This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Steelers have their fair share of special players. One thing to remember is that the Steelers do not play in the NBA where a special player or two is the difference between great and good teams. The NFL is about the entire organization and entire team concept. I'd say that the Steelers are considered a Great organization from top to bottom.
Ask fans of dormant teams such as the Browns or Lions if they would love to be able to debate this topic about their teams.
I don't care where people rate the 2008 Steelers Superbowl Champs in comparison to previous Superbowl Champs. I only care how the Steelers do versus the other teams each year as a separate entity. If they are fortunate enough to be the best in any given year than that is good enough for me.
Nice punt there, Sepulveda.Clowns fans...keep rooting for your loser team, I'll root for our two time SB champ QBTalking about "should be included" and "is included" are two different animals. People's perceptions are what they are.I heard Collinsworth and Simms talking about how Ben should be included when you talk about Manning and Brady on Inside the NFL this week. Go watch Kerry, I'm going to re-watch the Super Bowl and listen to Ben thank his O line
And in the post previous to this, I mentioned perception, not greatness. Pro Bowl picks are more towards how players are perceived in the eye of the public. If they were about stats, Brett Favre and Kerry Collins would have a Pro Bowl restraining order.Uh, I am not a Steelers fan. Buy a clue for $500, Alex? Also,
It's basically a consensus in the national media that Ben is the 3rd or 4th best qb in the league right now. He is absolutely considered elite by the national media. I conceed that a lot of that has to do with his ability in the clutch but it still counts. LOL @ using the pro bowl to support your argument. The pro bowl is a joke.
Using Pro Bowls as a barometer of anything is ignorant.
Yeah, the Pro Bowl is a joke, but like I said a few times now, the argument is about how players are PERCEIVED by the fans, players, and coaches. Is Big Ben a winner? Yes. Is he clutch? Yes. Does he kill teams on 3rd down? Yes. Does he have great overall stats? Not really. Does he have charisma and a star factor? Not really. Maybe that's why he doesn't get as much respect as a top 3 QB. First relevant link I saw with Google search "best qbs"
Saying "He's not the best quarterback to ever play football, but he is the best football player to ever play QB" is ignorant. Signed,Brett Favre
Probably the worst list I've ever seen. Who is this turkey?
I don't know. But I would have put Ben ahead of Chad Pennington at least.Probably the worst list I've ever seen. Who is this turkey?
Dawg you crack me up bro.I think, for a Browns fan, you are actually alright. From this Steelers fan, that is saying a lot.
This is a pretty good post, but it's somewhat incomplete. It's true that the Steelers did not defeat a team better than 11-5 in the regular season or playoffs. However, unlike the other teams that were 12-4 or better, they did not have a bad loss, which I'll define as a team that was .500 or worse in the regular season. (Giants @ CLEV, Titans @ HOU, Colts vs. JAX, @ GB, @ SD). Carolina matched the Steelers by not having a "bad" loss, but the Panthers lost three of their four games by double digits, while the Steelers only 10+ point loss was at Tennessee.And the "brutal" schedule is not an overstatement, at least when looking historically at all 43 Super Bowl champions:The cumulative schedule for the 2008 Steelers is the second most difficult of any Super Bowl champion. [#1: 1979 Steelers 135-121 (.527)]The seven playoff teams the 2008 Steelers played in the regular season ties the most by any Super Bowl champion. (1983 Raiders, 1990 Giants, 1995 Cowboys)No previous Super Bowl champion has ever played six teams that were 11-5 or better in the regular season.11 of the 16 regular season games were against teams that finished .500 or better (tied with the 1980 Raiders and 2006 Colts for most of any Super Bowl champion).Here's a list of all nine Super Bowl champions who played a cumulative schedule of .500 or better:DropKick said:
TEAM RECORD OPPONENTS CUMULATIVE RECORDYEAR TEAM W L T Pct. Rank W L T Pct. Rank1979 PITT 12 4 0 0.750 26 135 121 00 0.527 012008 PITT 12 4 0 0.750 26 133 120 03 0.525 022007 NYG 10 6 0 0.625 42 132 124 00 0.516 031988 SF 10 6 0 0.625 42 131 125 00 0.512 041980 OAK 11 5 0 0.688 37 130 126 00 0.508 051991 WASH 14 2 0 0.875 06 129 127 00 0.504 061996 GB 14 2 0 0.875 06 129 127 00 0.504 061990 NYG 13 3 0 0.813 18 128 128 00 0.500 082006 INDY 12 4 0 0.750 26 128 128 00 0.500 08Thanks, I thinktreat88 said:
. Here is my first post in this thread:Let's break it down. I'm saying that people love offense, and that's true. Defense excites the purists, but generally people will remember offense (although Pittsburgh is becoming synonymous with great defenses). In Pittsburgh's case, I think this year's team gets lost in the shuffle of six great Super Bowl defenses, so that will probably make this team better than it will be given credit for down the line. Like I said, the defense was phenomenal and the offense was functional with no wow factor there. One thing I neglected to mention was that Pittsburgh's strength of schedule was off the charts and they were competitive in every game (The Titans game only got away at the end). Now here's the kicker. "Big Ben is an oaf in the form of Terry Bradshaw that is perfect for the system and simply gets it done, but he doesn't light it up and excite people." If you look deeply into that:
This. Or something pretty close to it, anyway. They weren't really out of any game in 2008 other than the Titans matchup.
