Stealers are AFC: So what?

[LombardiChick]

If the Steelers win tomorrow, the team of the decade argument will be about the Patriots and Steelers. The Patriot fans just hate it that they'll always have an * next to theirs by most fans outside of New England.

Please. You have an asterisk of your own from that Seahawks game. The officials even admitted it.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

If the Steelers win tomorrow, the team of the decade argument will be about the Patriots and Steelers. The Patriot fans just hate it that they'll always have an * next to theirs by most fans outside of New England.

Only by fans of teams who think their teams are the best ever, and there was no way scrubs like the Pats could ever beat them fairly. You know, like Stooler fans.

 

[Rodgers in the House]

Please. You have an asterisk of your own from that Seahawks game. The officials even admitted it.

I'll add to it. That 99 yard Harrison run was fake from start to finish. You had at least three holding calls on that.

 

[SteelIsStrongerThanCheese]

Please. You have an asterisk of your own from that Seahawks game. The officials even admitted it.

The Seahawks game always is a fun one. If Seattle was sooo good, where was their long Alexander run (he didn't show up, if I remember correctly), where were the times where Hasselbeck overcame the close penalities, by not throwing interceptions? Where was Seattles defense on the Willie run, or the reverse Randel El to Ward pass? Where was Seattles kicker missing two kicks from 40 some yards in a dome?

Some calls like the Ben touchdown by millimeters is still tough to call. But, to the point, the Seahawks had one big play and that was the interception return where the Steelers were about to go up 21-3. If that interception didnt happen, the Steelers win this one bigger than 21-10.

 

[SteelIsStrongerThanCheese]

I'll add to it. That 99 yard Harrison run was fake from start to finish. You had at least three holding calls on that.

Tomorrows a new game... Let's see if James can make it two Superbowls in a row! I'm sure Rodgers gets intercepted quite a few times in this game.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

The Seahawks game always is a fun one. If Seattle was sooo good, where was their long Alexander run (he didn't show up, if I remember correctly), where were the times where Hasselbeck overcame the close penalities, by not throwing interceptions? Where was Seattles defense on the Willie run, or the reverse Randel El to Ward pass? Where was Seattles kicker missing two kicks from 40 some yards in a dome?

Some calls like the Ben touchdown by millimeters is still tough to call. But, to the point, the Seahawks had one big play and that was the interception return where the Steelers were about to go up 21-3. If that interception didnt happen, the Steelers win this one bigger than 21-10.

Kinda gets under your skin when your championships and/or Super Bowl wins are called "tainted" doesn't it? Ya all do that to everyone else - Patriots, Packers, etc...

Kinda sucks when their are ten fingers pointed back at you, right?

Better get that ******* lumber outta your eye. :Heristical:

 

[Murgen]

I understand the 12 championship argument. We have the same arguments with the Browns' fans.

Problem is, I think everyone loses sight of exactly what those championships are, and what they equate to in the NFL. The NFL of those championships is the NFC today, AFL the AFC. As a result, those championships, IMO, are the equivalent of winning 14 NFCCG's and taking the conference title.

Actually, when you add your two NFC championships, I would say that you have 14 championships. That is quite a feat.

The Steelers, have 8 championships right now. That is, we have been the champions of the AFC (old American Football League) 8 times.

There is a reason, however, why the NFL begins its count with SB 1. It is even in the NFL Record and Fact book on NFL.com

Notice also, when the SB first came about, it was distinguished from the AFL and NFL championships- as it was called the "World Championship Game".

It is for that reason, that the Superbowl era is quite distinct from before, and the league championships won before are not the equivalent of the "world championships" or later named the Superbowl.

For that reason, I think when they list stats, what they should list, is BOTH championships, AND SB wins. Such as, GB: 14 Championships, 2 Superbowls. Steelers: 8 Championships, 6 Superbowls.

That way, both history and the leagues (conferences) are represented and honored, but the honesty of winning in a 28 team league and a second championship game beyond the league championship-to a world championship is also displayed.

I don't discount what the Packers did. It is part of what has built the league today, and continues to drive what the Packers are. There is no way to discount that. I also think however, there needs to be a recognition that there IS a distinction between Superbowls and championships.

It is not like the NHL, which has always been the same league, and has just grown in size.

You want GB to forget it's history and championships because of the merger and a name change of the game? It's always team fans without any championships from that time that want to do that, ironically. Steelers had just as many chances to win championships pre-SB as GB did. They didn't. So when you compare championships to the Steelers, It's pretty fair to say GB has more. You just have more in the SB-era.

