PDA

View Full Version : Questionable comment by PFW staff



Iron Shiek
09-03-2008, 12:42 PM
I try to read most football articles objectively so I am not trying to be a homer here, but WTF gives:

Hub Arkish, Publisher/Editor of Pro Football Weekly:

AFC North

1. Cleveland — DBs scary, but all those weapons on offense. Don’t be surprised if Quinn ends up on field.
2. Pittsburgh — Looks to me like a club headed in wrong direction.
3. Cincinnati — At what point do you stop looking at all the bad actors and focus on the coach?
4. Baltimore — Hard to doubt Ozzie Newsome, but trading up for Joe Flacco? How is this club better?



I really wish I could see him elaborate on that a bit. I am just wondering what gives him that thought. I wonder if our OL problems and aging DL (most of what we all complain about)is seen by other publications as an indication that we are going the wrong way. I would imagine that would be it, but I don't think that necessarily means we are headed for disaster and will be 4-12 by 2010, which is how that comment reads.

Iron Shiek
09-03-2008, 12:54 PM
Well I guess I should've kept reading, it gets worse....ha!

Editor in Chief Keith Schleiden:

AFC North

1. Cleveland — Do these Dawgs have more bark than bite? Nope. They’re the real deal.
2. Cincinnati — Bengals will wind up with a familiar 8-8 record.
3. Pittsburgh — Here’s hoping this isn’t the final year of Steelers ownership for the Rooney family.
4. Baltimore — Too many questions on offense for John Harbaugh’s club to surprise.



And with Senior Editor Nolan Nawrocki's projections, I may never go to that website ever again for the rest of my life!!:


AFC North

1. Cleveland — More big bodies on defense, bevy of offensive playmakers help Crennel capture division.
2. Baltimore — Questions at QB and protecting passer could negate coaching talent, aggressive defense.
3. Cincinnati — Ownership is its own biggest enemy and will struggle to field .500 team regardless of coach.
4. Pittsburgh — NFL’s toughest schedule, declining O-line, soft backfield bring Tomlin’s sophomore slump.



And Eric Edholm, senior editor:


AFC North

1. Cincinnati — Sure, a few things have to break right, but I have a feeling they’ll surprise people.
2. Cleveland — The hype doesn’t quite lead up to wins as defense is still a step behind the offense.
3. Pittsburgh — Nasty schedule, questions on O-line have me second-guessing Steelers’ potential.
4. Baltimore — Veterans, good coaching could lead to a competitive team to watch … in 2009


To be fair here is the link, some guys picked us up there, but last place?!!! :D :D :D

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/NFL+Features/2008/predictions.htm

Oviedo
09-03-2008, 01:09 PM
Typical media bias based on no research. Just a rehash of everything they read in the popular media on line and trying to create a new story of out it. Journalists are lazy whether in sports or politics. They are looking for the 5 second sound bite which is why you have to ignore 90% of it and rely on responsible journalists like John Clayton and Len Pasquarelli.

RuthlessBurgher
09-03-2008, 01:16 PM
These are a bunch of nobodies who want to make a name for themselves as a football writer. There is no glory in picking the Steelers to win the division. If you pick the Steelers and the Steelers end up winning the division, no one cares. But if you make a wacko pick like the Bengals to win the division or the Steelers to finish in last place, even though there is the tinist franction of a percent chance of these things happening, if it ever happened to come true, this nobody would suddenly be hailed as a prognosticating genius. That is why nobody picks the steady Seahawks in the NFC West...they are always looking for a shock the world pick like the Cardinals or Niners every year.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 01:29 PM
but, the schedule IS brutal... AND the line DOES suck. we say it ourselves.

and we have made questionable acquisitions... just made another one...

i can't fault a non-fan for feeling like we'll struggle... hell, I've said 10-6 would be a MAJOR accomplishment and that 8-8 could win our division...

frankthetank1
09-03-2008, 01:32 PM
but, the schedule IS brutal... AND the line DOES suck. we say it ourselves.

and we have made questionable acquisitions... just made another one...

i can't fault a non-fan for feeling like we'll struggle... hell, I've said 10-6 would be a MAJOR accomplishment and that 8-8 could win our division...

the thing is the other teams in the north have a very tough schedule as well. the steelers do have to play sd and the pats and im willing to guess no one else in the division will play them, but still. no way the steelers finish any lower than 2nd in the north and that would mean the browns will have to play a lot better than last season and that is highly unlikely

Oviedo
09-03-2008, 01:34 PM
but, the schedule IS brutal... AND the line DOES suck. we say it ourselves.

and we have made questionable acquisitions... just made another one...

i can't fault a non-fan for feeling like we'll struggle... hell, I've said 10-6 would be a MAJOR accomplishment and that 8-8 could win our division...

