Are you ready for some football??? da sticky

[GmanJoe]

I was saying that the Steelers would have scored 33 points.

And back in Week 2, Maddox was QB

Originally posted by The Hurricane
Well according to ESPN.com, they agree with me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking

And CBS Sportsline agrees with me.  What\'s your point?

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/7973156

The fact is the Patriots have dominated teams since that lost, Pittsburgh has been just getting by.  I don\'t need to hear this garbage from you.  Beat the Patriots in the post-season and I\'ll give the Steelers their due credit.

Since when does margin of victory mean anything in the NFL?  All that matters is that you win.  If you look only at margin of victory, the Colts and Eagles are both far better teams than the Patriots.

Oh, and the beating you in the playoffs thing is pointless.  The teams won\'t even play.  The Colts will beat them both.

Also, the Chiefs beat the Falcons, does that make them better than the Falcons?  The Bills beat the Jets, does that make them better than the Jets?  The DOLPHINS beat the Rams, does that make them better than the Rams?  I rest my case.

No, you don\'t, because that is a completely different arguement.  These are teams on completely different planes.  However, if both the Chiefs and the Falcons had the same record right now and the Chiefs had beaten the Falcons, then yes, I would say they are better.  It\'s just like the NFL itself decides things.  Playoff standings go by record.  The first tiebreaker is head to head record.

Originally posted by The Hurricane
Ok lets compare box scores:
(Oh and pats scored in the 3rd)

BAL
0-3-0-0 = 3
NE
0-3-6-15 = 24

BAL
7-6-7-10 = 30
PIT
0-0-0-13 = 13

You were saying?

Of course, Tommy Maddox was in for most of that game.  It was 20-0 when Ben came in.  Had he been in for the whole game, at the pace he went, the Steelers score over 30 points and win the game.  And you won\'t be facing Tommy Maddox any time soon.

Originally posted by The Hurricane
Well according to ESPN.com, they agree with me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking

The fact is the Patriots have dominated teams since that lost, Pittsburgh has been just getting by.  I don\'t need to hear this garbage from you.  Beat the Patriots in the post-season and I\'ll give the Steelers their due credit.

Also, the Chiefs beat the Falcons, does that make them better than the Falcons?  The Bills beat the Jets, does that make them better than the Jets?  The DOLPHINS beat the Rams, does that make them better than the Rams?  I rest my case.

You have the side of Sean Salisbury, wow. Congratu-freaking-lations on that one.

The NFL decides these type of matters on the field, not in polls like College Football. When it is decided on the field, that\'s whose better. Guess what? The Steelers MANHANDLED the Patriots. They did the exact same thing to the Eagles. You\'re telling me that the Patriots are better than the Steelers despite the fact that the Steelers proved ON THE FIELD that they were better than the Patriots? Give me a break.

The Chiefs beat the Falcons 56-10. They put up 8 touchdowns on the Falcons, who have only lost 3 games the entire year. The Falcons have played nobodies and gotten wins, whereas the Chiefs going into the season had perhaps the toughest schedule in the NFL. The Chiefs have also lost some games that they shouldn\'t have, but they put it all together against the Falcons. Yeah, you\'re DAMN RIGHT the Chiefs are better than the Falcons.

The Rams are perhaps the most streaky team in the NFL...they can\'t win on the road. At all. They beat the Seahawks, true, and since then, the Seahawks can\'t beat ANYBODY. The only reason that the Rams are even in playoff contention is because their division, and the NFC itself, is absolutley pathetic save for the Eagles.

The "even though we lost to you badly, we\'re still better than you" argument is pathetic. Is has no base, and frankly, is juvenille. You got your ass handed to you, you didn\'t just lose. I don\'t see how you could possibly say that the Patriots are a better team than the Steelers when in fact the Steelers proved otherwise on the field, and not in some ESPN Ranking.

See Yuz.

In other news the Colts signed Marvin Harrison to a 7 year extension for a measley $67 million.  Now how are they gonna sign Edge hmmm.  Franchise tag him

It takes more than one game to decide an argument, that\'s all I\'m saying.

You\'re right.  

It takes an entire season.  Over the course of the season, the two teams have the same record, although the Steelers have played tougher teams, in my opinion.  

