Pittsburgh NOT the only team to loose to BAD teams

[bermudasteel]

A losing record would be below .500, not .200

What argument? When did I mention Bill Cowher? I've got no interest in defending Cowher's coaching here; he was also a very flawed coach who deserved a lot of criticism.

I'm asking what his record has to do with Tomlin's. If Cowher were 100-0 or 0-100 against awful teams, would that make Tomlin a better or worse coach?

Typical cheerleader ****. No defense of Tomlin whatsoever beyond "But Cowher did it too!" You pom-pom girls seem to think they're the only two coaches on God's earth.

So, let's be clear...

Even though the happenstance is to point out "Coach Tomlin always loses to teams below .200 (hilarious BTW)" - when has he coached a LOSING SEASON?

 

[topseed]

I understand where your coming from, but maybe he includes them as they are a "****" team. A QB away from possible contention.

Maybe, in your opinion, the Rams are a "****" team. OK. The reason I brought it up, though: Superman said that the Rams were better than their 4-6 record indicated. That view would have meant that they should be at least a .500 team, which is the definition of average.

It's been told to me time and again that unless a team has at least a .500 record that they are, in fact, a **** team. So I had to adjust my argument for a more simplistic view.
The Rams do have a good defense. Look at the roster.
They have a **** offense. As Drink IRON City said, they could just need a QB. I agree with that and that they finally may have a decent WR if Kenny Britt can keep his **** together. Their RBs are all very young, too.
Overall, the Rams are 4-6 in a division that has the league's only 9-1 team, a division that also includes the 49ers and Seahawks - two teams from the most recent Super Bowls. If you put them in the NFC South, they'd be immediately tied for first place.

As I mentioned above, not being as bad as their record would mean 5-5, which would qualify as "non-****," right? Yet you keep lumping losses to the Rams right in there with losses to the Jets and Bucs. That still doesn't make sense to me.

You are what your record says you are. Every team has injuries/excuses to lean on. A 4-6 team is less than average over all regardless of how they got there.

Less than average, indeed, but not nearly as "****" as the 2-8 and 2-9 teams who happen to be 2-0 against the Steelers and 2-17 against the rest of the league. What do those records say?

 

[ark steel]

Everyone knows that Supe knows **** about football, so why would you use his opinion to back up anything.

 

[Idioteque]

So, let's be clear...

Even though the happenstance is to point out "Coach Tomlin always loses to teams below .200 (hilarious BTW)"

Hilarious, though it happens at an extraordinary rate, as I illustrated. Though I know how you feel about stats and critical thinking.

- when has he coached a LOSING SEASON?

He's coached three non-playoff seasons. To me, those are losing seasons, whether 4-12 or 11-5. I'm not as interested in style points or "We beat the Browns' JV squad to finish 8-8!!" t-shirts as you are. You're fine with mediocrity.

 

[Steel G]

So, let's be clear...

Even though the happenstance is to point out "Coach Tomlin always loses to teams below .200 (hilarious BTW)" - when has he coached a LOSING SEASON?

Semantics.....When's the last time he coached a WINNING SEASON? The answer, three years ago. He still needs two wins this year to get back to WINNING.

 

[Idioteque]

Semantics.....When's the last time he coached a WINNING SEASON? The answer, three years ago. He still needs two wins this year to get back to WINNING.

Don't you know that our SB win 6 years ago is proof that Tomlin iz awsumm?!

 

[topseed]

I never suggested they didnt do anything...when he mentioned coaching how the **** does he know when a coach is coaching because all we see on the television is the coaches reaction after a bad play, a great play or a stupid penalty. I KNOW coaches are always coaching. But to suggest that since one coach is not as DEMONSTRATIVE as some others, does not in any way mean they arent coaching.

Cowher stood on the sidelines stoic often and when something bad happened out came the chin and scowl. And folks saw him openly chastise players. Well something like that happens to this team and we see Tomlin encourage the player to do much better the next time and we assume "awww see, hes soft...hes punked by his players...hes lost control...he sucks!!". We dont know what occurs during practice or during film review. But i believe corrections are made and discipline handed down when necessary. Those shitload of penalties we incurred at the early part of the season ?.....theyve declined.......Aside from the Jets game, those mental errors have mostly stopped. The defense is playin much better and the offense is clicking on all cylinders. We will know how much growth and chemistry we've developed over the next 5 games. I like that Cincy and Cleveland both won yesterday because it puts pressure on this team to keep winning.

The defense allowed the Titans to average 8 yards per play. To put that in perspective, Tennessee has averaged 5.6 YPP in 2014, and Denver has led the league the past two years at 6.2.

I'm not sure what you're seeing, but to me, that ain't "playin much better."

