Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

nfl.com rank snubs our dynasty
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
3rivers


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 5516
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:14 pm    Post subject: nfl.com rank snubs our dynasty Reply with quote

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000772008/patriots-yankees-lakers-among-best-sports-dynasties

we never made his top 5 list Shocked

We won 4 in 6 years, Pats won 4 in what 13 years and had suspicious help? Pats deserve credit for longevity though, but dynasties are about championships vs losses and time I thought

Anyways, what would your list be like?
_________________
http://www.steelers.com/videos/videos/Steelers-at-Bills-James-Harrison-forces-fumble/3a2d4904-8f26-496a-b7c8-a413c7f8ccb2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1BackInBlackFan


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 11011
Location: Sign the B's, PA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This idiot says he didn't consider the Steelers of the 70s because "the NFL still wasn't really a thing - not like today." What the hell does that have to do with anything? Confused
_________________


Thanks to UniversalAuthor for the Sidney Crosby sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rivers


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 5516
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1BackInBlackFan wrote:
This idiot says he didn't consider the Steelers of the 70s because "the NFL still wasn't really a thing - not like today." What the hell does that have to do with anything? Confused


Is it more or a challenge to make a dynasty with drafts and trades or UFA and the cap?

We are the best NFL dynasty, pats would get the nod if duration is more important.



at least someone has it right (for now anyways) :
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2686082-nfl1000-reviewing-the-2017-wild-card-playoffs
_________________
http://www.steelers.com/videos/videos/Steelers-at-Bills-James-Harrison-forces-fumble/3a2d4904-8f26-496a-b7c8-a413c7f8ccb2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4546
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well considering he was 4 years old during the Steeler dominance, I'm betting he's just more familiar with recent "dynasties". Not so much an excuse for his ignorance but more of an explanation.
_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MDSteeler1971


Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 283
Location: Jefferson, MD
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chieferific wrote:
Well considering he was 4 years old during the Steeler dominance, I'm betting he's just more familiar with recent "dynasties". Not so much an excuse for his ignorance but more of an explanation.


Can't use that excuse as he has the Yankees of old as the #2 Dynasty... He's an idiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chieferific


Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4546
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MDSteeler1971 wrote:
Chieferific wrote:
Well considering he was 4 years old during the Steeler dominance, I'm betting he's just more familiar with recent "dynasties". Not so much an excuse for his ignorance but more of an explanation.


Can't use that excuse as he has the Yankees of old as the #2 Dynasty... He's an idiot

Good point.
_________________

warfelg wrote:
Quote:
why does KC have Houston (who is returning from a knee) cover AB on a crucial play? THAT makes no sense

They Butlered themselves. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSteeler


Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 10244
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what 'not really a thing" even means. Which I guess is the point. There is a certain argument to be made for his NFL picks both being ranked ahead of the Steelers depending on what you are valuing.

Steelers 4 in 6 could be used against them because it was short. The sustained success of the Pats could be valued. The 49ers limping into the '90's where they then had to buy Steve Young a championship works in their favor. Really, the 49ers benefit from Walsh and being associated with the West Coast offense and passing. It's sexier. The Steelers were more dominant over a shorter period of time.

But when your excuse is simply that the NFL somehow wasn't really a thing in the '70's, it says more to me that the guy is just looking to rationalize his picks after he makes them. And the bland stupidity of some of his reasons are going to spur controversy/debate.

Frankly, I'd argue that the modern NFL is watered down garbage by comparison where the rules are the only reason the Pats have been able to sustain their success. Brady wouldn't be playing still if we had the pre-2004 rules. It wouldn't happen. Their offense has been built around exploiting the passing rule changes to the max. From Wes Welker to Chris Hogan today, those small shifty WR's they love would have been decapitated in an earlier time. The salary cap favors a team like the Pats and others who can find that consistency at the QB spot.

Maybe the Pats find a way to game the system in any era, but Belichick would not be working with a Tom Brady who looks like he can play into his mid-40's in doing so.

The Pats aren't so much great on the field relative to other 'dynasties' as much as they are great at exploiting the mediocrity of everyone else in their era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 9931
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelers are not on the coasts so do not really count Rolling Eyes
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ward4HOF


Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 5088
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MDSteeler1971 wrote:
Chieferific wrote:
Well considering he was 4 years old during the Steeler dominance, I'm betting he's just more familiar with recent "dynasties". Not so much an excuse for his ignorance but more of an explanation.