To forget about the history and say it doesn't matter because things have changed kind of makes for a slippery slide. Who decides then which SB or championships count? Eventually somebody could say the SB's before 1990 don't matter cause so much has changed, new rules, free agency, so it's much harder now to win SBs now. What happens if the NFL goes International? Do we reset every team to 0 then and start over counting Championships? Obviously, it's best to just let it be.

If the Steelers win tomorrow they'll have 7 SB Championships. The most in the SB era. That's an awesome feat and trust me, I'm envious of the Steeler's successes in the SB era. But as far as total championships, it's would still be 2 behind the Bears.

 

[SteelIsStrongerThanCheese]

Still the Steelers were never fined for any of the Superbowl penalties that were pretty spot on. I know the Patriots were fined and lost a draft pick for Spygate.

The Steelers - Cardinals game was also tick-tacky. There were so many penalties in that game my head was starting to spin. Granted most of them were on the Cardinals D but there were many key calls against the Steelers in that game that were also questionable. The Steelers also had the touchdown with Ben at the beginning that was called down. It was like deja vu all over again, but we got 3 points, and 3 and a half quarters later still won that game.

 

[LombardiChick]

The Seahawks game always is a fun one. If Seattle was sooo good, where was their long Alexander run (he didn't show up, if I remember correctly), where were the times where Hasselbeck overcame the close penalities, by not throwing interceptions? Where was Seattles defense on the Willie run, or the reverse Randel El to Ward pass? Where was Seattles kicker missing two kicks from 40 some yards in a dome?

Some calls like the Ben touchdown by millimeters is still tough to call. But, to the point, the Seahawks had one big play and that was the interception return where the Steelers were about to go up 21-3. If that interception didnt happen, the Steelers win this one bigger than 21-10.

We're not talking about whether Seattle was "sooooo good", are we? The blown calls that went your way in that game actually caused the referee sleepless nights - and you're talking "what if" about an interception return? Here - please read:

RENTON, Wash. (AP) -- Saying "I'll go to my grave" with regret, NFL referee Bill Leavy reopened a Seahawks' wound that won't heal by acknowledging he made mistakes in Seattle's disputed, 2006 Super Bowl loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The veteran official began an annual training-camp rules interpretation session with the Seattle media after practice on Friday by bringing up the sore subject without being asked.

"It was a tough thing for me. I kicked two calls in the fourth quarter and I impacted the game, and as an official you never want to do that," said the veteran of 15 NFL seasons and two Super Bowls.

"It left me with a lot of sleepless nights, and I think about it constantly," Leavy said of the game in February 2006. "I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better."

Terrible. If I were a Steelers fan, you can be damned well sure I would not be talking about asterisks applying to other teams. That's the point.

 

[Zeck180]

I understand the 12 championship argument. We have the same arguments with the Browns' fans.

Problem is, I think everyone loses sight of exactly what those championships are, and what they equate to in the NFL. The NFL of those championships is the NFC today, AFL the AFC. As a result, those championships, IMO, are the equivalent of winning 14 NFCCG's and taking the conference title.

Actually, when you add your two NFC championships, I would say that you have 14 championships. That is quite a feat.

The Steelers, have 8 championships right now. That is, we have been the champions of the AFC (old American Football League) 8 times.

There is a reason, however, why the NFL begins its count with SB 1. It is even in the NFL Record and Fact book on NFL.com

Notice also, when the SB first came about, it was distinguished from the AFL and NFL championships- as it was called the "World Championship Game".

It is for that reason, that the Superbowl era is quite distinct from before, and the league championships won before are not the equivalent of the "world championships" or later named the Superbowl.

For that reason, I think when they list stats, what they should list, is BOTH championships, AND SB wins. Such as, GB: 14 Championships, 2 Superbowls. Steelers: 8 Championships, 6 Superbowls.

That way, both history and the leagues (conferences) are represented and honored, but the honesty of winning in a 28 team league and a second championship game beyond the league championship-to a world championship is also displayed.

I don't discount what the Packers did. It is part of what has built the league today, and continues to drive what the Packers are. There is no way to discount that. I also think however, there needs to be a recognition that there IS a distinction between Superbowls and championships.

It is not like the NHL, which has always been the same league, and has just grown in size.

The Steelers, have 8 championships right now. That is, we have been the champions of the AFC (old American Football League) 8 times.

Funny the Steelers were never part of the AFL, they were part of the NFL from 1933 to 1970 when they were moved to the AFC.