We have an 80% common schedule with the other teams in the AFC North. Therefore if our schedule "IS Brutal" so is theirs and we are the only team in the Division that has both a top offense and defense. So why would anyone think the other teams have a "snowballs chance in..."

RuthlessBurgher
09-03-2008, 01:36 PM
But people just spout out the "Steelers have the toughest schedule" mantra without noticing that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens have the same schedule except for two games. While those two games against New England & San Diego will certainly be tough compared to Buffalo & Denver, NY Jets & KC Chiefs, and Miami & Oakland, you could also make the point that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens each have two tough games against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 01:44 PM
you last 3 mentioned scheule being the same... you're right... which is why I said 8-8 could WIN THE DIVISION. It's tough on all of us... and we won it by teh skin of our teeth last year over the browns, with a sweep over them... a split and we lose it.

BTW, the exceptions are that, we've added the Pats and Chargers where they don't have to play teams that are quite that tough.

this certainly isn't a "shoo in"

Jom112
09-03-2008, 02:04 PM
Aside from the Ravens, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bengals, Browns or Steelers win the division this year.

That being said as long as Eric Ghiaciuc is the starting center and John Thornton is the starting DT, no one should be picking us to win the division (Aside from crazy homers like myself)...

SanAntonioSteelerFan
09-03-2008, 02:16 PM
But people just spout out the "Steelers have the toughest schedule" mantra without noticing that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens have the same schedule except for two games. While those two games against New England & San Diego will certainly be tough compared to Buffalo & Denver, NY Jets & KC Chiefs, and Miami & Oakland, you could also make the point that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens each have two tough games against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Very well put :Clap :Clap

SteelTorch
09-03-2008, 02:22 PM
It gets worse. Even CHFF is spouting the same garbage everyone else is:


Pittsburgh crushed Cleveland 34-7 in their Week 1 battle, but squeaked out a 31-28 victory in the November rematch.

But it’s the off-season that leads us to believe the Browns are poised to strike. The Browns stockpiled beefy defensive hogs and should be much tougher defensively in 2008 than they were last year. The Steelers, meanwhile, did little to shore up its defensive issues. And, offensively, Pittsburgh lost its best player (Alan Faneca) from an offensive line that was very un-Steelers like in its mediocrity last year.

But there are too many other factors pointing Cleveland’s way. It's finally the year they gain a modicum of revenge after years of schoolyard humiliation at the hands of the bullies of the AFC North.

Division champ: Cleveland
Wildcard: Pittsburgh



http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2360_AFC_predictions_and_the_politics_of_pigski n.html

Of course, it fails to mention a few things:

Faneca wasn't spectacular last year, either. Plus, we have a new center.

3 of Cleveland's TD's were flukes. One was set up by an interception, one was set up by Cribbs, and another was actually scored by Cribbs. The game should not have been as close as it was.

We were missing a starter who is also perhaps one of the best 3-4 DE's in the league, as well as FWP, who, despite what DVSONE thinks, is a great RB.

We lost a game to the Ravens in which we sat out most of our crucial starters.


Does it anger me? Yes. But does it worry me? No. We'll just have to prove the pundits wrong again. 8)

My highly-informed opinion: Cleveland will finish second again, possibly third. They still can't stop the pass, their run defense will probably lag by the end of the year, and their offense won't be able to surprise others the way it did last year. DA was one of the worst second-half QB's in the league last year. They will probably be this year's version of the NO Saints.


*knocks on wood*, because I believe in karma.

Ghost
09-03-2008, 04:05 PM
Sportswriter Bill - "The Steelers will have a tough time this year with the schedule, an aging D line and questions on the O line"

Sportswriter Ted - "The Steelers still look like the team to beat in the AFC North. Big Ben and the boys will score at will and the D should do enough to hang on. You get to the playoffs and anything can happen".

Planet Steelers Msg Board - "Bill is a @#$&*!? moron who's never watched a game in his life and is just spouting off the typical garbage he's read elsewhere. Now that Ted guy is a genius! He really gets it. He can see past the obvious and we are only going to read and quote Ted the rest of the season..."

