PDA

View Full Version : Steelers are team to beat in AFC


kyro
10-31-2004, 08:36 PM
Well that was hideous. My Patsies got shown up. They lost me $40 to 3 different Steelers fans. Oh well, they were bound to lose eventually, but on the day I put up money? Pshaw.

Toro
10-31-2004, 08:46 PM
Based on today, maybe, but there's a long ways to go. I felt all along that the Patriots streak would end with a game like this where everything went wrong and they ended up getting crushed. Let's see how they bounce back next week before jumping off the Zakim.

kyro
10-31-2004, 09:05 PM
I ain't jumping off of anything. I still think they're the second best team in the AFC. But everything about the Steelers has impressed me this year. Today's game just confirmed my belief. It didn't help that the Pats had injuries, but this was truly a beatdown.

Toro
10-31-2004, 09:10 PM
No team is as good as they look and conversely as bad as they look in a game like this. In Bill we Trust.

WC64
10-31-2004, 10:05 PM
The Pats cost me money 2 weeks in a row now, so maybe I shouldnt bet on them anymore lol.

MarkL444
10-31-2004, 10:10 PM
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

ThaSaltCracka
10-31-2004, 10:19 PM
I had a feeling the Steelers were going to win. I think the Pats are somewhat overrated this year, and will probably lose one or two more games before the playoffs begin.

Kurn, son of Mogh
10-31-2004, 10:25 PM
I'll settle for 13-3 /images/graemlins/cool.gif

sublime
10-31-2004, 10:37 PM
lol

13-3 is overrated?

you drunk again? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

ThaSaltCracka
10-31-2004, 10:39 PM
they very easily could have lost to the hawks.

sublime
10-31-2004, 10:40 PM
New England is still the team to beat, and I dont think its really a debate. They had ZERO rushing attack today and were not prepared for Dillon to be inactive. That being said, Pittsburgh played a heck of a game and appear to be a solid team.

sublime
10-31-2004, 10:41 PM
yeah but they didn't, which sums up the success of the patriots the past year and a half.

ThaSaltCracka
10-31-2004, 10:42 PM
true, I just don't think this team is AS good as people think they are. Luckily for them, they really only have 4 more "tough" games this year.

Michael Davis
10-31-2004, 10:43 PM
Based on what? 2003 record?

-Michael

sublime
10-31-2004, 10:46 PM
oh i dont buy that they are as good as people think they are for one simple fact: they have no clue what they are talking about.

any team can beat any other team in the NFL on a given sunday, which makes NE's recent run even more impressive. however, it also means that they can lose to cincy and still be the team to beat in the NFL.

GrandMaster
10-31-2004, 10:55 PM
The Chiefs are definitely the team to beat. I was very happy that the Steelers ended that winning streak, finally.

MarkL444
10-31-2004, 10:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Based on what? 2003 record?

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just my opinion. If you disagree thats fine.

ThaSaltCracka
10-31-2004, 10:56 PM
well, they are clearly the team to beat in the AFC. Philly is the team to beat in the NFC though. I am just hoping the Hawks can take the next two on the road.

ThaSaltCracka
10-31-2004, 10:58 PM
a team has to have a defense in order for them to be the team to beat. KC has no D.

DCIAce
10-31-2004, 11:01 PM
Noone in the AFC has impressed me all that much, other than the Patriots of Weeks 1-7.

I'd say the Steelers are the 2nd or 3rd best team in the AFC, behind NE and maybe NYJ.. but they're close to the top, and you can make an argument for them being the team to beat.

If they can beat the Eagles next week, then we're talking best team in the AFC. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

sublime
10-31-2004, 11:11 PM
The Chiefs are definitely the team to beat

this is not the comedy forum

kyro
10-31-2004, 11:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you don't bet on sports. I could understand you thinking the Pats and maybe the Jets/Colts are better than Pittsburgh, but KC and Tennessee is a complete joke.

kyro
10-31-2004, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I had a feeling the Steelers were going to win. I think the Pats are somewhat overrated this year, and will probably lose one or two more games before the playoffs begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's impressive. overrated and still finish 14-2 or 13-3? I'd be happy with that.

sublime
10-31-2004, 11:25 PM
philly has had a fairly easy schedule so far this year. i want to see them play a pretty solid team like pitts on the road before i think they are anything special

tolbiny
10-31-2004, 11:37 PM
Teams better than Pittsburgh....