For that reason, I think when they list stats, what they should list, is BOTH championships, AND SB wins. Such as, GB: 14 Championships, 2 Superbowls. Steelers: 8 Championships, 6 Superbowls.

Other fact, the Packers have won 3 super bowls going on 4.

The Browns were part of the All-America Football Conference and won all four of the AAFC's titles which lead to it's demise and later moved to the NFL and won 4 more World Titles

It is for that reason, that the Superbowl era is quite distinct from before, and the league championships won before are not the equivalent of the "world championships" or later named the Superbowl.

Then why were the previous title games called World Championships? You're like a normal Steel fan your argue the number of NFL titles is wrong cause no one should care about the pre-super bowl era, well you're wrong the NFL titles by teams: NFL Titles <--Bottom of page.

Here's a lesson you should learn, Never argue with Packer fans about history of the NFL, we got you beat, thus 12 is greater than 6!

 

[TheSnowPlow]

Still the Steelers were never fined for any of the Superbowl penalties that were pretty spot on. I know the Patriots were fined and lost a draft pick for Spygate.

The Steelers - Cardinals game was also tick-tacky. There were so many penalties in that game my head was starting to spin. Granted most of them were on the Cardinals D but there were many key calls against the Steelers in that game that were also questionable. The Steelers also had the touchdown with Ben at the beginning that was called down. It was like deja vu all over again, but we got 3 points, and 3 and a half quarters later still won that game.

And yet, we were never fined or anyhing for cheating either. So...??

 

[Steeler Tim]

Kinda gets under your skin when your championships and/or Super Bowl wins are called "tainted" doesn't it? Ya all do that to everyone else - Patriots, Packers, etc...

Kinda sucks when their are ten fingers pointed back at you, right?

Better get that ******* lumber outta your eye. :Heristical:

No bother at all. We have those Lombardis. Double your teams if I remember correctly. So, no, I'm not bothered in the least.

and if you don't think this means the Commish has branded your team as cheaters you need must be taking ESL

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," the commissioner wrote in a letter to the team.

For Lombardichick, read the story here

 

[TheSnowPlow]

You know who got screwed because of Cheating? The Packers. They won a Super Bowl in 1996. They returned to the Super Bowl in 1997. Their opponent, Denver, used a series of illegal salary cap violations in order to keep a team together that then won a Super Bowl that, had they played by the rules, probably would not have been in to begin with. They then followed up that Super Bowl in 1997 by winning the next one - again, by not having to lose players to free agency by using illegal methods to circumvent the Salary Cap.

THAT is cheating, and they gained a SERIOUS competitive advantage by doing so. Why does no one call Denver cheaters? Their actions actually gave them an advantage over other teams BIG TIME.

Oh, and the Steelers, among other teams, were also found to be manipulating salary caps as well. Are they cheaters?

 

[Steeler Tim]

You know who got screwed because of Cheating? The Packers. They won a Super Bowl in 1996. They returned to the Super Bowl in 1997. Their opponent, Denver, used a series of illegal salary cap violations in order to keep a team together that then won a Super Bowl that, had they played by the rules, probably would not have been in to begin with. They then followed up that Super Bowl in 1997 by winning the next one - again, by not having to lose players to free agency by using illegal methods to circumvent the Salary Cap.

THAT is cheating, and they gained a SERIOUS competitive advantage by doing so. Why does no one call Denver cheaters? Their actions actually gave them an advantage over other teams BIG TIME.

Oh, and the Steelers, among other teams, were also found to be manipulating salary caps as well. Are they cheaters?

As Lombardichick would say ... link please

 

[43Hitman]

What the hell has this thread turned into? My God SteelIsStrongerThanCheese, let it go man you're making yourself look like a tool.

 

[43Hitman]

You know who got screwed because of Cheating? The Packers. They won a Super Bowl in 1996. They returned to the Super Bowl in 1997. Their opponent, Denver, used a series of illegal salary cap violations in order to keep a team together that then won a Super Bowl that, had they played by the rules, probably would not have been in to begin with. They then followed up that Super Bowl in 1997 by winning the next one - again, by not having to lose players to free agency by using illegal methods to circumvent the Salary Cap.

THAT is cheating, and they gained a SERIOUS competitive advantage by doing so. Why does no one call Denver cheaters? Their actions actually gave them an advantage over other teams BIG TIME.

Oh, and the Steelers, among other teams, were also found to be manipulating salary caps as well. Are they cheaters?