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 05:33 PM
But people just spout out the "Steelers have the toughest schedule" mantra without noticing that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens have the same schedule except for two games. While those two games against New England & San Diego will certainly be tough compared to Buffalo & Denver, NY Jets & KC Chiefs, and Miami & Oakland, you could also make the point that the Browns, Bengals, and Ravens each have two tough games against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Very well put :Clap :Clap
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.

when they get NE and San Diego on their schedule instead of Denver and Buffalo, THEN, this argument would make sense.

Les 74
09-03-2008, 05:42 PM
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.




Gotta disagree here,SoD.Maybe when the Browns prove that they can actually beat the Steelers,maybe then it'll be a wash.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 05:54 PM
Sportswriter Bill - "The Steelers will have a tough time this year with the schedule, an aging D line and questions on the O line"

Sportswriter Ted - "The Steelers still look like the team to beat in the AFC North. Big Ben and the boys will score at will and the D should do enough to hang on. You get to the playoffs and anything can happen".

Planet Steelers Msg Board - "Bill is a @#$&*!? moron who's never watched a game in his life and is just spouting off the typical garbage he's read elsewhere. Now that Ted guy is a genius! He really gets it. He can see past the obvious and we are only going to read and quote Ted the rest of the season..."
Bill & Ted? Excellent! [deville breaks into an air guitar moment!]

We'll only quote Ted until Bill says how great Ben looked against somebody.

ramblinjim
09-03-2008, 05:55 PM
Sportswriter Bill - "The Steelers will have a tough time this year with the schedule, an aging D line and questions on the O line"

Sportswriter Ted - "The Steelers still look like the team to beat in the AFC North. Big Ben and the boys will score at will and the D should do enough to hang on. You get to the playoffs and anything can happen".

Planet Steelers Msg Board - "Bill is a @#$&*!? moron who's never watched a game in his life and is just spouting off the typical garbage he's read elsewhere. Now that Ted guy is a genius! He really gets it. He can see past the obvious and we are only going to read and quote Ted the rest of the season..."


Perfect! that Ted guy is pretty sharp.

Actually, if someone isn't completely dug into AFC North Football, I could see where people would say Cleveland has the advantage. We made no improvements or youth movements to either of our lines, our DL is getting older, our OL on paper (only on paper) won't be as good as last years revolving door and on paper, Cleveland has gotten much better. They brought in guys for the DL, they had a pretty decent OL last year. Anderson played well most of last season (till he had to) and the Browns won some games.

What's to suggest for those that don't read any and everything Steeler and AFC NOrth they can get their hands on that the Browns aren't going to be a little better and us a little worse? Well except for the fact that it's the *$&%$*#& Browns? :brownssuck

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 06:03 PM
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.




Gotta disagree here,SoD.Maybe when the Browns prove that they can actually beat the Steelers,maybe then it'll be a wash.
:nono
watch what you ask for..

we squeaked past them last year... meanwhile, with no significant upgrades from FA or the draft, our only improvement is aging/experience... that may be good some positions (Ben, Holmes, for example) it can't be as good at others (Hampton, Farrior, Deshea, etc). OTOH, they got Donte Stallworth... and Wimbley back...

This is where we were a few seasons ago when TJ shined his shoe with a terrible towel and many got whiney about it.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Sportswriter Bill - "The Steelers will have a tough time this year with the schedule, an aging D line and questions on the O line"

Sportswriter Ted - "The Steelers still look like the team to beat in the AFC North. Big Ben and the boys will score at will and the D should do enough to hang on. You get to the playoffs and anything can happen".

Planet Steelers Msg Board - "Bill is a @#$&*!? moron who's never watched a game in his life and is just spouting off the typical garbage he's read elsewhere. Now that Ted guy is a genius! He really gets it. He can see past the obvious and we are only going to read and quote Ted the rest of the season..."


Perfect! that Ted guy is pretty sharp.

Actually, if someone isn't completely dug into AFC North Football, I could see where people would say Cleveland has the advantage. We made no improvements or youth movements to either of our lines, our DL is getting older, our OL on paper (only on paper) won't be as good as last years revolving door and on paper, Cleveland has gotten much better. They brought in guys for the DL, they had a pretty decent OL last year. Anderson played well most of last season (till he had to) and the Browns won some games.

