschi is the steroid posterchild. bill romanowski jr.


Ahh, no, in fact Bruschi isn't Bill Romanowski. I guess I could see how a Pittsburgh fan might be that confused, but trust me, they're two different people.

If you need more help id-ing players, and former players, let me know.

tony hipchest
08-14-2006, 11:44 PM
Poor Tony - the spinning top of football debate.

First Robert Kraft is too tight with his money, now he is 'cheating the salary cap'.

Thanks for the early morning laugh.

NMi forgot and shoulda clarified for the dense litp. kraft cheated the cap during their PAST sb era. now that they cant get away with it no longer we see the penny pinching (to the tune of millions of dollars) begin. oh well its the sucker pat fans who will pay the ultimate price, and the roid abusers like bruschi of course.

tony hipchest
08-14-2006, 11:50 PM
Ahh, no, in fact Bruschi isn't Bill Romanowski. I guess I could see how a Pittsburgh fan might be that confused, but trust me, they're two different people.

If you need more help id-ing players, and former players, let me know. youre right. romo actually won 4 sb's and started in 5 (much greater than bruschi).

since you know the difference between jr. and sr. and them not being the same, i am gonna graduate you out of your kindergarten course onto the 1st grade. :smile:

hardwork
08-14-2006, 11:58 PM
This isn't 2004 anymore, and Ben is no longer the inexperienced QB he was in his first year.

No, he now holds the world record for the lowest QB rating in SB history. Go get 'em Motorcycle Ben.

tony hipchest
08-15-2006, 12:01 AM
You aren't looking forward to it at all.

We beat you in your house twice in the AFCCG - thats owned no matter what the score - what did the second time transended mere 'ownage'....... it was a humiliation.

The Steelers are a good team - arguably the team to beat this year - but you bet they dont want any part of the Patriots - to us your just the Colts in Black and Gold.

NMhow come your genius coach went so far out of his way to duck the steelers in last years playoffs? agreed, it was his best coaching decision to date as it landed them the jaguars, and 1 more playoff victory, to notch on his belt.

a true football fan knows its over when even the head coach shows he can no longer match up to true competition.

hardwork
08-15-2006, 12:24 AM
youre right. romo actually won 4 sb's and started in 5 (much greater than bruschi).

You'd take Romanowski over Bruschi? Have you ever watched a football game?

BTW, Bruschi's been in 4 SBs and won 3. Romanowski's SB record is "much greater then Bruschi"?

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 12:43 AM
i forgot and shoulda clarified for the dense litp. kraft cheated the cap during their PAST sb era. now that they cant get away with it no longer we see the penny pinching (to the tune of millions of dollars) begin. oh well its the sucker pat fans who will pay the ultimate price, and the roid abusers like bruschi of course.

Only Tony Hapless could 'clarify' something and make it less clear.

So he cheated in their 'past' SB era did he?

What..... as opposed to their future SB era?

You spend so much of your time reaching its a wonder you haven't pulled a muscle.

NM

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 12:46 AM
how come your genius coach went so far out of his way to duck the steelers in last years playoffs? agreed, it was his best coaching decision to date as it landed them the jaguars, and 1 more playoff victory, to notch on his belt.

a true football fan knows its over when even the head coach shows he can no longer match up to true competition.

The Steelers are to the Patriots what the Bengals are to the Steelers.

Let me know when the Steelers begin to be 'real' opposition - BB has taken your team apart 3 times, in Pittsburgh, in recent memory, twice in the post season.

I can fully understand why he would be fearful of the Pittsburgh colts.

NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 09:51 AM
You aren't looking forward to it at all.

We beat you in your house twice in the AFCCG - thats owned no matter what the score - what did the second time transended mere 'ownage'....... it was a humiliation.

The Steelers are a good team - arguably the team to beat this year - but you bet they dont want any part of the Patriots - to us your just the Colts in Black and Gold.