 

[JupiterBnG]

Semantics.....When's the last time he coached a WINNING SEASON? The answer, three years ago. He still needs two wins this year to get back to WINNING.

To quote the video game Karate Champ... "FULL POINT."

 

[Superman]

Maybe, in your opinion, the Rams are a "****" team. OK. The reason I brought it up, though: Superman said that the Rams were better than their 4-6 record indicated. That view would have meant that they should be at least a .500 team, which is the definition of average.



As I mentioned above, not being as bad as their record would mean 5-5, which would qualify as "non-****," right? Yet you keep lumping losses to the Rams right in there with losses to the Jets and Bucs. That still doesn't make sense to me.



Less than average, indeed, but not nearly as "****" as the 2-8 and 2-9 teams who happen to be 2-0 against the Steelers and 2-17 against the rest of the league. What do those records say?

you're not from around here are you? or are you just being intentionally argumentative?

My opinion is that the Rams are not as bad as their record. Just based on what I've seen on the field - not a stat sheet.

Though it has been stated on this very board that any team that does not have a winning record is by default a **** team. Therefore, your argument is not with me. It is with the simpletons of the board who ever-so-carefully scrutinize every single stat until it is broken down as far as possible that they lose sight of the real picture. You know, if you actually care to argue that.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

How did any of you guys live through the 80's and our bad teams or during Cowher's bad seasons? I would have guessed you would have jumped off of a bridge or something.

 

[Idioteque]

you're not from around here are you? or are you just being intentionally argumentative?

My opinion is that the Rams are not as bad as their record. Just based on what I've seen on the field - not a stat sheet.

Though it has been stated on this very board that any team that does not have a winning record is by default a **** team. Therefore, your argument is not with me. It is with the simpletons of the board who ever-so-carefully scrutinize every single stat until it is broken down as far as possible that they lose sight of the real picture. You know, if you actually care to argue that.

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but who has said this?

 

[Idioteque]

How did any of you guys live through the 80's and our bad teams or during Cowher's bad seasons? I would have guessed you would have jumped off of a bridge or something.

That's how I feel about some of you guys receiving constructive criticism in your daily lives.

There are a few of you whom I think curl into a ball and sob when they hear it. That they're not the A#1 tops at every goddamned thing.

 

[Superman]

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but who has said this?

I'm sure you're forgetting a lot, not just some things.
and I'm not about to go trolling through every post on this board to find that. you know how to use search.

ever get the data on the number of times those elite teams you gush over have had to play .200 teams? or are you still looking for that data?

 

[Idioteque]

I'm sure you're forgetting a lot, not just some things.

Well, I don't have Jalen on speed dial to brush me up on the deep intricacies of professional sports.

and I'm not about to go trolling through every post on this board to find that.

Really? Even though you're the one making the claim?

you know how to use search.

You want me to search "bad team".. ? I'm not sure that'll turn anything up.

Just admit nobody said that and move on.

ever get the data on the number of times those elite teams you gush over have had to play .200 teams? or are you still looking for that data?

pro-football-reference.com

You have the same access I do, if you have the half-hour or so it's likely to take. I do not. But I can't imagine it strengthening your "argument." Do you really and truly believe that we're the only one of those teams that plays against awful teams?

And if that were somehow the case, it would make our back-to-back 8-8 seasons look even worse.

 

[topseed]

he's saying it's a trend that happens to every coach. it happened last nite to Andy Reid. It happend to John Fox when they lost to the Rams. It happened to Harbaugh when he lost to the Rams AND Chicago.

No one is saying it should happen, but we are realistic about the ... as someone noted previously ... parity ... of the league.

losing to **** teams isn't something new that Tomlin has copyrighted and trademarked.

the '73 Dolphins lost to the 4-10 Colts a season removed from going undefeated.

it happens to every coach.

you're not from around here are you? or are you just being intentionally argumentative?

My opinion is that the Rams are not as bad as their record. Just based on what I've seen on the field - not a stat sheet.

Though it has been stated on this very board that any team that does not have a winning record is by default a **** team. Therefore, your argument is not with me. It is with the simpletons of the board who ever-so-carefully scrutinize every single stat until it is broken down as far as possible that they lose sight of the real picture. You know, if you actually care to argue that.

Wasn't really concerned with what others have said about what defines a "****" team.

It's not my intent to be argumentative, but look at YOUR OWN original post there. I'm really just trying to figure out why YOU think the Rams are half-decent, but YOU continue to mention teams losing to them in the same vein as the Chiefs losing to the 0-10 Raiders, or the Steelers losing to horrendous Jets and Bucs teams, or the mighty '73 Dolphins losing to some scrub team. It's not the same trend, but you're acting like it is. YOU admit that the Rams aren't that bad, but losing to them is. It just sounds like confusing double-talk.