What's to suggest for those that don't read any and everything Steeler and AFC NOrth they can get their hands on that the Browns aren't going to be a little better and us a little worse? Well except for the fact that it's the *$&%$*#& Browns? :brownssuck
cuz most of us here make our way to all the browns and bengals websites and know exactly how the other teams are doing, right? about an equal amount of time devoted to the other teams as we do to the steelers.... :roll:

btw, i'm not saying i know more or less... i'm simply saying, the browns were winning our division LAST year and choked it away... they also had us by the short and curlies in the 2nd game (when Anderson actually started)... and we managed to pull it out.

Sure, I like to think the steelers will go 16-0 every single year... but, unlike you guys... i think there's pretty close to a 50-50 chance that the browns actually beat us at least once this year.... sure, it might be 55-45.... but, it's close.

SteelTorch
09-03-2008, 06:09 PM
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.




Gotta disagree here,SoD.Maybe when the Browns prove that they can actually beat the Steelers,maybe then it'll be a wash.
:nono
watch what you ask for..

we squeaked past them last year... meanwhile, with no significant upgrades from FA or the draft, our only improvement is aging/experience... that may be good some positions (Ben, Holmes, for example) it can't be as good at others (Hampton, Farrior, Deshea, etc). OTOH, they got Donte Stallworth... and Wimbley back...

Wrong. For the most part, we flat-out dominated them in the second game. Three of their TD's were garbage: two set up by an int and special teams, and one scored on special teams. :nono

And DA was a terrible second-half [season-wise] QB.

Unless you were talking about season-wise, which yes, we did. But they won a lot of close games and had a lot weaker schedule than this year.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 06:16 PM
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.




Gotta disagree here,SoD.Maybe when the Browns prove that they can actually beat the Steelers,maybe then it'll be a wash.
:nono
watch what you ask for..

we squeaked past them last year... meanwhile, with no significant upgrades from FA or the draft, our only improvement is aging/experience... that may be good some positions (Ben, Holmes, for example) it can't be as good at others (Hampton, Farrior, Deshea, etc). OTOH, they got Donte Stallworth... and Wimbley back...

Wrong. For the most part, we flat-out dominated them in the second game. Three of their TD's were garbage: two set up by an int and special teams, and one scored on special teams. :nono

And DA was a terrible second-half [season-wise] QB.

Unless you were talking about season-wise, which yes, we did. But they won a lot of close games and had a lot weaker schedule than this year.
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.

Les 74
09-03-2008, 06:20 PM
actually, no, it's not... it's a wash... the browns are tough for the steelers and the steelers are tough for the browns... that's wash.




Gotta disagree here,SoD.Maybe when the Browns prove that they can actually beat the Steelers,maybe then it'll be a wash.
:nono
watch what you ask for..

we squeaked past them last year... meanwhile, with no significant upgrades from FA or the draft, our only improvement is aging/experience... that may be good some positions (Ben, Holmes, for example) it can't be as good at others (Hampton, Farrior, Deshea, etc). OTOH, they got Donte Stallworth... and Wimbley back...

This is where we were a few seasons ago when TJ shined his shoe with a terrible towel and many got whiney about it.


1.We played them twice.The first game was a blowout and the second we gave the Browns the game and we still won.

2.The Browns didn't exactly light it up in FA/draft either(in fact some say they didn't even have a draft :lol: .)Stallworth ain't all that good.

3.While you may be correct on "Fat" Hampton,I think that Farrior and Townsend still have alot left in the tank.

4.The Browns probably have the worst D-backfield in the NFL.

5.Remember this above all else..............they are still the Brownies!!!!

SteelerOfDeVille
09-03-2008, 06:46 PM
1.We played them twice.The first game was a blowout and the second we gave the Browns the game and we still won.
The 1st game, it was a much different game once they switched QBs and put Anderson in - I remembered thinking, "dang, if this dude was in, we mighta had a game on our hands". They moved the ball much easier. And the 2nd game, I don't like trailing to anyone in teh 4th quarter... Just sayin'...


2.The Browns didn't exactly light it up in FA/draft either(in fact some say they didn't even have a draft :lol: .)Stallworth ain't all that good.
You're right... they didn't... and Stallworth would be #3 on our team...