New England- Yes
NYJ- Push right now
Indy- Still have to show they can stop a team defensively to become the "team to beat". If ipicking between Pittsburgh and indy i would pick indy, but put money on the over.
Denver- The last two weeks have shown some serious holes in Denver's game, going with Pittsburgh on this one.
Baltimore- There will be another matchup between the teams this year. If more teams take Cleveland's approach to stopping them they will struggle to make the playoffs.
Kansa City- A lot of Indy's probems... not as diverse of an offensive attack. Maybe a push.
Tennesee- team with probelms on both sides of the ball right now, Pittsburgh is currently the better team.

kyro
10-31-2004, 11:44 PM
who said they are anything special? the nfc is loaded with mediocre/sucky teams that philly is easily the best. the closest to them is the vikings, and that's almost laughable.

ThaSaltCracka
11-01-2004, 01:39 AM
hmm, I realize now that overrated is the wrong word. NE seems to have an invincible aura around them, which they shouldn't. There team is good, but they have weaknesses. I think I can honestly say they were better last year than this year. But, they are still the team to beat in the AFC.

Dynasty
11-01-2004, 01:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Chiefs are definitely the team to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's rare that a 3-4 team like the Chiefs is the team to beat. They'll get their own shot at the Patriots on Monday Night Football in three weeks.

The Patriiots defense has some problems. But, they'll be tough team to be come playoff time.

lastchance
11-01-2004, 02:05 AM
Yeah, you're right. Good news for the 'Hawks at least... They should be able to sneak into the playoffs if they're able to be consistent, for once...

Yeah, and Pats are definitely the team to beat still. Even if they are overrated... NYJ is a very tough team right now.

Pitt should be tough come playoff time. They still have another toughie with the Eagles though. If they win this one, I don't think anyone wants to face 'em.

Other than that, the league's a mess, and you just got to make plays to win.

ArchAngel71857
11-01-2004, 02:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tennessee is missing McCariens big time on O. And McNair for that matter. banged up and hasn't looked sharp all year. i guess this is what happens when you play with 800 injuries every year. Also, Peter Sirmon was a huge reason their run D was so good last year. He is out with a knee injury and they are feeling the effectsof that big time. Also, Kearse left so the warm up bike on the sideline isn't used as much.

-AA

pokerkai
11-01-2004, 03:46 AM
Steelers are so not the team to beat. Roethlisberger is playing tremendously but sooner or later hes gonna come down to earth.

MarkL444
11-01-2004, 03:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
banged up and hasn't looked sharp all year.

[/ QUOTE ]

they didnt look sharp in green bay?

Homer
11-01-2004, 09:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
philly has had a fairly easy schedule so far this year. i want to see them play a pretty solid team like pitts on the road before i think they are anything special

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say it's been that easy. Philly has just made it look easy (well, their first 5 games at least). Their opponent's so far this year have a combined .571 winning percentage (24-18) in games not against the Eagles.

Homer
11-01-2004, 09:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
who said they are anything special? the nfc is loaded with mediocre/sucky teams that philly is easily the best. the closest to them is the vikings, and that's almost laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say the Giants are the next best team, which is pretty sad.

Bulldog
11-01-2004, 09:54 AM
Nice win in Pittsburgh yesterday. Maybe we'll get to see if you can repeat it:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif in January
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif in New England
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif without a bye week to prepare
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif with your rookie QB realizing a Super Bowl trip is on the line

BTW, I could construct pretty good arguments for both Tennessee and KC being better than Pittsburgh.

kyro
11-01-2004, 10:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I could construct pretty good arguments for both Tennessee and KC being better than Pittsburgh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who realizes these two teams are a combined 6-9? KC is the same team they were last year, without Dante Hall winning two games for them, and they weren't that good then. All offense, and no defense. And Tennessee? This isn't the Tennessee team of the past few years people.

ArchAngel71857
11-01-2004, 10:10 AM
they didnt look sharp in green bay?

I was talking about McNair.

-AA

Bulldog
11-01-2004, 10:29 AM
My argument would have a little more to do with Pittsburgh being overrated than it would Tennessee or KC being underrated.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 01:08 PM
Big Ben is the real deal. The defense is playing pretty well, too. They totally outplayed the Patriots yesterday, on both sides of the ball - and maybe even showed how overrated one Tom Brady is.

And all this stuff about Dillon being so important...the Pats didn't even HAVE Dillon till this year...can't Brady win with his defense and Kevin Faulk in the backfield?

KC and Tennessee both suck, the only way KC wins is when they play a team with an equally poor D (yes, like the Colts), and Tennessee...well, they just can't keep players on the field. Pitt's winning with a rookie QB who can handle the pressure, and a solid backfield and D. Philly oughta be careful, but I think they'll handle Pitt.