NM

The Colts in black and gold? C'mon man, get real. The Colts barely get points on the board when they play you guys, but the steelers have no trouble getting in the end zone. The last game they played it was a nail biter, back and forth. We could easily make the argument that if Adam wasn't kicking the FG that game would have gone to overtime.

And yes, I am looking forward to a playoff rematch. The Steelers (and the fans) want every bit of the Pats. I would have loved to see the Pats try and get in the way of last years SB run. Watching Ike pick off Brady like Champ did would be wonderful! Jump off your high horse, the Pats are no longer World Champs anymore.

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 10:01 AM
No, he now holds the world record for the lowest QB rating in SB history. Go get 'em Motorcycle Ben.

Resorting to stats even though the Steelers still won the game? Sounds to me like the fans are just a little bitter. I guess that's what happens to you when your convinced your team will win 3 SB's in a row before the season even starts! Things didnt quite pan out the way you guys intended, huh?

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 11:29 AM
The Colts in black and gold? C'mon man, get real. The Colts barely get points on the board when they play you guys, but the steelers have no trouble getting in the end zone. The last game they played it was a nail biter, back and forth. We could easily make the argument that if Adam wasn't kicking the FG that game would have gone to overtime.

And yes, I am looking forward to a playoff rematch. The Steelers (and the fans) want every bit of the Pats. I would have loved to see the Pats try and get in the way of last years SB run. Watching Ike pick off Brady like Champ did would be wonderful! Jump off your high horse, the Pats are no longer World Champs anymore.

Well at least the Colts have had to come to us to get their medecine - the Steelers get owned in their own house.

I'd say that gives the slight 'edge' to Indy.

Since when do we start taking players off teams to prove a point, I could start removing a few of the Steelers players...not that it would make much difference.

Ike needs to go a little way, and by a 'little way' I mean a very LONG WAY, to even be considered as good a CB as Champ Bailey - you want to do the honors and break down how many INT';s each had last year?

Oh, and I think i'll stay on my high horse - the view is so much better.

NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 11:51 AM
Well at least the Colts have had to come to us to get their medecine - the Steelers get owned in their own house.

I'd say that gives the slight 'edge' to Indy.

Since when do we start taking players off teams to prove a point, I could start removing a few of the Steelers players...not that it would make much difference.

Ike needs to go a little way, and by a 'little way' I mean a very LONG WAY, to even be considered as good a CB as Champ Bailey - you want to do the honors and break down how many INT';s each had last year?

Oh, and I think i'll stay on my high horse - the view is so much better.

NM

Hang on a sec, where did I say Ike was as good as Champ? I merely said that it would have been nice to see Ike Taylor pick off Brady as did Champ. It's not like Champ Bailey is the only one capable of picking off the elite Tom Brady :rolleyes:

The irony here (something this thread is filled with) is that you have no high horse to be on in the first place. Your team didn't play too hot in the middle of the season, nor did you go very deep in the playoffs either. Thats right, go ahead and blame it on your injuries, you pat fans love to make excuses :smile:

Tell me who the Super Bowl champs are again? Exactly...

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 12:07 PM
Hang on a sec, where did I say Ike was as good as Champ? I merely said that it would have been nice to see Ike Taylor pick off Brady as did Champ. It's not like Champ Bailey is the only one capable of picking off the elite Tom Brady :rolleyes:

The irony here (something this thread is filled with) is that you have no high horse to be on in the first place. Your team didn't play too hot in the middle of the season, nor did you go very deep in the playoffs either. Thats right, go ahead and blame it on your injuries, you pat fans love to make excuses :smile:

Tell me who the Super Bowl champs are again? Exactly...

Are you enjoying contradicting yourself?

Im enjoying watching you do just that.

You didnt have to say Ike was as good as Champ - im saying he wasn't good enough to make that play - you seem to think he is.

Oh, and you brought up the issue of me being on a 'high horse' - so why dont you take a couple of minutes to decide whether I am on one or not - then get back to me.

NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 12:48 PM
Are you enjoying contradicting yourself?