I think that's a fair assessment. If the 2008 Steelers' RZ offense was even "average" I think they'd likely be being talked about as far more "dominant." This team sure seemed like it left a LOT of points inside the 10 yard line this season, including the SB.Regardless, I think they'll be viewed about where they should be historically comparing them to other SB winners: A good overall team that made the plays when it had to, on offense and defense. It will certainly be remembered more for the defense and the game-winning drive in the SB than it will for anything the offense did the rest of the year.
Being the league champion is like being pregnant: you either are or you're not. The Steelers are the current champions of the NFL. Where they rank compared to previous champions is strictly a matter of opinion and you know what they say about opinions...
Okay, without saying where I would rank them, how they won the Super Bowl probably works against them more than anything, when comparing them to many champions of Super Bowl past, many of whom won in dominating fashion, and against much better competition. And can you really call it a big comeback when you had to score in the last minute to avoid blowing the biggest lead in Super Bowl history? Sure, they came back in the end, but their biggest deficit in the game was 3 points, and they blew a 13-point lead in the 4th quarter. Just trying to have some perspective here...
Titans, Giants, Eagles are all better teams, and I like Indy and Dallas, as well.
Even with my brown and orange glasses on, Dallas is nowhere near as good as the Steelers.
The Patriots had the #1 offense last season, possibly the best ever in NFL history, and managed only 14 points against a #6 seed wildcard team with a defense ranked 17th in the league in a game that would have cemented them as the best team of all time. The Patriots are cute and all but they choked big time in Super Bowl XLII.
All that matters is what you do in the playoffs. If you can't win your conference you are not the better team.And lumping in Dallas is a complete joke. They were the suck this year.
Dallas? DALLAS? BWHAHAHAHHA!
Good one! As for those other teams, they all had their chance in the playoffs to prove that they were the best team (meaning they would have, as the best team, been better than the Steelers) and they all failed. Heck, four of those five teams you mentioned failed to win a single playoff game, but yeah, they are all better than the team that won the Super Bowl. Mmmkay. 
I'll give you the Titans. Thats about it. By the end of the year, the Giants where nowhere near the same team they were earlier on. LMAO @ Dallas!!!
No... I'm pretty sure he came within a play of winning the Super Bowl last year.
Whether or not they were "cemented" as the best team of all time, regardless of whether they won or lost XLII, they certainly have nothing to be ashamed of. Like it or not, last year's Pats > this year's Steelers.
I still contend that the 2001 Steelers, 2001 Rams and 2001 Raiders were also better than the 2001 Pats............Well then... the '73 Steelers, '76 Steelers, and '95 Steelers were all greater then any Super Bowl winning year of the Patriots.Like it or not, last year's Pats > this year's Steelers.
. That means absolutely nothing as the Pats were the best team when it counted.
Whether or not they were "cemented" as the best team of all time, regardless of whether they won or lost XLII, they certainly have nothing to be ashamed of. Like it or not, last year's Pats > this year's Steelers.
You can speculate all you want which team would win head-to-head but a team that wins a championship has done everything asked of them and is > than a team that lost a championship.The '07 Patriots had a chance to be champions but blew it. In my book that makes them the 44th best team in the Super Bowl era.
This is what's called "logical thinking." The '07 Pats were clearly and obviously one of the best teams of all time, just as this year's Steelers were clearly and obviously better than the Colts, Cowboys, and Panthers (and the Titans, in my opinion, but I can see how others might make a case otherwise).