-Edge

mistrpug
11-01-2004, 01:19 PM
Sure New England won 21 games in a row and 2 of the last 3 Super Bowls, but Pittsburgh beat them YESTERDAY! They are clearly the team to beat. [ /sarcasm ]

Don't worry. The Steelers will fall back to earth next week.

http://espn.starwave.com/media/nfl/2004/1031/photo/a_owens_il.jpg

Edge34
11-01-2004, 01:40 PM
Hey mistrpug,

Should've clarified...I don't think the Steelers are the team to beat, but they're one of many near the top of the AFC. My point was more that New England's run hasn't been exactly DOMINATING, relying on a lot of close games in which mistakes were made by others. Miami would've beaten them in OT had Mare not missed a 35-yard chip shot. Pittsburgh, New England still, and Indianapolis are my top 3 AFC teams.

Philly's the class of the NFL right now. They faced the tough Ravens D and still came out on top, and pulling out close games is how you win titles. I think they'll beat Pittsburgh too...but the Steelers are for real this year - and one of the few teams in the AFC with both a good offense AND defense.

-Edge

Toro
11-01-2004, 01:54 PM
[quote- and maybe even showed how overrated one Tom Brady is.

And all this stuff about Dillon being so important...the Pats didn't even HAVE Dillon till this year...can't Brady win with his defense and Kevin Faulk in the backfield?-Edge

[/ QUOTE ]

What a terrible argument for showing that Brady is overrated. No they didn't have Dillon last year but they had Antoine Smith, a serviceable back. Faulk is not a full time back, only a third down specialist. He doesn't have speed or power, has trouble finding the hole and is prone to fumbling as we saw yesterday.

But that was only the half of it. Their top reciever was out and Troy Brown was forced into action and he's not 100%. They're starting right tackle was out and they were forced to go with a backup who has yet to play this year. Then Light went down and they had to move this backup right tackle to left tackle and then had to move their starting right guard to right tackle and of course have another backup at right guard. It was a disaster with Joey porter having a field day with this makeshift line.

Do a little research before making such a ridiculous statement.

mistrpug
11-01-2004, 01:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey mistrpug,

Should've clarified...I don't think the Steelers are the team to beat, but they're one of many near the top of the AFC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that 100%.


[ QUOTE ]
My point was more that New England's run hasn't been exactly DOMINATING, relying on a lot of close games in which mistakes were made by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that at all. C'mon man. 21 games in a row. That's dominating. The fact that there were many close games makes it even more impressive.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 02:35 PM
You're right, the injuries didn't help them at all - but lots of teams have had injured players and have still made plays and gotten victories. We'll throw that one out though, since I do agree that injuries helped Joey Porter and the rest of the Steelers D be all over Brady. But Tom Brady made a lot of terrible passing decisions that he could've easily avoided, being picked off what, 3 times?

In 2003, Brady threw 23 TDs and 12 Interceptions (9 QBs had more TDs, including Jon Kitna and Brad Johnson). In '02, it was 28 and 14. He's never been in the top 5 QB's in the NFL and isn't even in the top 10 this year. He makes a lot of poor decisions with the ball, and his Defense helps make him look like a genius by not allowing those mistakes to cost them a lot of ball games. That's basically the only explanation for their Super Bowl titles...heck, Carolina should've beaten them, but they just couldn't pull it off. Their injured line didn't help them at all against the Steelers, but those who hail Tom Brady as the next coming of Joe Montana are a little over-the-top. I'm not saying he isn't good, very good even, but the best? I think QBs like Peyton Manning are much more solid, at the position, than Brady.

Oh yeah, and Brady fumbled against the Raiders...I'm still a little bitter about that one.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 02:40 PM
21 games in a row is a lot - the streak has been dominating, but their individual performances haven't. There have been multiple times they played poorly enough to be beaten, but were bailed out by the other team's mistakes. And as I said, I still consider the Pats among the top in the AFC, but if anything, this will shut everyone up about a perfect season and how they're the best team ever, at least. The New England defense has been incredibly solid through this streak, allowing them to overcome the mistakes frequently made by the Offense.

-Edge

ThaSaltCracka
11-01-2004, 02:45 PM
I agree with everything you just said Edge.

Toro
11-01-2004, 02:52 PM
Yesterday he had 2 interceptions and a fumble. The first interception his reciever fell down and the defender had a clear lane to the ball. The 2nd interception has on 3rd and long and he threw a long bomb which was intercepted on the 17 yard line, essentially the same result of an incompletion and a 4th down punt.