.200 and below teams are historically bad. Tomlin's record in those games is laughable. There's a huge difference between .200 and just being below .500 -- that's the point I think is being made here, no matter whose ******-up opinion you might be attempting to reference.

 

[Superman]

Well, I don't have Jalen on speed dial to brush me up on the deep intricacies of professional sports.



Really? Even though you're the one making the claim?



You want me to search "bad team".. ? I'm not sure that'll turn anything up.

Just admit nobody said that and move on.



pro-football-reference.com

You have the same access I do, if you have the half-hour or so it's likely to take. I do not. But I can't imagine it strengthening your "argument." Do you really and truly believe that we're the only one of those teams that plays against awful teams?

And if that were somehow the case, it would make our back-to-back 8-8 seasons look even worse.

So you're saying it was never made? really? prove me wrong. I think you gloat over doing just that. I mean, you spend hours and hours and hours arguing the most minute data, so this is right up your alley. I'd like to believe you're not so intentionally obtuse that you're misunderstood the very arguments on this board "for the last 10 years" that have cemented such a stance that a 4-6 team, or any team under .500, is a **** team.

But, I'll err on the side of most-probable, which is that of you being a clueless ******* ********, and play along using your illogic.

The Rams are not above .500, correct? That cannot be argued. Rams are 4-7.

We also know that the Steelers are above .500, at 7-4.

We've come to believe that they are yet a terrible disaster of a team, based on the arguments posted that Tomlin doesnt know what he's doing, half the team is consistently out of position, while most of the other half is over-matched and we're just by sheer luck posting a 7-4 record.

Now, if you pull those together, it thus makes a reasonable conclusion that any team with a lesser record than the Steelers is, in fact, a **** team. This is concluded by using your own circular logic.

If you care to branch off and expand upon your circular logic into something less ******, then have at it. Otherwise, we can hang up the argument that the Rams ARE indeed a **** team.

 

[Superman]

Wasn't really concerned with what others have said about what defines a "****" team.

It's not my intent to be argumentative, but look at YOUR OWN original post there. I'm really just trying to figure out why YOU think the Rams are half-decent, but YOU continue to mention teams losing to them in the same vein as the Chiefs losing to the 0-10 Raiders, or the Steelers losing to horrendous Jets and Bucs teams, or the mighty '73 Dolphins losing to some scrub team. It's not the same trend, but you're acting like it is. YOU admit that the Rams aren't that bad, but losing to them is. It just sounds like confusing double-talk.

.200 and below teams are historically bad. Tomlin's record in those games is laughable. There's a huge difference between .200 and just being below .500 -- that's the point I think is being made here, no matter whose ******-up opinion you might be attempting to reference.

fair enough. In my opinion, the Rams are just a couple players away from being good. They have a good defense, but I believe they may be on the field too long. I don't see their offense as being on par with their defense. They're trotting out Shaun Hill and whatshisname every week. Even with Sam Bradford, they'd not be very good. Likely, they'd have a win or two more. My opinion is that the Rams need a QB.

Objectively looking at them, I see a team with a decent OL, some nice RBs, a headcase WR in Britt and a few quick and shifty WRs, along with a good TE. If they had a QB, one who could sustain drives and not cause turnovers, they could keep their defense fresh and probably win more. Just my opinion. At 4-7, the Rams record isn't quite .200, but is closer to there than .500.

 

[Idioteque]

So you're saying it was never made? really? prove me wrong.

You want me to prove something was never posted? How would one do that?

Habla usted ingles?

Maybe it was, but I never saw it, which is why I've asked you oh-so-politely (so as to not ruffle your episiotomied *****) if it was. You of course responded by pounding on the keyboard and shouting and daring me to prove it was never posted.

You make no ******* sense, which is why nobody likes/respects you.

I think you gloat over doing just that. I mean, you spend hours and hours and hours arguing the most minute data, so this is right up your alley. I'd like to believe you're not so intentionally obtuse that you're misunderstood the very arguments on this board "for the last 10 years" that have cemented such a stance that a 4-6 team, or any team under .500, is a **** team.

Why is 10 years in quotes? Are you implying I haven't been here for 10 years? Even though you recall specific arguments from about 10 years ago?

And why would I pretend to have been here for 10 years anyway? I remember going back and forth with LineDown! over the '04 AFCCG. I remember hearing your Jalen Rose story for the first of 20,000 times around that timestamp. I remember you boastfully chasing people off the board whom you felt were unfit to occupy your bandwidth. Yeah, 10-11 years sounds about right. That's the length of your e-trolling/stalking and the number of times I've heard what an expert Jalen Rose turned you into that one magical day.