3.While you may be correct on "Fat" Hampton,I think that Farrior and Townsend still have alot left in the tank.
And marvel... and hines.. and Aaron Smith... and Keisel... and..... sure, they may not be "over the hill",b ut, with most of these guys, you've gott admit, they're BEST days are behind them. Once you understand that, the question is how much worse are they then last year?


4.The Browns probably have the worst D-backfield in the NFL.
depends on whether we're starting smith and carter. :tt2


5.Remember this above all else..............they are still the Brownies!!!!
I have NO answer.

Seriously, all in all. I agree with you guys. I think we're the better team. But, i think many of you are dismissive of the idea that we could lose to the browns... as if it's simply impossible that the browns might win one against us.

How many times would the Giants have beaten the Pats out of 10 last year? I say 3 at the most. The Pats were a better team, IMO...

There's a reason that a few teams have gone 14-2 and 15-1, but, nobody had been 16-0 before last year... the best team doesn't ALWAYS actually win the game. 1 freaking slip up and we coudl find ourselfves struggling...

Kids.... it's not impossible.. that's all i'm saying.

Jom112
09-03-2008, 06:58 PM
4.The Browns probably have the worst D-backfield in the NFL.


They have zero depth but I wouldn't say they have the worst DB's in the NFL. Sean Jones is under-rated and Eric Wright has potential (Although this season I think he goes through a sophomore slump)...

SteelTorch
09-03-2008, 06:59 PM
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29330&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&seasonType=REG&week=10

It wouldn't have even been close if we hadn't made so many mistakes. I'll type this til my fingers are numb: the game wasn't as close as the scoreboard says. Their D couldn't stop us, and we dominated their O, but 3 of their TD's came from our own stupid mistakes. I don't care what team you are, if you allow a TD on special teams, it's a fluke. It wasn't a question of them being an improved team, it was a question of us choking.

Shawn
09-03-2008, 07:27 PM
Aside from the Ravens, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bengals, Browns or Steelers win the division this year.

That being said as long as Eric Ghiaciuc is the starting center and John Thornton is the starting DT, no one should be picking us to win the division (Aside from crazy homers like myself)...

Bengals. :lol:

Good stuff Jom...I needed a good laugh tonight. :D

BigBen2112
09-03-2008, 07:29 PM
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29330&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&seasonType=REG&week=10

It wouldn't have even been close if we hadn't made so many mistakes. I'll type this til my fingers are numb: the game wasn't as close as the scoreboard says. Their D couldn't stop us, and we dominated their O, but 3 of their TD's came from our own stupid mistakes. I don't care what team you are, if you allow a TD on special teams, it's a fluke. It wasn't a question of them being an improved team, it was a question of us choking.

That's the weakest argument ever though. The game of football, like a LOT of sports, is about capitalizing on others mistakes. That's what the game is about. We made "mistakes" or did they do things successfully? Is an interception always a "mistake"? I dont think so.

You cant trivialize things like that. Simply saying, "it wouldn't have been close if we hadn't made mistakes" defeats the whole purpose of the sport.

Many think that if we play our best and they play their best we win with no mistakes on either side...but mistakes are inevitable in every game, if another team capitalizes good for them...that IS the point.

We could make mistakes against them again and lose...and be sitting at home instead of going to the playoffs. And with this OL and DL and the lack of depth, it doesnt take much to have things fall from in our favor to dead even...and then we have to be flawless.

RuthlessBurgher
09-03-2008, 07:41 PM
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29330&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&seasonType=REG&week=10

It wouldn't have even been close if we hadn't made so many mistakes. I'll type this til my fingers are numb: the game wasn't as close as the scoreboard says. Their D couldn't stop us, and we dominated their O, but 3 of their TD's came from our own stupid mistakes. I don't care what team you are, if you allow a TD on special teams, it's a fluke. It wasn't a question of them being an improved team, it was a question of us choking.

That's the weakest argument ever though. The game of football, like a LOT of sports, is about capitalizing on others mistakes. That's what the game is about. We made "mistakes" or did they do things successfully? Is an interception always a "mistake"? I dont think so.

You cant trivialize things like that. Simply saying, "it wouldn't have been close if we hadn't made mistakes" defeats the whole purpose of the sport.

Many think that if we play our best and they play their best we win with no mistakes on either side...but mistakes are inevitable in every game, if another team capitalizes good for them...that IS the point.

We could make mistakes against them again and lose...and be sitting at home instead of going to the playoffs. And with this OL and DL and the lack of depth, it doesnt take much to have things fall from in our favor to dead even...and then we have to be flawless.