The fumble was on a strip sack when the pocket collapsed and he got the ball stripped from behind when he was attempting to pass.

Brady's had some bad days before but I don't put yesterday on him at all.

tolbiny
11-01-2004, 04:57 PM
I guess i just don't get it. How do we measure the best Quterback or best team in the league? If i was building a team right now my choice for QB would be Brady, because he wins. It is a QB's job to do whatever is nessecary to win each individual game, and Brady is the best since Montana. Peyton Manning looks fantastic most weeks, but during week 1 when Brady knew that would have to score a ton to keep up he lit it up. manning threw a pick inside the 5 yrd line. All QB's make mistakes, but Brady's never seem to cost them the game. Maybe that's because of their Defense, or their coaching but what ever it is, it works and it works better than any other time in NFL history.
I will always keep in mind the reason i heired a guy, i couldn't care less if his portfolio isn't as well drawn up as another guys, just as long as his stocks outperform everyone elses.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 05:21 PM
Hey tolbiny,

As far as the Best QB/ Best Team thing, the best team is probably going to be the one that wins the most. The problem with that is, of course, any team can win on any given Sunday.

The best QB, however, is the one I believe to be more important to their team, from a "we couldn't win without..." point of view. In this regard, a guy like Peyton Manning is probably much more important to his team, since he has precisely NO defense to keep the other team from scoring a ton of points. Brady looks a lot better in large part due to his Defense shutting down the other team and allowing 14-21 points to win a game. The Patriots, all credit given, won their Super Bowls as a team, with basically a collection of role players making it work (kinda like the Lightning winning the Cup, or the Pistons winning the NBA Finals.)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb are more talented position players than Brady. Of course, if I could, I'd make Peyton my top AFC QB and Brady his solid, role-playing backup. Very serviceable, and very talented, no doubt...but he's not Joe Montana. Elway did the job better than Brady when he was still playing.

-Edge

Bulldog
11-01-2004, 05:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Big Ben is the real deal. The defense is playing pretty well, too. They totally outplayed the Patriots yesterday, on both sides of the ball - and maybe even showed how overrated one Tom Brady is.

And all this stuff about Dillon being so important...the Pats didn't even HAVE Dillon till this year...can't Brady win with his defense and Kevin Faulk in the backfield?

KC and Tennessee both suck, the only way KC wins is when they play a team with an equally poor D (yes, like the Colts), and Tennessee...well, they just can't keep players on the field. Pitt's winning with a rookie QB who can handle the pressure, and a solid backfield and D. Philly oughta be careful, but I think they'll handle Pitt.

-Edge

[/ QUOTE ]

From http://www.fantasyindex.com/Scheduletron.html

SCHEDULETRON -- SO FAR
Based on the combined win-loss records of opponents, the Rams have played the easiest schedule so far (their opponents have gone a combined 17-29 - 3-4 against the Rams, and 14-25 against other teams). The Lions, Colts and Browns, meanwhile, have played the hardest schedules. The complete list:
W L Pct.
14 25 .359 St. Louis
12 20 .375 Washington
15 24 .385 Tampa Bay
14 22 .389 Green Bay
13 20 .394 Pittsburgh
15 23 .395 New Orleans
16 23 .410 Denver
13 18 .419 Baltimore
16 21 .432 Atlanta
14 18 .438 NY Jets
15 18 .455 Seattle
18 20 .474 Oakland
16 17 .485 Houston
16 16 .500 Minnesota
20 19 .513 Tennessee
19 18 .514 Miami
17 16 .515 San Francisco
16 15 .516 New England
20 18 .526 Jacksonville
17 15 .531 Chicago
18 15 .545 Arizona
18 15 .545 Buffalo
18 14 .563 Dallas
18 14 .563 NY Giants
19 14 .576 Cincinnati
19 14 .576 Kansas City
18 13 .581 Philadelphia
20 14 .588 Carolina
23 16 .590 San Diego
21 14 .600 Cleveland
21 14 .600 Indianapolis
20 12 .625 Detroit
SCHEDULETRON -- REMAINING (WIN-LOSS)
Based on the combined win-loss records of opponents, the 49ers and Panthers project to play the easiest schedules the rest of the way (based on current win-loss records). Washington and Green Bay, meanwhile, project to play the hardest schedules in weeks 8-17. The complete list:
W L Pct.
23 40 .365 San Francisco
27 40 .403 Carolina
26 37 .413 Arizona
24 34 .414 Tampa Bay
25 35 .417 Atlanta
25 35 .417 San Diego
27 36 .429 Seattle
26 34 .433 Denver
28 35 .444 New England
27 32 .458 New Orleans
30 32 .484 Philadelphia
28 29 .491 Jacksonville
28 29 .491 Tennessee
31 32 .492 Detroit
34 34 .500 Kansas City
30 30 .500 Oakland
32 31 .508 Buffalo
32 31 .508 NY Jets
28 27 .509 St. Louis
33 30 .524 Chicago
33 30 .524 Indianapolis
33 30 .524 Minnesota
30 26 .536 Miami
31 25 .554 Cleveland
34 27 .557 NY Giants
37 29 .561 Houston
35 27 .565 Cincinnati
35 26 .574 Dallas
38 24 .613 Baltimore
38 24 .613 Pittsburgh
38 23 .623 Washington
35 21 .625 Green Bay