Im enjoying watching you do just that.

You didnt have to say Ike was as good as Champ - im saying he wasn't good enough to make that play - you seem to think he is.

Oh, and you brought up the issue of me being on a 'high horse' - so why dont you take a couple of minutes to decide whether I am on one or not - then get back to me.

NM

I'm contradicting myself?

You didn't say he wasn't good enough to make that play, you said he was a long way from being as good as Champ Bailey. NOW your suddenly saying he isn't good enough. Well, which one is it now?

Yes, I did bring up the issue of you being on a high horse. The one you don't deserve to be on. I told you step to off it and you say you enjoy the view. I'm saying it's ironic for you to think you deserve to be there considering your team lost terribly in the playoffs.

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 01:22 PM
I'm contradicting myself?

You didn't say he wasn't good enough to make that play, you said he was a long way from being as good as Champ Bailey. NOW your suddenly saying he isn't good enough. Well, which one is it now?

Yes, I did bring up the issue of you being on a high horse. The one you don't deserve to be on. I told you step to off it and you say you enjoy the view. I'm saying it's ironic for you to think you deserve to be there considering your team lost terribly in the playoffs.

Actually you said I had no high horse to be on, right after telling me to get off it.

Its all there in black and white in the above posts.

Let me spell it out for you - Ike taylor wouldnt have made that play, the interception against Tom Brady - Ike Taylor has 2 career interceptions and is half the player Champ Bailey is.

Ike taylor is incredibly over-rated - possibly one of the most over-rated players in the NFL.

He would not make that play.

Dream on.

NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 01:53 PM
Actually you said I had no high horse to be on, right after telling me to get off it.

Its all there in black and white in the above posts.

Let me spell it out for you - Ike taylor wouldnt have made that play, the interception against Tom Brady - Ike Taylor has 2 career interceptions and is half the player Champ Bailey is.

Ike taylor is incredibly over-rated - possibly one of the most over-rated players in the NFL.

He would not make that play.

Dream on.

NM

Thanks for spelling that out...since you didn't make sense in your first few posts.

The fact of the matter is your team lost, end of story. The Pats aren't the dynasty they thought they would be and now all of New England is crying about it. What I should have said in the first place was for you to get off your high horse since you don't belong on it. Indeed you are sitting on it, but you have absolutley no reason to. The Pats lost and the only thing you can dig up for ammo is the fact that steelers lost to the Pats.

Right, Ike would never be able to pick off Tom Brady :rolleyes: I'm sure you also think Brady was only picked off because of an injury. Such excuses you all have.

X-Terminator
08-15-2006, 02:34 PM
Like Bradshaw you couldn't spell cat if I spotted you the c and the a.

The Steelers under Bradshaw were part of the steroid era. Their record means about as much as the home run hitters of the past decade, nothing.

Really? How so? Steroids only make you bigger and stronger...but the last time I checked, football is a team sport. You can have the biggest, strongest, toughest guys, and still have a team full of losers. Why? Because it takes teamwork and talent to win championships - unless you're prepared to tell me that the 70s Steelers didn't have any talent???

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 02:37 PM
Thanks for spelling that out...since you didn't make sense in your first few posts.

The fact of the matter is your team lost, end of story. The Pats aren't the dynasty they thought they would be and now all of New England is crying about it. What I should have said in the first place was for you to get off your high horse since you don't belong on it. Indeed you are sitting on it, but you have absolutley no reason to. The Pats lost and the only thing you can dig up for ammo is the fact that steelers lost to the Pats.

Right, Ike would never be able to pick off Tom Brady :rolleyes: I'm sure you also think Brady was only picked off because of an injury. Such excuses you all have.

Well, if you spent a little time and posted 'what you should have posted' instead of 'what you did post' then we wouldnt be having this lengthy discussion relating to those errors.

No-one is 'crying' about the Patriots loss - we lost to a team who executed better on the day - end of story.