I've never heard of this, do you a reference?

 

[TheSnowPlow]

No bother at all. We have those Lombardis. Double your teams if I remember correctly. So, no, I'm not bothered in the least.

and if you don't think this means the Commish has branded your team as cheaters you need must be taking ESL

For Lombardichick, read the story here

Here's what the fine/loss of pick was for:

Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[15]

Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[16] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."[16]

Hope this helps.

 

[Zeck180]

Wow before this thread, the Steelers were one of my top 15 favorite teams, well the are now dead last at 32.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

I've never heard of this, do you a reference?

NFL fines Denver for cap violations | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs) Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

The NFL said Thursday it fined the Denver Broncos $950,000 and took away the team's third-round draft pick in 2005 for circumventing the salary cap between 1996-98. The salary-cap violations included undisclosed agreements with several players to defer salary payments with interest, and a commitment by the Broncos in 1997 not to waive a player before a certain date. The players involved in the violations were not named.

Steelers - first link I found. I was recalling from memory:

CNNSI.com - 2001 NFL Draft - Steelers make deft moves to snare defensive staples - Saturday April 21, 2001 09:08 PM

The Steelers didn't have a third round pick after losing it in punishment for a salary cap violation involving former offensive lineman Will Wolford.

 

[Murgen]

I've never heard of this, do you a reference?

same here. I believe Jerry Jones in the 90's did similar maneuvers to avoid the salary cap.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

same here. I believe Jerry Jones in the 90's did similar maneuvers to avoid the salary cap.

The only ones I know about where there were fines and/or loss of picks were the Steelers, 49ers, and the Broncos.

The Cowboys reference I didn't know about but here is a quick link:

PRO FOOTBALL - PRO FOOTBALL - Dallas May Have Broken Salary Cap Rules - NYTimes.com

The National Football League is investigating accusations that the Dallas Cowboys may have violated the league's salary cap rules. If guilty, the team could face multimillion-dollar fines and even the temporary loss of services of the three players involved in the dispute.

The salary cap is considered a vital element that helps maintain the integrity of the game. Some league executives believe salary cap violations are almost as damaging to the competitive nature of pro football as drug use by its players. That is why the league offers a $1 million reward to anyone with proof a team is violating salary cap rules.


Several teams said they recently contacted the agents for Stepnoski, Ismail and Coryatt and were told that each player was no longer interested in their teams. The teams said they conducted their own investigation and determined that some sort of arrangement had been reached between the Cowboys and three players.


At that point at least several teams complained to the league office. Those teams told the N.F.L. they believed the Cowboys had reached a verbal or written agreement with the three players, but had not signed them to a contract to circumvent cap rules.


At least two of those teams believe the Cowboys, about $255,000 under the $59 million salary cap, may have hidden a deal with the three players because they did not have the room to sign them, but wanted to make sure other teams did not sign them as well.


The league, prompted by the complaints, began to explore the situation themselves, according to team executives, union officials and agents.

 

[43Hitman]

Just goes to show you that teams will circumvent the rules if they have a chance. Especially if it saves them money.

 

[Murgen]

Just goes to show you that teams will circumvent the rules if they have a chance. Especially if it saves them money.

and wins them championships. Cheating isn't new to the NFL. Lombardi was paranoid about Bear's spies at their practices.

 

[Cheesehead Brittany]

sigh cant we all just admit that the steelers since the merger have been unstoppable
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PX0xYgm0QQ]YouTube - Superbowl 30 *** Trophy Presentation Dallas Cowboys beat Pittsburgh Steelers[/ame]

 

[LombardiChick]

Thanks, SteelerTim, I'll look at that.

I just wrote a long one with a link and a bunch of text from the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws, but it's just TMI. I'll go for brevity instead, but click if you want to see details on this.

I'll just say where I stand on this: I think the Patriots were wrong not to follow the 2006 memo that was issued - but if the C&B that was current at the time contradicted that memo (it did - and what BB did was to follow the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, rather than the memo), then that is the NFL's fault, not the Patriots'.

The C&B seemed to me to have been poorly written - it leaves room for BB's interpretation of it. (You can read it at the link.) It twice talks about the current game - implying that it applies to use of fresh videotape during that game.

The Pats didn't do that.

This could be argued all day (but who wants to??), but my point is this: I think the Pats probably deserved a whack for following the C&B but ignoring the memo, but what they do not deserve is to have their Super Bowl victories called into question over this.

That's about all I can say at this point. I'd rather talk about the Packers, frankly.