NFL 2010

[Mort Divine]

 

[Valerie]

 

[Matt]

This. What a game.

 

[Matt]

21 points off of turnovers. Play the game 10 times and the Steelers come out above .500.

I knew you'd spew out some bullshit like that.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

hahahaha, fucking dodens
Rodgers is a fucking beast. Fuck Brett Favre

 

[skeptik]

How many times do the Steelers have a -3 turnover differential? Turnovers were the difference in the game, easily. The Steelers offense performed uncharacteristically in terms of ball security when they were near the top of the league during the regular season, so that's an outlier. I think it's more than reasonable to say that the Steelers could win 6/10.

And Polamalu a liability in coverage? First of all, he's a safety, not a corner.

Edit: If it makes you feel any better I meant to put "I think" before "the Steelers come out above .500."

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Either way Roflisberger had his chance at the end of the game to get it done. The only problem was this time the Arizona Cardinals weren't on the field.

 

[skeptik]

I never said that the Packers didn't win or anything. I just made an observation based on what I saw out of the game. The Super Bowl is a one game series, period, and everybody is aware of the irrelevance of would'ves, should'ves, and ifs, but that doesn't mean they can't be talked about. Good for the Packers and like I said, congratulations to that long-deserving defensive coaching staff that quickly turned that defense into one of the best in just two years, with all indications pointing that they'll only get better as they adjust more to Capers' schemes and draft more to fit the 3-4 personnel.

To be perfectly honest, I'm just happy the Steelers made it to the Super Bowl. Coming into the season, I thought they had enough talent to make it there, but I wasn't sure about winning it. Now I know they had the talent to win, and that they didn't is obviously disappointing to me, but I came away from this season (and this game) feeling good about the future. Of course some parts need to be replaced soon (Hampton, Farrior, and Ward), but Kevin Colbert drafts as well as anybody.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

Good job Packers for whooping the Steelerheaded asses. Now they can go home and cry. Hope they take care of all this contract bullshit because I'd like to see another season next year. A season were the 49ers win one again, of coure we could of if we would of picked up Aron ROdgers.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

Stare at this picture long and hard Steeler fans.

 

[King Richard]

How many times do the Steelers have a -3 turnover differential? Turnovers were the difference in the game, easily. The Steelers offense performed uncharacteristically in terms of ball security when they were near the top of the league during the regular season, so that's an outlier. I think it's more than reasonable to say that the Steelers could win 6/10.

I kept telling myself this after the Colts lost last year to the Saints, and it didn't help. I agree with you though that if it were played multiple times the overall outcome is probably different, much like if the Colts and Saints played multiple times I think the Colts come out on top of that as well. Unfortunately, that's not how it works in the NFL, and no matter how much logic and reasoning you use, the Steelers lost and the Packers won. You can't argue that (even though I'm with you about trying to justify everything).

And Polamalu a liability in coverage? First of all, he's a safety, not a corner.

...and? It's part of his job description to cover people and make sure no one gets behind him and scores touchdowns. That's what all safeties do. Well, that's what they're supposed to do anyways.

I already told you he was going to get burned in this game and he did, because like I said before, he's not consistently good in pass coverage and takes too many risks for his own good. Most of the time it doesn't hurt the team, but in this game it did.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

21 points off of turnovers. Play the game 10 times and the Steelers come out above .500. Other than that I have no comment about the game, with the exception of a congratulations to Dom Capers, Kevin Greene, and Darren Perry, who were all part of a Steelers team that deserved a ring in the mid-90s.

Come on. Anyone, ANYONE can say that. The fact is, they let those turnovers happen. The fact that they let so few out during the year in comparison is more of a testament to your opponent than anything.

Too bad the game isn't played 10 times over, eh?

 

[Dak]

How many times do the Steelers have a -3 turnover differential?

Answer: How many times did the Steelers play the Packers?

 

[skeptik]

Oh my god.

When the Steelers won two years ago, the only thing anybody else had to say was that the Cardinals were robbed and the referees gave the Steelers the game. I come in here and say the Steelers lost because they played uncharacteristically. The Steelers had 35 takeaways during the regular season versus 18 giveaways for a +17 turnover differential during the regular season (the Packers had 32 takeaways versus 22 giveaways for +10). If you're going to guess one team over another was going to have the favorable TO differential, it was going to be the Steelers. All Packers fans have to do is answer this question: right before Mendenhall fumbled, did you feel good, or were you starting to get a little bit worried? No, it doesn't change anything and I know it doesn't change anything, and I'm not trying to "reason" with myself or justify anything. All I did was state a fair observation. Now we can all let it go and look to the draft, which most of us have been doing for a while now anyway.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

Stats mean so much less than the stock you're putting into them, especially on a match up that was yet to be seen this year. Then again, the game proved that.