As a Steelers fan you should be aware that a Dynasty isn't over when you fail to win the SB for a single year - not unless you think the Steelers had two seperate Dynasties in the 70's?

The way I see it, you are the one making up the excuses regarding the reasons the Patriots lost - I dont see where I have made any such claims - and you are continuing that theme by bringing up Brady's injury.

By all means carry on - we can spend all night while you attiribute reasons why the Patriots lost to me - without me actually having any input.

Oh, the Steelers have been the Colts in black and gold with regard to the Patriots - you conveniently ignored the fact that we have beat you twice in your house whereas the the Colts have had to come to Foxboro.

Again I say, that makes the Colts slightly less owned than the Steelers.


NM

ExtonSteelFan
08-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Well, if you spent a little time and posted 'what you should have posted' instead of 'what you did post' then we wouldnt be having this lengthy discussion relating to those errors.

No-one is 'crying' about the Patriots loss - we lost to a team who executed better on the day - end of story.

As a Steelers fan you should be aware that a Dynasty isn't over when you fail to win the SB for a single year - not unless you think the Steelers had two seperate Dynasties in the 70's?

The way I see it, you are the one making up the excuses regarding the reasons the Patriots lost - I dont see where I have made any such claims - and you are continuing that theme by bringing up Brady's injury.

By all means carry on - we can spend all night while you attiribute reasons why the Patriots lost to me - without me actually having any input.

Oh, the Steelers have been the Colts in black and gold with regard to the Patriots - you conveniently ignored the fact that we have beat you twice in your house whereas the the Colts have had to come to Foxboro.

Again I say, that makes the Colts slightly less owned than the Steelers.


NM

And had you posted what you meant about Ike Taylor in the first place then maybe we wouldn't be having a lengthy conversation about that either, now would we?

Furthermore, I dont care how many times the Pats beat the Steelers or where and when they beat them. Again, who won the SB? And once more, who lost 2 games into the playoffs? To me, thats all that matters, and that would be all that mattered to you and the patriots had the roles been reversed. I'm sure there will plenty more matchups in the future and I highly doubt your team will have it as easy as they did in the 2004 playoffs.

It's been fun, but I'm done with this thread now.

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 03:52 PM
And had you posted what you meant about Ike Taylor in the first place then maybe we wouldn't be having a lengthy conversation about that either, now would we?

Furthermore, I dont care how many times the Pats beat the Steelers or where and when they beat them. Again, who won the SB? And once more, who lost 2 games into the playoffs? To me, thats all that matters, and that would be all that mattered to you and the patriots had the roles been reversed. I'm sure there will plenty more matchups in the future and I highly doubt your team will have it as easy as they did in the 2004 playoffs.

It's been fun, but I'm done with this thread now.

Well look on the plus side exton - you doubled your sizable input into thois forum just by participating on this thread.

If all thats matters to you is the season just gone, then its awfully convenient.

Well maybe not quite so convenient - after all, it means that the 70's Steelers Dynasty doesn't mean much to you either.

Imagine a cake.

Now decide whether you are going to eat it or have it.

NM

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 04:44 PM
Well look on the plus side exton - you doubled your sizable input into thois forum just by participating on this thread.

If all thats matters to you is the season just gone, then its awfully convenient.

Well maybe not quite so convenient - after all, it means that the 70's Steelers Dynasty doesn't mean much to you either.

Imagine a cake.

Now decide whether you are going to eat it or have it.

NM


I have a question. I'm not trying to start anything with it, just curious. If it's "awfully convenient" for someone to think only last season matters, then what exactly does matter?

Seeing as how there have been 40 SB's, not 5, don't you think they all matter?

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 04:49 PM
I have a question. I'm not trying to start anything with it, just curious. If it's "awfully convenient" for someone to think only last season matters, then what exactly does matter?

Seeing as how there have been 40 SB's, not 5, don't you think they all matter?

Sure they all matter - to what degree depends on the context of the debate I suppose.