Benny's fortunes may change, likely starting this weekend...

The Dillon argument has already been refuted well by others (don't forget the fact that Faulk got almost no reps in practice this week).

tolbiny
11-01-2004, 05:42 PM
Sure sure, but there are many considerations in this equation-

"In this regard, a guy like Peyton Manning is probably much more important to his team, since he has precisely NO defense to keep the other team from scoring a ton of points"

I am of the opinion that the reason Tony Dungy hasn't been able to buld a defense is the fact that Peyton is getting $100 mil. His contract has forced Indy to put its emphasis on offense, and his presence is not 100% positive. How do we weight this? I don't know, but in this day and age team chemistry and salary considerations are important, and it is impossible to seperate an individual from their team as a whole (including both sides of the ball). My decision to rate Brady the highest in the league is a combination of all these things (and also the fact that guys like Manning and Culpepper have had more weapons at their disposal in the past). And untill Peyton has at least 1 ring on his finger i am taking brady as my top QB with anyother of those guys as 22 yr olds being groomed on the sideline, watching how a real QB takes over the game to win it when its nesecary (see Brady's 4th quater comebacks in 2001) and otherwise acts as a team leader in all respects (i don't see Vandercrack and Reggie Wayne getting in Brady's grill) /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 05:52 PM
Hey tolbiny,

Can't really argue with that. Well-written, and much like the NFL, looks like this argument is all about parity. Any star QB on a winning team is going to have a following saying he's the best QB in the game. Excellent.

Since this got SLIGHTLY OT, I'll reiterate. Steelers aren't the team to beat, but is there any ONE "team to beat"? Doesn't look like it, since they all bring something different to the table.

And Vanderjagt would be ALL in Brady's grill if he got the chance. That's guy's probably got the most balls of any kicker in the league, he just hasn't had to yet... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'd still like to see my Colts get their shot at Brady and the Pats again in the playoffs...that game was a classic example of the Pats winning not on their own excellence, but taking advantage of Peyton's many (and I admit, MANY) mistakes.

-Edge

NoChance
11-01-2004, 06:04 PM
Trent Dilfer was a winner too when the defense was carrying the team for him, and there wasn't much offensive talent surrounding him either.

Edge34
11-01-2004, 06:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Trent Dilfer was a winner too when the defense was carrying the team for him, and there wasn't much offensive talent surrounding him either.

[/ QUOTE ]

God, how did I forget about that...heck, Brad Johnson won a Super Bowl on Tampa Bay's defense too. You know what they say - Offense wins games, Defense wins championships.

I'll be fair though - Brady IS about 1000x better than Trent Dilfer. Not to mention, the Ravens dfense that year was, statistically, the best...EVER.

-Edge

tolbiny
11-01-2004, 06:11 PM
Trent Dilfer was a winner for one season, for one super bowl. Tom Brady Has been the AB for less than three years, took over for an all pro (Bledsoe), has won 2/3 super bowls has not led a team to a losing season, and has lead a team to the longest winning streak in the history of the NFL during a period of perhaps the greatest parity ever which makes the streak even more impressive.
There really is no (even a jokingly satirical) comparison between Dilfer and Brady.

tolbiny
11-01-2004, 06:16 PM
As far as the team to beat, i don't think it really exists in the regular season anymore. But the playoffs whoever has homefield is it automatically.
For Indy to do anything they need homefield cause playing in Pittsburgh or new england in december isn't their strong suit. Conversely i think that Pittsburgh stands a decnet chance in Foxborough and vice versa. Indy has a long cold road ahead of them without homefield.
And i think that Belicheck would just cut vandercrack if he got in Brady's grill.
He personally gets my vote for best coach in the NFL and top 5 in the game ever- and this is coming from a cleveland fan who saw his worst years first hand.

