Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Regardless of the result, to say that the Pittsburgh Steelers had a 55% chance of winning it is again rewriting history. Indy was a 10 point favorite for a reason. The Steelers did outplay them though.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
With largely the same personnel, the Steelers were 15-1 last year. Pittsburgh lost 5 games this year, and three of them can be attributed to Roethlisberger's injury. As for the other two, splitting with Cincinnati and losing to NE is hardly a big knock on their resume.No doubt the Colts were way better statistically this year, and Indy was home and coming off a bye. But even if you want to say Pittsburgh only had a 33% chance of winning that game, it certainly can't be much of a surprise.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Comparing this year's Steelers team to the typical 6 seed is foolish. Had Ben stayed healthy all year, this is a 13 or 14 win team. Add to that the fact that they are playing their best football right now makes them as good as any team in the league.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Since it wasnt a surprise are you saying it wasnt an upset?I wouldnt say that the first lost to the Colts could be attributed to Big Ben's injury. The Steelers were outplayed that night across the board. Indy could have won by 30 if they wanted. They pulled in the reins and ran the ball the whole second half.With largely the same personnel, the Steelers were 15-1 last year. Pittsburgh lost 5 games this year, and three of them can be attributed to Roethlisberger's injury. As for the other two, splitting with Cincinnati and losing to NE is hardly a big knock on their resume.No doubt the Colts were way better statistically this year, and Indy was home and coming off a bye. But even if you want to say Pittsburgh only had a 33% chance of winning that game, it certainly can't be much of a surprise.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Ben looked REALLY rusty that game. It was his first game in a month.Saying I'm not surprised doesn't mean it wasn't an upset -- it most certainly was. (Whether or not Indy is more talented than Pittsburgh or not becomes moot when you consider the HFA -- Indy clearly should have been favored to win).Since it wasnt a surprise are you saying it wasnt an upset?I wouldnt say that the first lost to the Colts could be attributed to Big Ben's injury. The Steelers were outplayed that night across the board. Indy could have won by 30 if they wanted. They pulled in the reins and ran the ball the whole second half.With largely the same personnel, the Steelers were 15-1 last year. Pittsburgh lost 5 games this year, and three of them can be attributed to Roethlisberger's injury. As for the other two, splitting with Cincinnati and losing to NE is hardly a big knock on their resume.No doubt the Colts were way better statistically this year, and Indy was home and coming off a bye. But even if you want to say Pittsburgh only had a 33% chance of winning that game, it certainly can't be much of a surprise.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Sure, but calling the Colts a typical 1 seed is foolish too. They were 14-2 largely because they phoned in two of their last three games. They could've easily been 15-1 and dominated in a conference where 10-6 teams didn't make the playoffs. For as strong as the Steelers were at the 6 seed, the Colts were a historically strong 1 seed.Seeing the Colts lose in the Bowl would've been surprising but had historical precedent. There is no historical precedent [in the AFC at least] for a team with the Colts resume falling short in the 2nd round.Comparing this year's Steelers team to the typical 6 seed is foolish. Had Ben stayed healthy all year, this is a 13 or 14 win team. Add to that the fact that they are playing their best football right now makes them as good as any team in the league.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
Not true. The '95 Chiefs, '96 Broncos and '00 Titans all won 13 or more games and lost their first playoff game.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game.