The reason you're catching flak is your need to hand out patronizing pats on the back or to reclaim some sort of recognition from the opposing team and link it to your franchise.

 

[skeptik]

First of all, I'm not a "stats guy" by any means, outside of wins and losses. But "Toxic Differential" is the one statistic that has proven over time to accurately predict the outcome of games. Toxic Differential is turnover differential plus big play differential (defined as plays of 20 yards or more). Teams with a +2 margin in this statistic have a winning percentage in the 90s. There have been books written about it by people like Bill Walsh. Outside of Ws and Ls, it's the most significant statistic in football. And like everybody should be aware, teams come very close to never winning when they have 3 more giveaways than takeaways. It's not like I pointed out that the Steelers had more yards, sacks, pressures, first downs, time of posession, third down conversion rate, and red zone efficiency. There's nothing wrong with or myopic about my belief that the Steelers could have won if they protected the ball better, so it'd be nice if everybody could stop acting like I'm shitting on everyone's parade, especially when that's exactly what everybody does here when the Steelers win. Or do I have to bump the thread for the SBXIII season to remind everybody how they reacted when the Steelers won? Nothing except "whoopdy fucking doo the Steelers won again, yawn, fuck them" and "motherfucking bullshit the referees HANDED the Steelers ANOTHER fucking super bowl trophy". At least I'm being respectful and using facts to support an otherwise benign observation. I even like the Packers, except for Rodgers' stupid fucking championship belt gag which just annoys the fuck out of me. I love the way they play defense second only to the way the Steelers do, and I'm a defensive kind of guy, meaning I like the Packers a lot and the only team I would have rather seen win the super bowl other than the Steelers more would be the Giants. But that has nothing to do with what I initially said at all.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

Stop bitching that everyone gets to wipe their ass with the shitty towel for once. Just accept the fact that the Squealers are much like the Cowboys in that you either hate em or love em.

 

[King Richard]

Ok enough with the bitching and moaning from both sides plz.

Hey Dodens, what do you think the chances are of the Steelers accepting a trade offer for Doug Legursky? Hey played quite well in the Super Bowl and I brought up the idea with my friends of the Colts possibly offering the Steelers a 4th-6th round pick for him.

 

[muzmaze]

Dodens please, no excuses...just tip your hat to the Pack. Look at the injuries they overcame during the season and then 3 Packer big guns go down in the actual Superbowl game and they still prevail. Congrats goes to coach Belichick on coach of the year honors but that award my friends truly has to go to coach Mccarthy...amazing job...amazing season!

And please, no talk of if the Steelers didn't turn the ball over blah blah blah? Give credit to the Pack D- for causing the turnovers. You could even offset that with if the Packer receivers actually could've held onto the ball...it wouldn't have even been that close of a game? And for your information the Superbowl will never be a best of 10 playoff- lol. And if it actually was...after lastnite I think its fair to say that the Pack would have a fair chance to come out with the better of the best of 10.

Atleast I had the balls even in a more flukey kind of game to give credit to the Giants and the team that beat the Pats may have actually had a good chance to win a best of ten. That was a damn good Pats team but the Giants proved to me to be incredibly tough and had the defense to stop such a great offense as they did. Even if I thought the Pats would win a best of ten I couldn't nor wouldn't say that after said team comes off a loss! And with the Packers and the Saints in respective Superbowls both being very balanced and talented and both games being closer to even with the odds...I don't know how KD and DODS justify in thier teams winning a best of ten when your team actually lost in the SB...there was nothing flukey about it!

In the end the INT's look especially good on Big Ben and I'm glad the rapist and his thugs failed.

 

[skeptik]

Stop bitching that everyone gets to wipe their ass with the shitty towel for once. Just accept the fact that the Squealers are much like the Cowboys in that you either hate em or love em.

The only thing that I "bitched" about is the fact that most people on this forum don't seem to like when the Steelers do well. As far as the Steelers being a love or hate team, I was never under the impression that they were. I guess somebody on the 'outside' would know that better than me though. I guess that explains some things.

Ok enough with the bitching and moaning from both sides plz.

Hey Dodens, what do you think the chances are of the Steelers accepting a trade offer for Doug Legursky? Hey played quite well in the Super Bowl and I brought up the idea with my friends of the Colts possibly offering the Steelers a 4th-6th round pick for him.

