PDA

View Full Version : Pittsburgher with cries



SteelCrazy
10-28-2011, 07:13 AM
Yapping, losing always on menu vs. Pats

By Ron Borges

FOXBORO — It is Steelers Week here, and as always at this time of Steelers Week, the Steelers are winning. Their problem comes on Patriots [team stats] Sunday, which is how Steelers Week usually ends.

“We’re not intimidated by nobody,” Steelers nose tackle Casey Hampton boasted yesterday from Pittsburgh.

Surely they’re not. That process usually doesn’t start until around the third quarter of a Patriots Sunday during Steelers Week, although sometimes it has started in the first minute if Tom Brady [stats] was particularly miffed at how the Steelers had put their cleats in their mouth all week.

Every season is different, of course. So is every Steelers Week. It’s just the games that seem the same.

That is why Hampton, who hasn’t played in three weeks because of a sore shoulder but may return Sunday, isn’t intimidated. He, like most of the pugnacious Pittsburghers, keep thinking playing Brady is like playing the stock market: Past success is no guarantee of future gains.

Or, in their case, vice versa.

“It’s not Steelers vs. history,” oft-beaten defensive end Brett Keisel said this week. “It’s Steelers vs. Patriots. You just have to play ball. You don’t have to play history.”

That is true. Unfortunately for the Steelers, they have to play Brady with the ball, and history tells us that when he has it, the Steelers are history.

You might recall the greatest example of this, which came Dec. 9, 2007.

Anthony Smith, a second-year safety out of Syracuse who now is long gone, guaranteed the Steelers would snap the undefeated Patriots’ 12-game winning streak.

Apparently suffering from some sort of delusional episode, Smith said during that Steelers Week talk-a-thon that, “People keep asking me if we’re ready for the Patriots. They should be asking if they’re ready for us. We’re going to win. Yeah, I can guarantee a win.”

The following Sunday afternoon, Brady drilled a 4-yard touchdown pass to Randy Moss in front of Smith’s face and then climbed into the safety’s facemask in the end zone, guaranteeing him a long day. On the next series, Brady scorched Smith on a 63-yard touchdown pass to Moss. And later he showed Smith the true face of intimidation when he suckered him in on a double-lateral flea-flicker that ended with a Brady 56-yard TD pass into the waiting arms of Jabar Gaffney.

Those plays inspired Chief Stone Face, aka Bill Belichick, to quip, “We’ve played against a lot better safeties than him, I’ll tell you.”

Not even a nitwit like Anthony Smith would have guaranteed during Steelers Week a quote like that from Bill Belichick.

When visiting a crime scene — and it is criminal the way Brady and the Patriots keep assaulting these poor, helpless lads — detectives look for patterns. The ones from this nearly annual assault (Brady is 6-1 against the Steelers, including the playoffs) are always the same: Pittsburgh talks before the game, then cries after it.

“They clearly have no reason to be afraid of us, but neither do we,” Steelers safety Ryan Clark insisted this week.

Neither do we what? Have reason to be afraid of ourselves?

To their credit, the Steelers are 5-2 at the moment, but, to be fair, it’s one of the lamest 5-2 records imaginable. They haven’t beaten a team with a winning record. The two losses? Against the only two teams they’ve faced with winning records.

To their credit, the Steelers are allowing fewer passing yards than all but one team in pro football, but part of the reason why is they’re giving up nearly 45 more rushing yards per game than a year ago, so they might be wise not to be too encouraged by that Sunday.

To their credit, the Steelers have allowed only 14 pass plays of 20 yards or more, but then again, four of them came last weekend against the Arizona Cardinals, who happen to be the only team they’ve played that can throw the ball across the living room.

So what, exactly, do we have in this year’s Pittsburgh Steelers?

They sound kind of familiar, to tell you the truth.

“If I knew the reason why they’ve beaten us more than we’ve beaten them we wouldn’t have that problem anymore,” Hampton opined. “Just got to go out there and do what we do.”

That’s what Tom Brady [stats] is hoping for.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/foot ... rticleFull (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1376514&format=&page=2&listingType=pats#articleFull)

Oviedo
10-28-2011, 08:15 AM
Not sure I have ever heard anyone "cry" after the game but other than that the article is pretty accurate. They have owned us and we have yet to prove we can beat a play off caliber team this season.

Slapstick
10-28-2011, 08:43 AM
I'm very interested in the what this jagoff will have to say in the event of a Steelers win...

A lot of crying, I'm guessing...

steelfin
10-28-2011, 08:43 AM
Agree with Ovi...the article is accurate.