Kopefire
11-02-2004, 03:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man.. do you not know football ... some of your picks make sense, but some demonstrate either huge fan bias, or a failure to watch the game very closely.

OK. . NE I'll grant you that if you give me both teams fully healthy, and they play five weeks in a row, I kind of think the Pats would probably win the series.

NYJ? Harder argument here. The Jets are a solid team, but honestly, in the same 5-game series senerio, I really believe it's going to be a coin flip.

Indy, and KC? C'mon ... great offenses with no defense does not a great team make. Yes, both these teams have far superior offenses to the Steelers. But when they play each other they manage to put up a combined 2/3rds of a mile of offense. Last year they managed to avoid punting for an entire game. What does that tell you?

Baltimore is the same problem on the other side of the ball. Even fully healthy, they have a very one-dimensional offense. Yes, they're very hard to beat because of an amazing defense. But we're talking best team.

Denver? Honestly haven't seen enough of them this year to make a good judgement call. On paper I agree they deserve to be in the same category as Pittsburgh, I'll decline comment here since I've only seen one game.

Tennessee? Are you smoking crack? A mediocre defense and offense, both. Cincinatti scores about the same points per game as Tennessee does. Maybe Cinci is elite too . . .

I'm not saying Pittsburgh is better than NE, NYJ, or Denver, btw. I am saying that if you want to take a bet, I'd take those 4 teams and lay the field as to who represents the AFC.

Kopefire
11-02-2004, 03:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]


But that was only the half of it. Their top reciever was out


[/ QUOTE ]

Steelers are without their starting Cornerback, Chad Scott, so a second-string receiver going against a second-string CB should be a fair match-up, right?

[ QUOTE ]

and Troy Brown was forced into action and he's not 100%.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the Steelers are missing Bell at LB and Hampton at DT. It's not like there weren't mis-matches to be created by players willing to step up.

[ QUOTE ]

They're starting right tackle was out and they were forced to go with a backup who has yet to play this year.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Steelers lost one of their starting OL for the year in pre-season and are going with a back-up starter for the year. Sorry, but it seems to me if it's not an excuse for the Steelers then it's not an excuse for the Pats.

[ QUOTE ]

Then Light went down and they had to move this backup right tackle to left tackle and then had to move their starting right guard to right tackle and of course have another backup at right guard. It was a disaster with Joey porter having a field day with this makeshift line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Joey Porter is playing next to a back-up ILB and they are both playing in a 3-4 set behind a back-up DT making his first start in the NFL.

Let's toss in that the Steelers are also missing their starting QB, and were forced to start a rookie . . . (although when he gets healthy, I'm willing to bet Maddox is told he's a backup . . .)

[ QUOTE ]

Do a little research before making such a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at the injuries to both teams before you use it as an excuse for the loss.

The Steelers D has been devistated with injuries this season, and let's face it -- Porter hasn't been close to the same since he's been shot.

We started Williams at CB for heaven's sake -- a guy who has been second string in Seattle for 2 years and is pushing 40. He's undersized and slow, but Brady couldn't take advantage because Brown is a little dinged up?

Please.

MarkL444
11-02-2004, 04:03 AM
A few of you have commented on the teams I claim are better. Id like to point out a few things.
1- I think pitts and tenn are very close, it would not have been hard for me to leave them off of this list.
2- when i say tenn, i mean tenn with mcnair at at least 80%
3- The only week that I have gotten the opportuniy to watch Pitt play a full game was this last weekend, so I could easily be off in my assessment of the team in question.
4- Denver is better.
5- Big Ben = Ben Wallace, not Ben Rothsliburgerererer

MarkL444
11-02-2004, 04:06 AM
Also,

[ QUOTE ]
do you not know football ... some of your picks make sense, but some demonstrate either huge fan bias

[/ QUOTE ]

trust me i do. no bias, my team is in the nfc

Toro
11-02-2004, 07:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But that was only the half of it. Their top reciever was out


[/ QUOTE ]

Steelers are without their starting Cornerback, Chad Scott, so a second-string receiver going against a second-string CB should be a fair match-up, right?

[ QUOTE ]

and Troy Brown was forced into action and he's not 100%.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the Steelers are missing Bell at LB and Hampton at DT. It's not like there weren't mis-matches to be created by players willing to step up.