That's complete and utter BS. Belichick and his coordinators were outcoached as no one touched Brady all season and the Giants were all over him all game. The Giants deserved that game, made the big plays when it counted, and the 2007 Giants ARE better than the 2007 Patriots as they BEAT THEM HEAD TO HEAD! What other argument is there??? It's not like the BCS where there are what ifs...The fact that the Patriots steamrolled through the league and then couldn't see it through immediately takes them out of the best team of all-time running.
Says the bitter Browns fan who goes to bed every night wishing to Christ his team had held onto Belichick.The Pats and Giants played twice during the 2007 season, each team winning once. By your logic, the '08 Browns were better than the '08 Giants, just because they beat them head to head. But we both know that's not true; few are the teams that the Browns are better than, and the Giants surely are not one of them.
Based on what? Surely you aren't implying that there is more or less effort being expended.
So was Belichick outcoached or not? I'm not bitter. I wouldn't piss on Belichick if he was on fire for running my team out of town in the five losing years he was here, but thanks, you can have him.
Think what you want, but all teams aren't at the same level of desperation in every regular season game, and certain teams have been known to look ahead past a weaker opponent in the regular season. I wouldn't say the Giants did that this year as they played the 49ers the week after the Browns. Still, it's reasonable to believe that the Giants would have been more ready for the game, play with greater desperation, etc. if that game against the Browns had been the 2007 Super Bowl instead of a Week 6 MNF contest. Hadn't the Giants won their previous 11 road games heading into Cleveland?More to the point...
First, Belichick didn't run your team out of town. We can have him? Thanks. We'll certainly take him.Second, "Have fun pretending?" Okay...
And you have fun pretending that the Browns have been relevant in the past... oh, I've lost track. However long it's been, I guess.
So the Giants weren't trying as hard in Week 17? Not sure I'm following you here.
First, Belichick didn't run your team out of town. We can have him? Thanks. We'll certainly take him.Second, "Have fun pretending?" Okay...
Guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question. Great punt there Chris Hanson, what hang time!
to break the deadlock...
the 2007 Pats were not a better team than the 2008 Steelers when it counted
The best teams win when it counts and peak at the right time. It's not that hard of a concept, although I'm sure I'll get the customary "WELL, THE BROWNS SUCK" cop out that has zero to do with anything going on in this thread...DawgPoundNJ said::X The best teams win when it counts and peak at the right time. It's not that hard of a concept, although I'm sure I'll get the customary "WELL, THE BROWNS SUCK" cop out that has zero to do with anything going on in this thread...Franknbeans said:to break the deadlock...
the 2007 Pats were not a better team than the 2008 Steelers when it counted
They won when it counted v the Ravens, Chargers and Cardinals.
You can only play the teams put in front of you. The Steelers had the toughest road in the regular season of all the playoff teams and finished 12-4 and the number 2 seed in the AFC. They beat every team they faced in the postseason which is something no other team can say. Exactly what more do you want?
DawgPoundNJ said:First, Belichick didn't run your team out of town. We can have him? Thanks. We'll certainly take him.Second, "Have fun pretending?" Okay...Guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question. Great punt there Chris Hanson, what hang time!
But keep going on the Browns though if it helps the healing process to take your mind off of the Bust Team Ever. It's okay.
Was Belichick outcoached? Of course he was.
For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with the Browns. I know they suck, dude. It's just damaging your credibility. I beg to differ there. I'd like to see some opinions on that one from the Steelers faithful here. I see one concession in Jous.DawgPoundNJ said:First, Belichick didn't run your team out of town. We can have him? Thanks. We'll certainly take him.Second, "Have fun pretending?" Okay...And you have fun pretending that the Browns have been relevant in the past... oh, I've lost track. However long it's been, I guess.
Guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question. Great punt there Chris Hanson, what hang time!
But keep going on the Browns though if it helps the healing process to take your mind off of the Bust Team Ever. It's okay.
But two facts remain: the '07 Pats were better than any Browns team of the Super Bowl era (and it's not even close), and with a gun to their children's heads, no Steelers fan is going to take the '08 Steelers versus the '07 Patriots.
This is an argument that neither of us can win but after seeing Brady's performance under pressure in last year's Super Bowl I think the 2008 Steelers defense would do just fine.