Or maybe it just takes you looking at the fact that the Steelers have never lost with Ben Roethlesberger, and have the NFL\'s longest winning streak.

Or maybe it takes the fact that besides this game, the Steelers also beat the other 11-1 team in the NFL, a much tougher opponent than anyone the Pats faced.

But hey, I think when you combine those three, and ADD on that one game, it\'s a pretty convincing arguement.

No point in arguing this anymore. The Pats will see the Steelers in the playoffs and everything will be settled there.

I\'ll tell you one thing though. When it comes down to it I\'d put my money on Brady and Belicheck over Roethlisberger and Cowher any day.

/Except.....um.....that last time they played......

I\'m telling you, they won\'t play in the playoffs

Originally posted by shockwaves
Or maybe it takes the fact that besides this game, the Steelers also beat the other 11-1 team in the NFL, a much tougher opponent than anyone the Pats faced.

But hey, I think when you combine those three, and ADD on that one game, it\'s a pretty convincing arguement.

Ok, just so we\'re clear, Pittsburgh hasn\'t had an amazingly tough schedule either.  They\'ve played 3(Baltimore, New England, Philadelphia)  teams with winning records, and beaten two of them.  New England has played 4(Indy, NYJ, Pitt, Balt) teams with winning records, and beat 3 of them.  By my calculations, Buffalo will finish above .500, as will either one of st. louis or seattle.

So much for your "tougher schedule" argument.

I don\'t know how you can sit there and tell me that Indianapolis would beat either New England or Pittsburgh, but New England wouldn\'t beat Pittsburgh.  Isn\'t that being hypocritical?

Either that or you being so thickheaded that you can\'t see through your Patriot Homer Sunglasses.

Where in the hell do you get this "St. Louis is a good team" crap? You said it yourself, they lost to The Dolphins for christs sake. Sure, they\'ll probably finish above .500, because they play in the shithole that is the NFC. If everything goes as planned, they\'ll make the playoffs with an 8-8 record. Pathetic.

Also, lets go take a look back as to who was the starting quarterback in that game against the Ravens for the Steelers. Some dude named Maddox. Oh congrats, you beat the Ravens -- whose to say that the Steelers won\'t walk all over them in their 2nd meeting?

The Jets (Sorry Tony) aren\'t anything special. Sure, they got Chad Pennington back, but even when he was in beforehand, they weren\'t overly impressive. Without him, they had some REAL lackluster performances.

Oh by the way , how many other teams have beaten the Patriots and the Eagles? Could we clarify? Because I\'m not exactly sure as to who else has beaten the Patriots, and who else has beaten the Eagles? Oh wait, they both lost to the same team, THE STEELERS. LORD.

Even after yet another rant, I\'m still baffled by your faith in these shit NFC teams like the Seahawks and Rams who supposively will, "by your calculations", finish above .500. Hell, I COULD finish above .500 if I got 4 shots at the Cardinals and the Niners apiece.

See Yuz.

I think shocky and james have just run out of things to argue.

I am the biggest pats and brady hater their is. And I for one and impressed with how their team has been able to hold up with all those injuries and still be on top. It\'s amazing.

Even without there top players I would still pick them to come out on top and that is something you can\'t argue.

Once Roethlisberger looses and starts having bad games then shocky and james will jump onto something else.

Quddus, if you think I\'m almost out of arguements, you are definitely far from correct.

Three teams with winning records, yes, but also 3 games against teams with 6-6 records.  And I defy you to tell me that the way they are playing, either Seattle or St. Louis is even close to what Jacksonville is.  

As for those 4 games against winning teams, you won by 3 and 6 in two of em, and lost by 14.  Pittsburgh won by 14 and 24 against better teams, and lost without Roethlesberger.  It\'s like comparing completely different things.  However, if you look at the schedules, and tell me you think it is harder to go 11-1 against New Englands than Pittsburghs, I don\'t know, I\'d just have to disagree strongly.  And also, we\'ll see how things end up.  Cause Pittsburgh has the much harder final 4 weeks.

[GmanJoe]

This weekend, I\'m picking Washington Redskins over the Eagles. But I ain\'t puttin\' money on it. Just sayin\'.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
This weekend, I\'m picking Washington Redskins over the Eagles. But I ain\'t puttin\' money on it. Just sayin\'.

That is why I have zero respect for anything you say.