The Steelers can prove a lot to themselves and the rest of the NFL over the next two weeks.

I guess we will see where they stand soon enough.

SF

feltdizz
10-28-2011, 09:18 AM
I'm very interested in the what this jagoff will have to say in the event of a Steelers win...

A lot of crying, I'm guessing...

I think we will all cry....with joy, if we finally beat Brady and the Pats.

2004 was a long time ago.

chiken
10-28-2011, 10:03 AM
err we have beaten a team with a winning record.. but other than that, yea the article stings the truth.

RuthlessBurgher
10-28-2011, 10:23 AM
Pittsburgh talks before the game, then cries after it.

One moron (who is LOOONG gone) opened his mouth 4 freaking years ago, and this is reputation. Who else talks before these game? Who is crying after them?

You can't dispute the on-field facts that this author provides, because New England has indeed had our number, but the way the author attempts to convey his point reeks of trash-talking worse than anything Anthony Smith said (and this dude is merely a pencil jockey).

I want to remind the author that his demi-God quarterback is currently on a 3 game losing streak in the games that truly matter in the playoffs, and has not won a championship since SpyGate was made public (is another regular season victory over Pittsburgh going to change that?). We've won two titles since then (and may have had two others if the Asterisks were not allowed to cheat and screw us out of 2 playoff losses during that dark time period in NFL history.

Dee Dub
10-28-2011, 11:29 AM
Agree with Ovi...the article is accurate.

The Steelers can prove a lot to themselves and the rest of the NFL over the next two weeks.

I guess we will see where they stand soon enough.

SF

If we are talking regular season...yeah it is pretty accurate. But how can a team own another team when in the past 6 years the one being owned has won 3 AFC Championship games? Those three years the Steelers may not have played the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl but you can say that they weren't owned by the them those years simply because the Patriots weren't good enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.

In at least two of those three years the Patriots were favored to win it all and they came up short. They underachieved. They choked. They flat out couldn't get it done.

That my friends is not what I would call being owned.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
10-28-2011, 01:32 PM
Agree with Ovi...the article is accurate.

The Steelers can prove a lot to themselves and the rest of the NFL over the next two weeks.

I guess we will see where they stand soon enough.

SF

If we are talking regular season...yeah it is pretty accurate. But how can a team own another team when in the past 6 years the one being owned has won 3 AFC Championship games? Those three years the Steelers may not have played the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl but you can say that they weren't owned by the them those years simply because the Patriots weren't good enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.

In at least two of those three years the Patriots were favored to win it all and they came up short. They underachieved. They choked. They flat out couldn't get it done.

That my friends is not what I would call being owned.

Entire post - QFT - :Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap

rpmpit
10-28-2011, 02:35 PM
Agree with Ovi...the article is accurate.

The Steelers can prove a lot to themselves and the rest of the NFL over the next two weeks.

I guess we will see where they stand soon enough.

SF

If we are talking regular season...yeah it is pretty accurate. But how can a team own another team when in the past 6 years the one being owned has won 3 AFC Championship games? Those three years the Steelers may not have played the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl but you can say that they weren't owned by the them those years simply because the Patriots weren't good enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.

In at least two of those three years the Patriots were favored to win it all and they came up short. They underachieved. They choked. They flat out couldn't get it done.

That my friends is not what I would call being owned.

Agreed. But unfortunately, this is the perception WE helped create by allowing these guys to kick our butts during the regular season. I'll never forget after last years AFCCG, Berman and Jackson both commented that the Steelers would have a chance at winning another Super Bowl without having to go through New England. Why even say that?? The Pats had lost the week before to the Jets. So why bring them into the conversation at all?? Basically saying that if we had to play them, we'd be on the outside looking in.

steelfin
10-28-2011, 02:53 PM
Agree with Ovi...the article is accurate.

The Steelers can prove a lot to themselves and the rest of the NFL over the next two weeks.

I guess we will see where they stand soon enough.

SF

If we are talking regular season...yeah it is pretty accurate. But how can a team own another team when in the past 6 years the one being owned has won 3 AFC Championship games? Those three years the Steelers may not have played the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl but you can say that they weren't owned by the them those years simply because the Patriots weren't good enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.

In at least two of those three years the Patriots were favored to win it all and they came up short. They underachieved. They choked. They flat out couldn't get it done.

That my friends is not what I would call being owned.