Except for the first time we played the Texans and they beat us 24-6 in spite of us having 24 first downs to their 3, and us having 422 yards of offense to their 47. That game was all about ridiculous mistakes completely undoing what was otherwise total domination.

BigBen2112
09-03-2008, 08:26 PM
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29330&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&seasonType=REG&week=10

It wouldn't have even been close if we hadn't made so many mistakes. I'll type this til my fingers are numb: the game wasn't as close as the scoreboard says. Their D couldn't stop us, and we dominated their O, but 3 of their TD's came from our own stupid mistakes. I don't care what team you are, if you allow a TD on special teams, it's a fluke. It wasn't a question of them being an improved team, it was a question of us choking.

That's the weakest argument ever though. The game of football, like a LOT of sports, is about capitalizing on others mistakes. That's what the game is about. We made "mistakes" or did they do things successfully? Is an interception always a "mistake"? I dont think so.

You cant trivialize things like that. Simply saying, "it wouldn't have been close if we hadn't made mistakes" defeats the whole purpose of the sport.

Many think that if we play our best and they play their best we win with no mistakes on either side...but mistakes are inevitable in every game, if another team capitalizes good for them...that IS the point.

We could make mistakes against them again and lose...and be sitting at home instead of going to the playoffs. And with this OL and DL and the lack of depth, it doesnt take much to have things fall from in our favor to dead even...and then we have to be flawless.

Except for the first time we played the Texans and they beat us 24-6 in spite of us having 24 first downs to their 3, and us having 422 yards of offense to their 47. That game was all about ridiculous mistakes completely undoing what was otherwise total domination.

Football is about execution. We made mistakes and thus did not execute flawlessly. Thus we lost. Who is at fault for that? Us? So we lost the game. That should not be trivialized.

RuthlessBurgher
09-03-2008, 08:30 PM
31-28... flat out dominated? dude, we TRAILED in the 4th quarter. I don't care how you slice it, that's NOT flat out dominating.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29330&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&seasonType=REG&week=10

It wouldn't have even been close if we hadn't made so many mistakes. I'll type this til my fingers are numb: the game wasn't as close as the scoreboard says. Their D couldn't stop us, and we dominated their O, but 3 of their TD's came from our own stupid mistakes. I don't care what team you are, if you allow a TD on special teams, it's a fluke. It wasn't a question of them being an improved team, it was a question of us choking.

That's the weakest argument ever though. The game of football, like a LOT of sports, is about capitalizing on others mistakes. That's what the game is about. We made "mistakes" or did they do things successfully? Is an interception always a "mistake"? I dont think so.

You cant trivialize things like that. Simply saying, "it wouldn't have been close if we hadn't made mistakes" defeats the whole purpose of the sport.

Many think that if we play our best and they play their best we win with no mistakes on either side...but mistakes are inevitable in every game, if another team capitalizes good for them...that IS the point.

We could make mistakes against them again and lose...and be sitting at home instead of going to the playoffs. And with this OL and DL and the lack of depth, it doesnt take much to have things fall from in our favor to dead even...and then we have to be flawless.

Except for the first time we played the Texans and they beat us 24-6 in spite of us having 24 first downs to their 3, and us having 422 yards of offense to their 47. That game was all about ridiculous mistakes completely undoing what was otherwise total domination.

Football is about execution. We made mistakes and thus did not execute flawlessly. Thus we lost. Who is at fault for that? Us? So we lost the game. That should not be trivialized.

That loss was on one guy. He wore an ocho. That game was a stinko. Everyone else was in the process of obliterating an expansion team. What an embarassment.

buckeyehoppy
09-03-2008, 09:51 PM
The "writers" at PFW are all a bunch of f---tards!

Not one of them picked the Steelers to win the North? The Steelers have won four of the last five divisions, with the exception being the year they ran the table and won SBXL. For the most part, that team doesn't look a whole lot different than the one now. So, the Steelers don't get any points for keeping the unit together? The dateless wonders at PFW need to get a grip.

Not to mention the fact that every team in the division has glaring and obvious holes. But the team that has pretty much owned the division the last five years gets dismissed? Chuck Q. Farley at PFW!!!

The Steelers are a proven championship team who should do well enough to hold their own against the elite of the AFC (and they will get every opportunity to prove that).