I appreciate the Steelers history (I really do) but some fans want to write off the Patriots 3 wins as irrelevant and then proclaim the Steelers an elite organisation (which they are) largely based upon achievements over 30 years ago.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways.

Under the context of who is the 'team to beat' this year - then last year rules supreme.

If its a straight debate about Steeler/Patriots head-2-head then you have to factor in recent history - namely the AFCCG's in Pittsburgh.

NM

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 04:58 PM
No, he now holds the world record for the lowest QB rating in SB history. Go get 'em Motorcycle Ben.

Actually no, he doesn't. Six other QB's have done worse, including John Elway. I'm guessing you either don't know that, or you meant the lowest rating by a winning QB, and couldn't manage to state it. Either way, posts like the one above do not reflect well on your intelligence.

Hawk Believer
08-15-2006, 05:15 PM
Actually no, he doesn't. Six other QB's have done worse, including John Elway. I'm guessing you either don't know that, or you meant the lowest rating by a winning QB, and couldn't manage to state it. Either way, posts like the one above do not reflect well on your intelligence.
I am guessing that those 6 who did worse probably were not able to pull out a victory though. Is that the case?

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 05:26 PM
Sure they all matter - to what degree depends on the context of the debate I suppose.

I appreciate the Steelers history (I really do) but some fans want to write off the Patriots 3 wins as irrelevant and then proclaim the Steelers an elite organisation (which they are) largely based upon achievements over 30 years ago.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways.

Under the context of who is the 'team to beat' this year - then last year rules supreme.

If its a straight debate about Steeler/Patriots head-2-head then you have to factor in recent history - namely the AFCCG's in Pittsburgh.

NM

For once, I agree with what you said. The Patriots 3 wins are by all means relevant, and last year's winner does determine the team to beat the following year.

And yes, in a straight debate about Steelers/Patriots head to head, you do have to factor in recent history. But you also have to factor in not so recent history as well, if you want to debate the two teams. The Patriots were around in the 70's, so it's not like they didn't have the chance to win SB's then. The Steelers were around as well when the Patriots won theirs. You have to count everything if you're going to count anything. The Patriots were the better team in those 3 years, I have no problem admitting that. The Patriots beat us/owned us or whatever you want to call it in those two years. But we have had 40 years of SB's, with both teams around for all of them. The Steelers didn't begin with Ben, and the Patriots didn't begin with Brady, or even Kraft for that matter. Success comes in cycles, and no team can be better than another one all the time. The only legitimate question is which won has been better more often? It's not meant to start an argument or boast about my team versus your team. The only point I'm trying to make is that if we're going to count anything more than the previous season, we have to count them all. I have no problem giving credit to the Patriots for their three wins, but I do have a problem when someone questions bringing up the Steelers' wins in the 70's because they happened nearly thirty years ago. 3 years or 30, it doesn't matter. After all, both teams have had 40 chances.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 05:31 PM
I am guessing that those 6 who did worse probably were not able to pull out a victory though. Is that the case?

Yes, that is the case. My response was to the statement that Ben holds the record for lowest QB rating in SB history. That honor goes to Craig Morton, who posted a perfect 0.0 rating in SB XII.

Hawk Believer
08-15-2006, 05:36 PM
Yes, that is the case. My response was to the statement that Ben holds the record for lowest QB rating in SB history. That honor goes to Craig Morton, who posted a perfect 0.0 rating in SB XII.
Yikes. I'll have to try to catch the NFL films version of that SB to find out how Morton managed to pull that off.

tony hipchest
08-15-2006, 05:37 PM
Actually no, he doesn't. Six other QB's have done worse, including John Elway. I'm guessing you either don't know that, or you meant the lowest rating by a winning QB, and couldn't manage to state it. Either way, posts like the one above do not reflect well on your intelligence.the schoolboard has voted HW. you must repeat the 1st grade again. one day you might be able to take the adult courses us steelerfans do.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 05:42 PM
Yikes. I'll have to try to catch the NFL films version of that SB to find out how Morton managed to pull that off.