[ QUOTE ]

They're starting right tackle was out and they were forced to go with a backup who has yet to play this year.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Steelers lost one of their starting OL for the year in pre-season and are going with a back-up starter for the year. Sorry, but it seems to me if it's not an excuse for the Steelers then it's not an excuse for the Pats.

[ QUOTE ]

Then Light went down and they had to move this backup right tackle to left tackle and then had to move their starting right guard to right tackle and of course have another backup at right guard. It was a disaster with Joey porter having a field day with this makeshift line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Joey Porter is playing next to a back-up ILB and they are both playing in a 3-4 set behind a back-up DT making his first start in the NFL.

Let's toss in that the Steelers are also missing their starting QB, and were forced to start a rookie . . . (although when he gets healthy, I'm willing to bet Maddox is told he's a backup . . .)

[ QUOTE ]

Do a little research before making such a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at the injuries to both teams before you use it as an excuse for the loss.

The Steelers D has been devistated with injuries this season, and let's face it -- Porter hasn't been close to the same since he's been shot.

We started Williams at CB for heaven's sake -- a guy who has been second string in Seattle for 2 years and is pushing 40. He's undersized and slow, but Brady couldn't take advantage because Brown is a little dinged up?

Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading through a post before rebutting. I was not claiming that the loss was due to injuries. I knew the injury report for the Steelers and they had a lot of key players out. No way was I going to use the Patriots injuries as an excuse for the loss. Go back and read my post and see if this is the case or not.

Edge had claimed that this game provided evidence that Brady was overrated. That was the claim that I was rebutting. Now if you want to debate that, fire away, but otherwise you're out in left field because I agree that the Patriots got whupped Sunday and the injuries balance out and can't be used as an excuse.

Bulldog
11-02-2004, 08:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am of the opinion that the reason Tony Dungy hasn't been able to buld a defense is the fact that Peyton is getting $100 mil.

watching how a real QB takes over the game to win it when its nesecary (see Brady's 4th quater comebacks in 2001) and otherwise acts as a team leader in all respects (i don't see Vandercrack and Reggie Wayne getting in Brady's grill) /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

McNabb is getting $115 million and the Eagles still have a good defense.

QBs--too much credit when a team wins & too much blame when a team loses.

And no one has yet refuted my point about the Steelers playing a schedule that wouldn't scare the University of Utah.

Lawrence Ng
11-02-2004, 08:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They lost me $40 to 3 different Steelers fans

[/ QUOTE ]

Pats have made me enough money since Win 15. God bless Brady...

NoChance
11-02-2004, 11:55 AM
I have to get this off my chest...

First, the Steelers played a great game. It was probably their best game this season. Being the Steeler fan I am, I still think they will struggle to make the playoffs this season. The rest of the scedule is brutal.

Next, and this has nothing to do with how he performed against the Steelers, I am in the camp that thinks Brady is over-rated.

Is he a great leader? YES
Is he a good QB? YES

I am not saying he is a bad QB. I am saying he is over-rated. He has benefitted from playing on a team with a great defense. He is a QB that has done a great job of not making mistakes. He is NOT the QB I would want to start a franchise with.

Lets look at the stats from this year...the year people are starting to (mistakingly) say he is one of the best ever.

QB Rating: 90.8 - 11th in the NFL
Completion %: 60.0 - 18th in the NFL
Yards: 1660 - 13th in the NFL
TDs: 13 - 7th in the NFL
INTs: 7 - 8th most in the NFL

Yes, he has been a winner. Like I said earlier, so was Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson when the defense carried them.

Brady is GOOD. He is not one of the greatest. People were saying the same thing when Kurt Warner was winning with the Rams. Then he fell apart and lost his starting job and was eventually traded away. It was the players surrounding him that made him good.

As someone stated earlier, people put too much recognition/blame on the QB position.

Kopefire
11-02-2004, 03:06 PM
Sorry if that came accross as a personal attack instead of a general response to the injury situtation.

I've just heard that the loss was due to Pats injuries enough that I took the opportunity to respond to that point on a post that at least raises the specter.

I apologize for any mischaracterization of your point that I may have made.

As to the Brady being over-rated comment . . .

I think Brady is a lot like another very good decission making QB -- Neil O'Donnell. Now, I have a great deal of respect for O'Donnell. He took my Steelers to the SB, and frankly had a decent shot at winning it even though the Steelers basically sat out the 1st quarter.