But, I'll err on the side of most-probable, which is that of you being a clueless ******* ********, and play along using your illogic.

The Rams are not above .500, correct? That cannot be argued. Rams are 4-7.

We also know that the Steelers are above .500, at 7-4.

We've come to believe that they are yet a terrible disaster of a team, based on the arguments posted that Tomlin doesnt know what he's doing, half the team is consistently out of position, while most of the other half is over-matched and we're just by sheer luck posting a 7-4 record.

Now, if you pull those together, it thus makes a reasonable conclusion that any team with a lesser record than the Steelers is, in fact, a **** team. This is concluded by using your own circular logic.

If you care to branch off and expand upon your circular logic into something less ******, then have at it. Otherwise, we can hang up the argument that the Rams ARE indeed a **** team.

No, this is concluded by coming up with your own wild brand of horseshit in a desperate attempt to backpedal from the fact that NOBODY posted what you said SOMEBODY did.

 

[Superman]

You want me to prove something was never posted? How would one do that?

Habla usted ingles?

Maybe it was, but I never saw it, which is why I've asked you oh-so-politely (so as to not ruffle your episiotomied *****) if it was. You of course responded by pounding on the keyboard and shouting and daring me to prove it was never posted.

You make no ******* sense, which is why nobody likes/respects you.



Why is 10 years in quotes? Are you implying I haven't been here for 10 years? Even though you recall specific arguments from about 10 years ago?

And why would I pretend to have been here for 10 years anyway? I remember going back and forth with LineDown! over the '04 AFCCG. I remember hearing your Jalen Rose story for the first of 20,000 times around that timestamp. I remember you boastfully chasing people off the board whom you felt were unfit to occupy your bandwidth. Yeah, 10-11 years sounds about right. That's the length of your e-trolling/stalking and the number of times I've heard what an expert Jalen Rose turned you into that one magical day.

you're such a lame ************. I have no idea why that Jalen Rose story stuck in your **** sideways, but whatever. I shot ball with Jalen Rose once. No big deal to me. But it absolutely must be to you. I've also seen had brushes with other players, but nevermind that.

and, if you really think I care one ******* bit if anyone "likes" me, then you've not paid much attention over the past "10 years". And I quote that since for some reason it seems to be your badge of honor having been on the very board you totally despise - and you point both out every chance you can. Though for some reason, you see this board as a popularity contest despite being the most caustic dickbag ever to grace the bandwidth.

The class is still waiting, oh knight in shining armor, of your revelation as to which damsel in distress I so viciously ran off the board.

No, this is concluded by coming up with your own wild brand of horseshit in a desperate attempt to backpedal from the fact that NOBODY posted what you said SOMEBODY did.

so you admit your logic is bullshit? finally.

 

[topseed]

fair enough. In my opinion, the Rams are just a couple players away from being good. They have a good defense, but I believe they may be on the field too long. I don't see their offense as being on par with their defense. They're trotting out Shaun Hill and whatshisname every week. Even with Sam Bradford, they'd not be very good. Likely, they'd have a win or two more. My opinion is that the Rams need a QB.

Objectively looking at them, I see a team with a decent OL, some nice RBs, a headcase WR in Britt and a few quick and shifty WRs, along with a good TE. If they had a QB, one who could sustain drives and not cause turnovers, they could keep their defense fresh and probably win more. Just my opinion. At 4-7, the Rams record isn't quite .200, but is closer to there than .500.

I agree with all of the above, except that .363 is closer to .500 than .200.

So no more Rams-lumping, then.

 

[BAS]

You ladies really need to cut back on all your infighting across multiple threads. It's getting really old, stale and tiresome.

 

[topseed]

Man you two guys really can't stand each other, can you?

 

[Superman]

I agree with all of the above, except that .363 is closer to .500 than .200.

So no more Rams-lumping, then.

duh. yes. my bad. i've had a long day already.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

That's how I feel about some of you guys receiving constructive criticism in your daily lives.

There are a few of you whom I think curl into a ball and sob when they hear it. That they're not the A#1 tops at every goddamned thing.

This has nothing to do with everyday life and constructive criticism. I have had a successful career for over 25 years so I can handle constructive criticism. But if rooting for your favorite team turns into constant and I mean constant criticism of everything they do, why even waste the time and pull for them. I also noticed you didn't address my questions. What did you personally do in the 80's when we sucked and what did you do during the bad Cowher seasons?

 

[SCSteeler4life]

You ladies really need to cut back on all your infighting across multiple threads. It's getting really old, stale and tiresome.

Amen brother.