He went 4 for 15 with 4 intercteptions. And of course, no touchdowns. This was as a Bronco, playing the Cowboys. But he is the only QB to play for two teams in the SB. In SB V, as a Cowboy, he posted a 34.1 rating.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 05:44 PM
the schoolboard has voted HW. you must repeat the 1st grade again. one day you might be able to take the adult courses us steelerfans do.

Maybe he ate too much paste the first time around.

Livinginthe past
08-15-2006, 06:04 PM
For once, I agree with what you said. The Patriots 3 wins are by all means relevant, and last year's winner does determine the team to beat the following year.

And yes, in a straight debate about Steelers/Patriots head to head, you do have to factor in recent history. But you also have to factor in not so recent history as well, if you want to debate the two teams. The Patriots were around in the 70's, so it's not like they didn't have the chance to win SB's then. The Steelers were around as well when the Patriots won theirs. You have to count everything if you're going to count anything. The Patriots were the better team in those 3 years, I have no problem admitting that. The Patriots beat us/owned us or whatever you want to call it in those two years. But we have had 40 years of SB's, with both teams around for all of them. The Steelers didn't begin with Ben, and the Patriots didn't begin with Brady, or even Kraft for that matter. Success comes in cycles, and no team can be better than another one all the time. The only legitimate question is which won has been better more often? It's not meant to start an argument or boast about my team versus your team. The only point I'm trying to make is that if we're going to count anything more than the previous season, we have to count them all. I have no problem giving credit to the Patriots for their three wins, but I do have a problem when someone questions bringing up the Steelers' wins in the 70's because they happened nearly thirty years ago. 3 years or 30, it doesn't matter. After all, both teams have had 40 chances.

We are on the same page here.

Its fine to relate to the Dynasty years of the Steelers - they have shaped this franchise and its fanbase.

What I was saying was that you can't write off the Patriots victories as irrelevant and then harp back to the 70's to vindicate your team.

Thats exactly what Exton was doing, not you.

NM

hardwork
08-15-2006, 11:29 PM
I'm sure you also think Brady was only picked off because of an injury.

No, he was picked off because he was in the game at QB trying to make plays. But I wouldn't bet the farm on him doing it to often. And certainly not as often as world record holder for worst SB ever, Gee Can I Play Without A Helmet As Long As I Take Steroids Ben.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 11:31 PM
We are on the same page here.

Its fine to relate to the Dynasty years of the Steelers - they have shaped this franchise and its fanbase.

What I was saying was that you can't write off the Patriots victories as irrelevant and then harp back to the 70's to vindicate your team.

Thats exactly what Exton was doing, not you.

NM

I agree, you can't write off either team's accomplishments. And you can't say the Patriots own the Steelers. You can't own a team you have a losing record against. If you want to say the Patriots have been the better team so far this decade, or the better team over the last 5 years, you won't find any arguments here. But the Patriots don't own us. We're 13 - 7 against them from what I could find. They were the better team over a 4 year period. We've been the better team over a 40 year period.

hardwork
08-15-2006, 11:40 PM
I agree, you can't write off either team's accomplishments. And you can't say the Patriots own the Steelers. You can't own a team you have a losing record against. If you want to say the Patriots have been the better team so far this decade, or the better team over the last 5 years, you won't find any arguments here. But the Patriots don't own us. We're 13 - 7 against them from what I could find. They were the better team over a 4 year period. We've been the better team over a 40 year period.

No, we own you right now. It doesn't matter who owned what 20 years ago. It's who owns you now. Just like your house. You own that now just like we own the Steelers now.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 11:49 PM
No, we own you right now. It doesn't matter who owned what 20 years ago. It's who owns you now. Just like your house. You own that now just like we own the Steelers now.

You own us now? You do realize the Patriots didn't win last year's SB, don't you?

And I see from your post before this one that you failed to comprehend the fact that Ben doesn't hold the record for worst SB performance.