I agree it was surprising but not shocking. Pittsburgh is a real good team.And you are wrong about Damon. I am surprised when he gets a hit. Did you see him strike out on a pitch in the dirt on a full count with the bases loaded against the White Sox to end the Red Sox season?Ben looked REALLY rusty that game. It was his first game in a month.Saying I'm not surprised doesn't mean it wasn't an upset -- it most certainly was. (Whether or not Indy is more talented than Pittsburgh or not becomes moot when you consider the HFA -- Indy clearly should have been favored to win).Since it wasnt a surprise are you saying it wasnt an upset?I wouldnt say that the first lost to the Colts could be attributed to Big Ben's injury. The Steelers were outplayed that night across the board. Indy could have won by 30 if they wanted. They pulled in the reins and ran the ball the whole second half.With largely the same personnel, the Steelers were 15-1 last year. Pittsburgh lost 5 games this year, and three of them can be attributed to Roethlisberger's injury. As for the other two, splitting with Cincinnati and losing to NE is hardly a big knock on their resume.No doubt the Colts were way better statistically this year, and Indy was home and coming off a bye. But even if you want to say Pittsburgh only had a 33% chance of winning that game, it certainly can't be much of a surprise.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
But you're not surprised when Johnny Damon gets a hit, and the chances of that happening in any given AB are a lot less than the chances the Steelers beat the Colts.
An upset? Sure. Surprising? Maybe. Shocking? No way.
2003 Chiefs too.Not true. The '95 Chiefs, '96 Broncos and '00 Titans all won 13 or more games and lost their first playoff game.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game.
I agree it was surprising but not shocking. Pittsburgh is a real good team.And you are wrong about Damon. I am surprised when he gets a hit. Did you see him strike out on a pitch in the dirt on a full count with the bases loaded against the White Sox to end the Red Sox season?Ben looked REALLY rusty that game. It was his first game in a month.Saying I'm not surprised doesn't mean it wasn't an upset -- it most certainly was. (Whether or not Indy is more talented than Pittsburgh or not becomes moot when you consider the HFA -- Indy clearly should have been favored to win).Since it wasnt a surprise are you saying it wasnt an upset?I wouldnt say that the first lost to the Colts could be attributed to Big Ben's injury. The Steelers were outplayed that night across the board. Indy could have won by 30 if they wanted. They pulled in the reins and ran the ball the whole second half.With largely the same personnel, the Steelers were 15-1 last year. Pittsburgh lost 5 games this year, and three of them can be attributed to Roethlisberger's injury. As for the other two, splitting with Cincinnati and losing to NE is hardly a big knock on their resume.No doubt the Colts were way better statistically this year, and Indy was home and coming off a bye. But even if you want to say Pittsburgh only had a 33% chance of winning that game, it certainly can't be much of a surprise.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game. Statistically, the Colts were head and shoulders above the field, including the Steelers. No 6 seed had ever gotten into the AFC Championship game. Even Tony Dungy labeled the season a failure. The Steelers were the better team this weekend but were not the better team during the season any way you slice it. To suggest otherwise is massive revisionist history.Maybe the Steelers were the better team, maybe not -- it's not that relevant.Maybe Pittsburgh had a 55% chance of beating Indy, or maybe only a 45% or 40% chance. Either way, with a sample size of one, it's not too surprising to see Pittsburgh win.Yes they beat us no doubt they are very good team not taking anything away from the steelers.Question is about the colts so your saying they are overrated and steelers were just the better team.I can buy that just not sure that is the correct answer.Lost to a better (and great) team.Steelers are 26-4 under Roethlisberger, and are playing the 2nd best football they've played in two years. (Weeks 8-9, 2004)Is this team overrated or are they the biggest chokers in nfl history.![]()
But you're not surprised when Johnny Damon gets a hit, and the chances of that happening in any given AB are a lot less than the chances the Steelers beat the Colts.
An upset? Sure. Surprising? Maybe. Shocking? No way.
I hope he never gets another hit. Go YANKEES!!!
Hi brobe,I thought the Colts would win but I wasn't shocked at all to see Pittsburgh roll.I for one was shocked.I thought they had the answers this year instead we have a lot of questions.
Typo...meant 14 or more games, sorry.Not true. The '95 Chiefs, '96 Broncos and '00 Titans all won 13 or more games and lost their first playoff game.Colts are only the 2nd team in since the advent of the 16-game schedule to have 13+ wins and lose their first playoff game.