Agreed. But unfortunately, this is the perception WE helped create by allowing these guys to kick our butts during the regular season. I'll never forget after last years AFCCG, Berman and Jackson both commented that the Steelers would have a chance at winning another Super Bowl without having to go through New England. Why even say that?? The Pats had lost the week before to the Jets. So why bring them into the conversation at all?? Basically saying that if we had to play them, we'd be on the outside looking in.


We are talking about the Pats owning the Steelers over the last several years. We are not talking about the success the Steelers have had in years where the Pats were knocked out of the race by other teams.

It is possible that if we had to play the Pats, we may not have made it to the SB....I am not saying this would have happened...but it is a possibility.

The Pats pose match-up problems for us and always seem to out coach us....

I am not down playing the success the Steelers have had in general...I am a Steeler fan and have enjoyed many great years of football. I am just stating what everyone in the media has been stating for years.

Look at their record against us....they have owned us.

Hopefully that stops this year!!!!

feltdizz
10-28-2011, 02:57 PM
How does not playing the Pats during SB runs prove we are better than them?

We have to beat them on the field, beating teams they lost to doesn't change how bad they own us.

I'm happy we haven't faced them in the playoffs because we haven't proven we can beat them with Brady.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
10-28-2011, 03:22 PM
How does not playing the Pats during SB runs prove we are better than them?

We have to beat them on the field, beating teams they lost to doesn't change how bad they own us.

I'm happy we haven't faced them in the playoffs because we haven't proven we can beat them with Brady.

Is that what he really said? I think the point is that if we have gone to the Superbowl 3 times and won twice in years that they didn't make it very into the playoffs if at all, it's kind of silly to say they were better than us in those years.

It's all just words anyway :Blah - the better team will arguably win in on Sunday afternoon, the rest is just hot air to :stirpot and pay the salaries of tne ESPiN-heads.

NJ-STEELER
10-28-2011, 05:05 PM
maybe he's referring to hines crying about bettis after the 04 afcc loss

RuthlessBurgher
10-28-2011, 11:35 PM
maybe he's referring to hines crying about bettis after the 04 afcc loss

Now that you mention it, yeah, I suppose so...makes sense. But I wasn't thinking about crying in a literal sense in which tears of sadness are running down one's cheeks. When the author was talking about crying after games, I assumed he was talking about whining and excuse-making and such. I was saying that I don't recall our players bitching and moaning after games.

tiproast
10-29-2011, 01:07 AM
Just so you guys know - Borges is a long-time Belichick hater. He predicted that the Rams would beat the Patrios 73-0 in the Super Bowl after the 2001 season. He thought both Richard Seymour and Matt Light were wasted draft picks, and supported keeping Bledsoe over Brady.

Also, he was fired from the Boston Globe a number of years back for an incident of plagiarism.

Lately he has been writing more positive articles about the Patriots, but no one in the Boston area thinks he's anything but a slimy weasel.

Slapstick
10-29-2011, 08:43 AM
How does not playing the Pats during SB runs prove we are better than them?

Right! Because losing in the playoffs and having to watch the Steelers win Super Bowls clearly illustrates how much better the *s are...

Sugar
10-29-2011, 11:34 AM
Just so you guys know - Borges is a long-time Belichick hater. He predicted that the Rams would beat the Patrios 73-0 in the Super Bowl after the 2001 season. He thought both Richard Seymour and Matt Light were wasted draft picks, and supported keeping Bledsoe over Brady.

Also, he was fired from the Boston Globe a number of years back for an incident of plagiarism.

Lately he has been writing more positive articles about the Patriots, but no one in the Boston area thinks he's anything but a slimy weasel.

This may be, but he's a heck of a Boxing writer. Just sayin...

NJ-STEELER
10-29-2011, 01:33 PM
Just so you guys k
Lately he has been writing more positive articles about the Patriots, but no one in the Boston area thinks he's anything but a slimy weasel.

So he fits right in with the Boston people :wink:

tiproast
10-29-2011, 01:45 PM
Just so you guys k
Lately he has been writing more positive articles about the Patriots, but no one in the Boston area thinks he's anything but a slimy weasel.

So he fits right in with the Boston people :wink:
He's an icon, of a sort. There's definitely a segment of the population that's very similar to him.

Slapstick
10-30-2011, 11:04 PM
Bump

Someone please post if this pr!ck has the sack to write something...

Steel Life
10-30-2011, 11:32 PM
Sooo...what you're saying is that Boston has it's own version of Mark Madden? :stirpot

JAR
10-31-2011, 12:17 PM
maybe his inbox should be flooded. rborges@bostonherald.com

:tt1