PFW used to be a respected publication covering the NFL, but not any more. Not when one of these so-called "experts" can see why the Steelers still rule the roost in the AFC North and that not a team yet has put up even a modest challenge to them in their own division.

F--- You, PFW!!! :Hater

Iron Shiek
09-04-2008, 09:27 AM
The "writers" at PFW are all a bunch of f---tards!

Not one of them picked the Steelers to win the North? The Steelers have won four of the last five divisions, with the exception being the year they ran the table and won SBXL. For the most part, that team doesn't look a whole lot different than the one now. So, the Steelers don't get any points for keeping the unit together? The dateless wonders at PFW need to get a grip.

Not to mention the fact that every team in the division has glaring and obvious holes. But the team that has pretty much owned the division the last five years gets dismissed? Chuck Q. Farley at PFW!!!

The Steelers are a proven championship team who should do well enough to hold their own against the elite of the AFC (and they will get every opportunity to prove that).

PFW used to be a respected publication covering the NFL, but not any more. Not when one of these so-called "experts" can see why the Steelers still rule the roost in the AFC North and that not a team yet has put up even a modest challenge to them in their own division.

F--- You, PFW!!! :Hater


Dang we know where to hit Buckeyehoppy to get him going! I posted the guys' picks who had some interesting comments or outrageous predictions. I think if you click the link in my original (or 2nd post) there were a few guys that picked them to win the division.

And when I said I won't visit their website, it wasn't because they had something bad to say about the Steelers. I was merely joking. But when I saw they picked us to finish last (behind the Ravens :shock: ) that really rubbed me the wrong way. Good luck with Flacco you ratholes....

ikestops85
09-04-2008, 12:52 PM
The "writers" at PFW are all a bunch of f---tards!

Not one of them picked the Steelers to win the North? The Steelers have won four of the last five divisions, with the exception being the year they ran the table and won SBXL. For the most part, that team doesn't look a whole lot different than the one now. So, the Steelers don't get any points for keeping the unit together? The dateless wonders at PFW need to get a grip.

Not to mention the fact that every team in the division has glaring and obvious holes. But the team that has pretty much owned the division the last five years gets dismissed? Chuck Q. Farley at PFW!!!

The Steelers are a proven championship team who should do well enough to hold their own against the elite of the AFC (and they will get every opportunity to prove that).

PFW used to be a respected publication covering the NFL, but not any more. Not when one of these so-called "experts" can see why the Steelers still rule the roost in the AFC North and that not a team yet has put up even a modest challenge to them in their own division.

F--- You, PFW!!! :Hater

I wouldn't worry about what others say we will do. The proof is in the results and we have won consistently for the last 35 or so years. I do have to correct you about the steelers winning the division 4 out of the last 5 years. We've actually won the division 2 out of the last 5 years.

2003 - We had a 6 - 10 record/No playoffs
2004 - We had a 15 - 1 record/Division winner
2005 - We had a 11 - 5 record/Wildcard Team and SB Champs
2006 - We had an 8 - 8 record/No playoffs
2007 - We had a 10 - 6 record/Division winner

Chadman
09-04-2008, 10:40 PM
Tough schedule...easy schedule...who cares?

You play the teams that are put in front of you.

If you are good enough to beat them, you're good enough. If not...then they were never going to win the SB anyway.

Chadman relishes the challenge put in front of the Steelers. Can't wait.

Let the games begin.

And if some bespeckled, media knob wants to write them off- good for him. Chadman predicts that said media knob will not be winning sportswriter of the year either, so take that to the bank.

buckeyehoppy
09-04-2008, 11:05 PM
Dang we know where to hit Buckeyehoppy to get him going! I posted the guys' picks who had some interesting comments or outrageous predictions. I think if you click the link in my original (or 2nd post) there were a few guys that picked them to win the division.

And when I said I won't visit their website, it wasn't because they had something bad to say about the Steelers. I was merely joking. But when I saw they picked us to finish last (behind the Ravens :shock: ) that really rubbed me the wrong way. Good luck with Flacco you ratholes....



I wouldn't worry about what others say we will do. The proof is in the results and we have won consistently for the last 35 or so years. I do have to correct you about the steelers winning the division 4 out of the last 5 years. We've actually won the division 2 out of the last 5 years.