You've shown time and again that you have nothing legitimate to contribute to this board, so rather than allow you to continue to clutter up my screen, I'm putting you on ignore.

MattsMe
08-15-2006, 11:50 PM
Before you make an ass of yourself by replying to me, let me remind you that it won't be seen.

Cape Cod Steel Head
08-16-2006, 01:35 AM
No, we own you right now. It doesn't matter who owned what 20 years ago. It's who owns you now. Just like your house. You own that now just like we own the Steelers now.I guess thats why you threw the last game so you wouldn't have to play us in the first round! The pats will make the playoffs thanks to their weak division, but that is it! If you are entertaining thoughts of even making it to the Super Bowl you are delusional!:bouncy: Your "dynasty" is over my friend!

ExtonSteelFan
08-16-2006, 06:06 AM
You own us now? You do realize the Patriots didn't win last year's SB, don't you?


This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

LivingInThePast, please don't put words in my mouth and tell me what I tried doing and what I didn't. My point was simple. The Pats don't own the Steelers today simply because the Steelers are the SB champions last year. I've said nothing about the 70's and that doesn't mean I dont respect their accomplishments back then either. Had the Pats beaten us on their way to winning the SB, then I point could be made that they own us right here and right now. Unfortunatley, the Patriots didn't play as well as the Steelers did in the playoff's.

Livinginthe past
08-16-2006, 04:05 PM
I agree, you can't write off either team's accomplishments. And you can't say the Patriots own the Steelers. You can't own a team you have a losing record against. If you want to say the Patriots have been the better team so far this decade, or the better team over the last 5 years, you won't find any arguments here. But the Patriots don't own us. We're 13 - 7 against them from what I could find. They were the better team over a 4 year period. We've been the better team over a 40 year period.

I'll have to cede to that logic.

I only rarely play the 'owned' card anyway - you wont see my use it without provocation - normally from guys who crow endlessly about the end of the Patriots dynasty with absolutely no proof.

Losing to Denver in Denver is nothing to embarrassed about - dynasties are normally confirmed in retrospect and the Patriots dont look like falling off the playoff map anytime soon.

I think the Steelers/ Chargers/ Patriots/ Colts will be butting heads in the playoffs for years to come.

NM

hardwork
08-16-2006, 11:03 PM
You own us now? You do realize the Patriots didn't win last year's SB, don't you?

And I see from your post before this one that you failed to comprehend the fact that Ben doesn't hold the record for worst SB performance.

You've shown time and again that you have nothing legitimate to contribute to this board, so rather than allow you to continue to clutter up my screen, I'm putting you on ignore.

Yeah, I'd run and hide to if I came up with your lame excuse. We beat the Patriots in 559 BC therefore they don't own us. Have you been riding your motorcycle without a helmet?

Hawk Believer
08-16-2006, 11:34 PM
I'll have to cede to that logic.

NM
Dude, you are going to ruin your sparring mates' stereotype of you as someone who refuses to consider anothers' viewpoint with talk like that!

MattsMe
08-17-2006, 12:49 AM
Dude, you are going to ruin your sparring mates' stereotype of you as someone who refuses to consider anothers' viewpoint with talk like that!

Between LITP's concession, and you not conforming to the image of a whining sore loser, I don't know what to think anymore. I'm begining to question all that I held to be true. My entire belief system is in shambles. I feel like Jim Carey in The Truman Show, after he finds out his world isn't real.

Hawk Believer
08-17-2006, 01:07 AM
Between LITP's concession, and you not conforming to the image of a whining sore loser, I don't know what to think anymore. I'm begining to question all that I held to be true. My entire belief system is in shambles. I feel like Jim Carey in The Truman Show, after he finds out his world isn't real.
Up is down. Yes is no. The 49ers are contenders.

Livinginthe past
08-17-2006, 04:12 AM
Dude, you are going to ruin your sparring mates' stereotype of you as someone who refuses to consider anothers' viewpoint with talk like that!

Ha.

Sorry about that.

Like to throw the odd curve ball out there.

NM