Neil was a great decission maker. He had, at one time, the lowest int/Td ration in the NFL history (maybe he still does). He protected the football, made great decissions, and allowed his team to win with great team efforts. He never made mistakes, and he capitalized on the mistakes of others. He was good enough, and smart enough, to play within the offense and win.

He doesn't have great numbers, because his number one attribute was a great football mind.

Brady is in that category -- his skills are a bit above average, but not great. On a good, well-coached offense, he'll play his role, and win, because he knows his role, and he knows everyone else's role as well.

But I don't think he's the kind of guy who can win a game on his shoulders. He's never going to have the ability to drive an offense on his own will alone, like a John Elway, or the ability to just eat a great defense alive by making miricle pass after miricle pass for 60 straight minutes like Marino was occassionally capable of doing.

He would never be able to take a truly terrible team and occassionally win just because his own sheer talent is greater than the talent of an entire team -- like Archie Manning managed to do a few times.

He wins because he's the right guy in the right offense. And that makes him as good as he needs to be.

I think the media tends to glorify QB's, giving them more credit and more blame than they deserve.

If you look at what QB's are paid to do -- move the chains, score points, and not turn it over . . . Brady is about average in all categories except ints, where he's excellent.

Edge34
11-02-2004, 05:08 PM
NoChance and Kope:

You guys just said what I basically intended to, only better...thank you.

-Edge

kyro
11-07-2004, 03:10 PM
Does anyone believe me yet?

Toro
11-07-2004, 06:55 PM
It's too early to annoint them. Remember KC last year?

Nepa
11-07-2004, 08:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you still think this?

kyro
11-07-2004, 08:21 PM
Pittsburgh doesn't have an awful defense.
Pittsburgh didn't win two games because of kick returns for touchdowns
Kansas City didn't humiliate two undefeated teams midway through the season.

Kansas City was not that good last year. I don't know why anyone thought they were. Please someone tell me why you don't think this Steelers team isn't the favorite to win it all.

Toro
11-07-2004, 08:31 PM
How the hell did they do it? I thought the oddsmakers were batty making the Patriots favorites over the greatest show on turf in their place.

The Patriots were so thin at DB they brought some free agent in named Earthwind and then the first series Asante Samuel went down and Troy bleeping Brown has to play DB.

Back in preseason, when Belicheck had Brown playing DB he got scorched by the local press who questioned why the hell he would risk one of his top receivers fooling around in a preseason game playing defense. Well the legend of the guy grows, he really is a football genius.

The TD pass by Vintineri on the fake field goal with a little chicanery by splitting out Brown so the defense couldn't see him was a great call too. This game was thouroughly enjoyable.

Toro
11-07-2004, 08:35 PM
If the Super Bowl were next week, yes they would be the favorites against anyone, but it's way too early.

ThaSaltCracka
11-07-2004, 08:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If the Super Bowl were next week, yes they would be the favorites against anyone, but it's way too early.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, its to early to annoite them the favorites, but they are very good though.

MarkL444
11-07-2004, 08:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AFC teams better than Pittsburgh:
New England
NYJ
Indy
Denver
Baltimore
Kansas City
Tennessee

Maybe more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you still think this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I dont get to watch the games. I dont have sunday ticket or whatever. However after today I gotta change it to my top 3 teams there, and denver is close.

ThaSaltCracka
11-07-2004, 08:59 PM
McNabb got owned today, damn. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

kyro
11-07-2004, 09:05 PM
bah, i only got to see most of the first half. i really need to get a tv in here.

i can't believe they won either to be honest. the worst possible scenario they could have had this week was playing AT st. louis. really shows what kind of team they are. i still think they're behind the steelers now, but I think it's pretty clear who the top 2 teams in the NFL are right now.

Bulldog
11-08-2004, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone believe me yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I take back everything I said and concede. Well, I'll go this far: the Patriots and the Steelers are the two best teams in the AFC. Did you see the Pats beat the pass-happy Rams with a rookie, a guy off the practice squad, and a wide receiver as their CBs? Impressive.

Bulldog
11-08-2004, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Please someone tell me why you don't think this Steelers team isn't the favorite to win it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif The win over the Pats was in Pittsburgh.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif The win over the Eagles was in Pittsburgh.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif You have a rookie QB. One thing to win in November at home, entirely another to win a huge road playoff game.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif If you get rematches, one will be in New England (IMHO) and the other will be in Houston.

Toro
11-14-2004, 10:05 PM
Steelers still looking good. All the pundits said they would have a let down against the Browns. But the dumb asss Browns provided bulletin board material last week then got into a pre game rumble. Way to let sleeping dogs lie.