Can't use that excuse as he has the Yankees of old as the #2 Dynasty... He's an idiot


I like your explanation best; it's what suits him most. Very Happy

BTW, is the '1971' in your screen name the year, and is it significant to you personally, or are your celebrating likely the 2nd best ever Steelers' Draft class? I just ask as it was my birth year, and was wondering if there might be other 'old fogeys' here as well. I know Southwest and a couple others around here are old farts as well...just curious.
_________________
DMG wrote:
No. Ben's good, but he isn't one of the all-time greats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 9931
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He is obviously trying make sure the Pats are #1 but coming up with a stupid excuse to exclude all teams before the 80's in the NFL. Ignoring the Browns of the 50's and Packers of the 60's and the Steelers of the 70's. all of which have more championships than the Pats.

The 49'er even have a better dynasty considering they got 5 SB wins in 13 years.
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FourThreeMafia


Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 62973
Location: East of Sixburgh
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By his idiotic logic, the NFL wasnt "really a thing (like today)" in the years of the 49ers dynasty either.

Im not even mad that we arent top 5. So be it. Its his braindead logic that annoys me. Lists like this are subjective, but they should still be viewed with some measure of objectivity. This clearly wasnt. Not one bit.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rivers


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 5516
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CKSteeler wrote:
I don't know what 'not really a thing" even means. Which I guess is the point. There is a certain argument to be made for his NFL picks both being ranked ahead of the Steelers depending on what you are valuing.

Steelers 4 in 6 could be used against them because it was short. The sustained success of the Pats could be valued. The 49ers limping into the '90's where they then had to buy Steve Young a championship works in their favor. Really, the 49ers benefit from Walsh and being associated with the West Coast offense and passing. It's sexier. The Steelers were more dominant over a shorter period of time.

But when your excuse is simply that the NFL somehow wasn't really a thing in the '70's, it says more to me that the guy is just looking to rationalize his picks after he makes them. And the bland stupidity of some of his reasons are going to spur controversy/debate.

Frankly, I'd argue that the modern NFL is watered down garbage by comparison where the rules are the only reason the Pats have been able to sustain their success. Brady wouldn't be playing still if we had the pre-2004 rules. It wouldn't happen. Their offense has been built around exploiting the passing rule changes to the max. From Wes Welker to Chris Hogan today, those small shifty WR's they love would have been decapitated in an earlier time. The salary cap favors a team like the Pats and others who can find that consistency at the QB spot.

Maybe the Pats find a way to game the system in any era, but Belichick would not be working with a Tom Brady who looks like he can play into his mid-40's in doing so.

The Pats aren't so much great on the field relative to other 'dynasties' as much as they are great at exploiting the mediocrity of everyone else in their era.


good points, and then consider the spy gate and the SB49 seahawks fail, the Pats might not be a dynasty at all . Conveniently winning sb's on final FG winning drives, easy to see their SB record without spy and carrols fail could change the pats place in dynasties. For dynasties, I would expect teams that win more than having cheated or had the other team lose more then the dynasty team won. That seahawks loss was lame.
_________________
http://www.steelers.com/videos/videos/Steelers-at-Bills-James-Harrison-forces-fumble/3a2d4904-8f26-496a-b7c8-a413c7f8ccb2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
warfelg


Joined: 12 Jan 2014
Posts: 3128
Location: Richmond Va
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly who cares. Tomlin should make this bulletin board material saying is a reflection that no one respects the franchise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JLambert58


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1628
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ward4HOF wrote:
MDSteeler1971 wrote:
Chieferific wrote:
Well considering he was 4 years old during the Steeler dominance, I'm betting he's just more familiar with recent "dynasties". Not so much an excuse for his ignorance but more of an explanation.


Can't use that excuse as he has the Yankees of old as the #2 Dynasty... He's an idiot


I like your explanation best; it's what suits him most. Very Happy

BTW, is the '1971' in your screen name the year, and is it significant to you personally, or are your celebrating likely the 2nd best ever Steelers' Draft class? I just ask as it was my birth year, and was wondering if there might be other 'old fogeys' here as well. I know Southwest and a couple others around here are old farts as well...just curious.


Ward, you're a "seasoned" vet too? Laughing Mark me down for the Class of '71 also. A very fine vintage, apparently. Wink I was a hard-charging young whipper snapper of a Steelers fan when I watched the great SB XIII, Which one do you remember first? MDSteeler?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JLambert58


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1628
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you don't put the '70s Steelers in the top 5 dynasties, then you don't know what you're talking about. Football, with so many moving parts (as opposed to basketball) is harder to win year in and year out. 4 in 6 years is the gold standard. Even the 1980s 49ers, 1990s Cowboys & 2000s Pats couldn't do it.

If I had to put a rough sketch of a top 5, I'd say:

70s Steelers
90s Bulls
60s UCLA Bruins
60s Bill Russell Celtics
40s-50s Yankees

If I had to rank just football:

60s Packers
70s Steelers
80s 49ers
90s Cowboys
2000s Pats
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group