No way they trade Legursky. They like Legursky a lot, actually. If it weren't for Pouncey he would be the starting center right now. As it stands now he's their sole interior swing lineman and extremely valuable to the team. They also like to stick him in at fullback every now and then. His only real fault is that his arms are a bit short and can thus be beaten in a leverage game if the defender can get his hands on him. Still, he's a great 6th or 7th lineman, and I would be disappointed should he go to another team, but I don't see that happening anyway.

Dodens please, no excuses...just tip your hat to the Pack. Look at the injuries they overcame during the season and then 3 Packer big guns go down in the actual Superbowl game and they still prevail. Congrats goes to coach Belichick on coach of the year honors but that award my friends truly has to go to coach Mccarthy...amazing job...amazing season!

And please, no talk of if the Steelers didn't turn the ball over blah blah blah? Give credit to the Pack D- for causing the turnovers. You could even offset that with if the Packer receivers actually could've held onto the ball...it wouldn't have even been that close of a game? And for your information the Superbowl will never be a best of 10 playoff- lol. And if it actually was...after lastnite I think its fair to say that the Pack would have a fair chance to come out with the better of the best of 10.

Atleast I had the balls even in a more flukey kind of game to give credit to the Giants and the team that beat the Pats may have actually had a good chance to win a best of ten. That was a damn good Pats team but the Giants proved to me to be incredibly tough and had the defense to stop such a great offense as they did. Even if I thought the Pats would win a best of ten I couldn't nor wouldn't say that after said team comes off a loss! And with the Packers and the Saints in respective Superbowls both being very balanced and talented and both games being closer to even with the odds...I don't know how KD and DODS justify in thier teams winning a best of ten when your team actually lost in the SB...there was nothing flukey about it!

In the end the INT's look especially good on Big Ben and I'm glad the rapist and his thugs failed.

I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't making excuses, but I guess not. There IS no excuse for losing the turnover battle so severely. But there's also nothing wrong with pointing out the main factor that separated the performances of the two teams, which was the turnovers, the storyline of the game. Anyway...you don't think the Patriots would come out on top more times than not if they replayed the Giants? If you don't, you may be the only one. Maybe I'm blowing a big secret for you here, but the best team doesn't always necessarily win. There's no way the Giants win that game more than they lose. I mean...come on. I'm a Giants fan and I admit that. I bet Jimmy would admit that too.

And look at that, we talked about a hypothetical and the world still stands as is.

Also, to PhlegethonVeins, I think I may not have understood what you meant initially, but I get it now, so let me try to explain again. I congratulated Dom Capers, Kevin Greene, and Darren Perry for winning a Super Bowl because I felt that they deserved a ring for the way that they played while they were Steelers. I wasn't trying to say that the reason the Packers won was because they had former Steelers players. I only congratulated them because they're the only guys on the team that mean anything to me. Their era with the Steelers was actually the time that I grew up watching them, so it is a bit special to me to see them succeed, even if it's not with the Steelers. Kevin Greene (along with Greg Lloyd and Rod Woodson) was my favorite player when I first started watching football, and, to be honest, I want him to become the Steelers' linebackers coach once Dick LeBeau retires and the Steelers' current linebackers coach becomes the new defensive coordinator. I'd also love to have Darren Perry back too. He was the secondary coach when the Steelers drafted Polamalu and he has a lot to do with his development. I have football cards of these players sitting next to me right now at my computer desk. So, again, I congratulated those 3 people specifically because I was happy for them, but I didn't mean to attribute the Packers' success to the fact that they were on the Steelers. For starters, Greene and Capers were only with the team for 3 years each. Greene in particular, although he's one of the great linebackers in the team's history, has more attachments with other teams. Capers has been in a lot of places before and after the Steelers. But the only time that means anything to me is the time that they spent with the team that I support. You can't really credit the Steelers for the Packers success any more than you can credit the Giants for the Patriots success just because Belichick learned his craft under the tutelage of Parcells in the late 80s-early 90s and brought a lot of that staff with him to New England. The coach still has to employ what he learned. And that's head coach. In Green Bay we're only talking one side of the ball.

I did say "good for the Packers" though. I like the way their organization is run and I like a lot of their players, especially on the defensive side of the ball, like Woodson, Williams, Raji, Jenkins, Matthews, Collins, and Hawk. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm happy for them, although I am happy for Woodson and Driver, who've put in more than their share of time in the league and have performed deserving of the payoff of a championship.