2003 - We had a 6 - 10 record/No playoffs
2004 - We had a 15 - 1 record/Division winner
2005 - We had a 11 - 5 record/Wildcard Team and SB Champs
2006 - We had an 8 - 8 record/No playoffs
2007 - We had a 10 - 6 record/Division winner

I was, shall we say, a tad fired up at that point and trying to rely on my otherwise fermented hop addled memory to recall the record. Thanx for the correction, Ike.

IS, I used to consider PFW a first-class publication and I used to rely on their info fairly religiously. Doesn't look like I'll be going there again for too much more than comic relief in the future.

You would think that an otherwise intelligent football expert like Hub Arkush would know better than to be lured by the seductive eye-batting of a Johnnie Come Lately like the Clowns. This is especially true when they have a secondary that has swiss cheese coverage, an underachieving group of LBs and a pass rush that consists of malcontent tubs of lard that are probably closer to a heart attack than a QB sack. I guess I goofed.

Not to mention that they have an impending QB controversy and a one-dimensional running game.

I've said that the Clowns will finish at or around .500. We'll see, but I am pretty sure that they are at least better than the Ratf---s and the Bungholes, so 8-8 doesn't sound so unrealistic. But asking the Lords of the Off-Season to win more than 4 games against the rest of their schedule is a tall order.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-04-2008, 11:14 PM
Dang we know where to hit Buckeyehoppy to get him going! I posted the guys' picks who had some interesting comments or outrageous predictions. I think if you click the link in my original (or 2nd post) there were a few guys that picked them to win the division.

And when I said I won't visit their website, it wasn't because they had something bad to say about the Steelers. I was merely joking. But when I saw they picked us to finish last (behind the Ravens :shock: ) that really rubbed me the wrong way. Good luck with Flacco you ratholes....



I wouldn't worry about what others say we will do. The proof is in the results and we have won consistently for the last 35 or so years. I do have to correct you about the steelers winning the division 4 out of the last 5 years. We've actually won the division 2 out of the last 5 years.

2003 - We had a 6 - 10 record/No playoffs
2004 - We had a 15 - 1 record/Division winner
2005 - We had a 11 - 5 record/Wildcard Team and SB Champs
2006 - We had an 8 - 8 record/No playoffs
2007 - We had a 10 - 6 record/Division winner

I was, shall we say, a tad fired up at that point and trying to rely on my otherwise fermented hop addled memory to recall the record. Thanx for the correction, Ike.

IS, I used to consider PFW a first-class publication and I used to rely on their info fairly religiously. Doesn't look like I'll be going there again for too much more than comic relief in the future.

You would think that an otherwise intelligent football expert like Hub Arkush would know better than to be lured by the seductive eye-batting of a Johnnie Come Lately like the Clowns. This is especially true when they have a secondary that has swiss cheese coverage, an underachieving group of LBs and a pass rush that consists of malcontent tubs of lard that are probably closer to a heart attack than a QB sack. I guess I goofed.

Not to mention that they have an impending QB controversy and a one-dimensional running game.

I've said that the Clowns will finish at or around .500. We'll see, but I am pretty sure that they are at least better than the Ratf---s and the Bungholes, so 8-8 doesn't sound so unrealistic. But asking the Lords of the Off-Season to win more than 4 games against the rest of their schedule is a tall order.
actually, every year since the restructure, the 2nd place team in one year has had the best record in the division the next year... (that obviously excludes the 1st year when there was no prior year).

If that continues, the Browns would have the best record...

ikestops85
09-05-2008, 08:19 AM
actually, every year since the restructure, the 2nd place team in one year has had the best record in the division the next year... (that obviously excludes the 1st year when there was no prior year).

If that continues, the Browns would have the best record...

Not so fast grasshopper ... the Steelers finished 3rd in 2003 with a 6-10 record and came back the next year to win the division with a 15-1 record. :wink:

How could you put "Browns" and "best record" in the same sentence? :lol:

Jooser
09-05-2008, 09:46 AM
I may be repeating someone here or maybe not, but...The last time I heard 'Sophomore Slump' associated with this team, we won the damn Super Bowl. :moon


http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7718/05roethlisbergerben02nj8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:tt1 :tt1 :tt1 :wft :wft :wft :Bow :Bow :Bow :Bow

RuthlessBurgher
09-05-2008, 10:26 AM
How could you put "Browns" and "best record" in the same sentence? :lol:

It's easy. James Browns best record was the Live at the Apollo album that came out in 1963. :lol: