Tomlin and LeBeau - and the future.

[FAB802]

None of those guys were there for the *Patsies run. If that isn't what he's talking about I apologize. Doesn't anyone else get sick of debating the merits/failures of Cowher and Tomlin (They both had plenty for varying reasons)? Damn.

 

[Vader]

Yes, we were talking about the pats* run. You can look at the Steelers run and you'll see no great Qbs in their division either.

 

[FAB802]

If Jim Kelly was around he was fifty years old by then. Namath and some of the others are ridiculous, that's what I was addressing. Anybody who can't admit that our division for the most part has been weak must not watch a lot of football.

 

[Bigappleyinzer]

If Jim Kelly was around he was fifty years old by then. Namath and some of the others are ridiculous, that's what I was addressing. Anybody who can't admit that our division for the most part has been weak must not watch a lot of football.

Are you saying that our division has been weak as of late?

Surely you are not suggesting this.

 

[FAB802]

Are you saying that our division has been weak as of late?

Surely you are not suggesting this.

You bring up Jim Kelly and Bob Griese and you're talking as of late? Please. Other than a random year here and there the Bungles and Stains are butt. The Rats are the team we battle with for the most part which makes it a two team division most years. I think the Patsies have had it a lot easier with the bums in their division the last ten years or so, but they are beating the teams in front of them which sometimes we flat out don't.

 

[Bigappleyinzer]

You bring up Jim Kelly and Bob Griese and you're talking as of late? Please. Other than a random year here and there the Bungles and Stains are butt. The Rats are the team we battle with for the most part which makes it a two team division most years. I think the Patsies have had it a lot easier with the bums in their division the last ten years or so, but they are beating the teams in front of them which sometimes we flat out don't.

We agree that the Pats have had a muuuch easier division for the last 10 or so years.

But in our division, you have the rats that made the playoffs for nearly 6+ years in a row excluding last year, and a SB win.

You have the Bungle making the p'offs for 3 years in a row and being one of the top teams in the AFC. And the Carson Palmer days were actually pretty decent for them as well.

Other than the browns, the AFCN has been a consistent and competitive division for the last 10 years- more so than any other division in the AFC. Especially the weak *** AFCE

 

[Vader]

We agree that the Pats have had a muuuch easier division for the last 10 or so years.

But in our division, you have the rats that made the playoffs for nearly 6+ years in a row excluding last year, and a SB win.

You have the Bungle making the p'offs for 3 years in a row and being one of the top teams in the AFC. And the Carson Palmer days were actually pretty decent for them as well.

Other than the browns, the AFCN has been a consistent and competitive division for the last 10 years- more so than any other division in the AFC. Especially the weak *** AFCE

It's easy to say that when you move around from "franchise QBs" to "competitive". The fact is that the bungles have been "competitive" but haven't won a playoff game in over 25 years. So the only real "competitive" team is the rats. The Jets were competitive and even won playoff (plural) games during the pats* run. That can't be said for the bungles. The Steelers have run roughshod through the division and I can't even remember the last time the Steelers lost to an AFCN in the playoffs. I do remember getting pounded by the pats* a few times however.

 

[Wingman]

Name the year and player that any other team in the AFC East had a franchise QB. It may take a while... It never said while the Pats were making their run. The Pats "run" had help. I would call it more of a ride. New York had been attacked prior to their run. We had the Tuck rule to get them in. Is there any doubt that after an attack on the United States that the media types would just love to see a team called the New England Patriots winning it all? Then the video taping that was hushed up and evidence destroyed. All the phantom penalties awarded to the cheatriots.

We have had so many questionable calls from time to time that affect games it would not surprise me to learn the zebras are doing their best to fix the outcome in some key games. I would attribute the direction of this to the NFL front offices, and it may have the consent and cooperation of the owners as well. I am not convinced it is happening just stating there are some things from time to time that seem to be very odd to be coincidence. I have not made a list of them or even done lots of research just from time to time something shows up that makes me think "this" could be the result of manipulation. Why do you think no one is allowed to criticize the zebras now! There were not problems with it in the past.

 

[Superman]

Colbert's replacement is already on staff. Omar Khan.

 

[Wingman]

It's easy to say that when you move around from "franchise QBs" to "competitive". The fact is that the bungles have been "competitive" but haven't won a playoff game in over 25 years. So the only real "competitive" team is the rats. The Jets were competitive and even won playoff (plural) games during the pats* run. That can't be said for the bungles. The Steelers have run roughshod through the division and I can't even remember the last time the Steelers lost to an AFCN in the playoffs. I do remember getting pounded by the pats* a few times however.

Vader, just out of curiosity since you are defining Franchise Quarterbacks rather tightly it seems, who are the franchise qbs in the league right now. It might mean there are very few divisions that have more than one in them. Just interested in your take on this since you seem to be heaping praise on the cheatriots recently, maybe I am reading your posts differently than was intended?

 

[Stryker]

So the Cardinals make the SB at 9-7 and they are a great team because the Steelers beat them but the 9-7 Jets suck because they "backed" into the playoffs? Ok. Everyone knows that divisional battles are always tough. No team in the AFC East has been close to as bad as the clowns in the AFC Central. And again the pats* play a much tougher schedule because they win the division. The Steelers have one of the easiest schedules again this year. So the easy division excuse is just that... an excuse. All teams play each other. This isn't the NBA. IF NE really weren't that good then they should be losing all those non-division games... like the Steelers game. But they put up 55 easy points.

Why change the subject? Before Ben name a franchise QB the STeelers had? Name the franchise QB the clowns have had? Name the bungles franchise QB the past 20 years. Palmer? Really? A guy who couldn't win ONE playoff game? Name the rats franchise QB... Dilfer? I guess Flacco is kind of a franchise QB. You really want to go here?

The fact remains that NE plays a harder schedule than the Steelers most years. Especially when the Steelers go 8-8 and playing against the 2nd tier teams in the divisions. Have you seen the Steelers schedule this year? They leave the Eastern Time zone ONCE. They have 2 gimmie games against the clowns, a horrible Jax teams, another horrible TB team, a Texan team that won 2 games last year and still don't have a QB, the Jets and a bad Falcons team at home in Dec. Then the "hard" games like the Saints are at home in Nov. They even get KC at home this year in Dec.

You are the one that made the comparison of NE and the Steelers respective divisions. I'll agree the Browns have their own special breed of ineptitude, but the Bills aren't far behind. We got to beat up on the browns for the past decade, Brady and NE got to beat up on 3 terrible teams with the only blip being the Jets with Sanchez.

QBs determine success in the long term. You may not think of Palmer/Dalton/Flacco as Franchise QBs, but they are. Palmer was one of the better QBs in the league before we shredded his knee. These QBs won consistently in our division and made it difficult to win our division. Compared to whoever the **** the Dolphins/Bills/Jets marched out the past decade, only Sanchez comes close to that bunch and he's still lightyears behind the talent of those 3, which is why he's now a backup.

It's been much easier for the Brady Bunch to roll up weekly Ws vs 6 rudderless ships each season. You see now why they win so much? The absolute myth of NE playing harder opponents each year rings hollow with their division. In fact they play a whopping 2 games different than everyone else in their division. 2. The fact that no one else in that division has been unable to catch them is the fault of their own organizations.

I don't discount that this year's schedule appears to be super easy, and the steelers need to take advantage of it. I'm sure they can.

We can go back and discuss prior franchise QBs, but you would be the one derailing the argument, not me.

 

[Vader]

You are the one that made the comparison of NE and the Steelers respective divisions. I'll agree the Browns have their own special breed of ineptitude, but the Bills aren't far behind. We got to beat up on the browns for the past decade, Brady and NE got to beat up on 3 terrible teams with the only blip being the Jets with Sanchez.

QBs determine success in the long term. You may not think of Palmer/Dalton/Flacco as Franchise QBs, but they are. Palmer was one of the better QBs in the league before we shredded his knee. These QBs won consistently in our division and made it difficult to win our division. Compared to whoever the **** the Dolphins/Bills/Jets marched out the past decade, only Sanchez comes close to that bunch and he's still lightyears behind the talent of those 3, which is why he's now a backup.

It's been much easier for the Brady Bunch to roll up weekly Ws vs 6 rudderless ships each season. You see now why they win so much? The absolute myth of NE playing harder opponents each year rings hollow with their division. In fact they play a whopping 2 games different than everyone else in their division. 2. The fact that no one else in that division has been unable to catch them is the fault of their own organizations.

I don't discount that this year's schedule appears to be super easy, and the steelers need to take advantage of it. I'm sure they can.

We can go back and discuss prior franchise QBs, but you would be the one derailing the argument, not me.

YOU started the franchise QB talk not me. We were talking about divisions strength then you derailed it to talking about Qbs. Also the pats* lost 2 division games LAST YEAR. So comparing their division to the clowns is just ridiculous. The Jets have been MORE successful than the bungles even without a great QB.

Also they play the top division leaders EVERY year. The Steelers have been playing an easy schedule and still can't win. You either don't understand the NFL scheduling or are just being stubborn and won't admit it.

Taken from a sports guy:

Not only did the AFC East have the third most wins (34) this year, but it has accumulated the most victories (403) in the 12 years since the divisions were realigned. In other words, the AFC EAST has been the STRONGEST division over the last 12 years.

Every divisional game is a wash accounting for a win and a loss, so what makes the difference are games outside of the division. The AFC East wins more games out of their division than any other.

 

[Stryker]

YOU started the franchise QB talk not me. We were talking about divisions strength then you derailed it to talking about Qbs. Also the pats* lost 2 division games LAST YEAR. So comparing their division to the clowns is just ridiculous. The Jets have been MORE successful than the bungles even without a great QB.

Also they play the top division leaders EVERY year. The Steelers have been playing an easy schedule and still can't win. You either don't understand the NFL scheduling or are just being stubborn and won't admit it.

Taken from a sports guy:

Not sure where you're getting you fuzzy math, but mine is from NFL.com. Bengals wins since 2003 - 90 Jets 85. Playoff trips those same years 5 to 4. Bengals win again. Sweet, give them a hat and watch us win another Superbowl!

I'm not discrediting that the Pats aren't a good team. But watching the AFC teams march out QBs vs Brady is laughable. The Pats can win that division by default most years (like Peyton used to do in Indy). Since 2003 the Pats have had zero seasons under 10 wins and missed the playoffs one season with 11 wins! QB play and team success are hand in hand. It is the reason why the Pats are the haves in the AFC east while the rest of the division are have nots. I'd rather play the Jets/Mia/ and Buff twice a year, every ******* year, then Balt, Cin, and Cle. Unfortunately, we are stuck in the division with better QB play, and that makes it tougher to win this division.

Think Brady want to see Baltimore twice a year? They can barely beat them when they see them once, and can't beat them in the playoffs. Too bad they have our number.

 

[Vader]

I just think the weak division argument is well.. weak. The Steelers have played in divisions with 2 expansion teams at different times (Jax, Clowns). The fact is that the records of the divisions are close. Also all teams only play 6 division games. If NE weren't a very good team they should be losing to the other "harder" division leaders. But they don't. They still beat the Saints and destroy lesser teams like the Steelers with ease. They've also gotten to the SB so they've had to go through the same teams they played during the year again. I just think it is a weak argument unless you are talking about the NBA and the Eastern Conference. In the NFL all the teams play each other in a standard cycle. The pats* were 4-2 last year in their division. So that means they went 8-2 against the rest of the league.

I'd buy the argument if they went 6-0 against their division and then went 9-7 or 10-6 overall. But that doesn't happen. They were 14-2 in 2010. They lost one of those 2 games to the Jets. Then in the playoffs they get beat by the Jets again. Just don't buy the argument. I'd rather stick to the "they're good but they are still cheaters" argument.

 

[Stryker]

I just think the weak division argument is well.. weak. The Steelers have played in divisions with 2 expansion teams at different times (Jax, Clowns). The fact is that the records of the divisions are close. Also all teams only play 6 division games. If NE weren't a very good team they should be losing to the other "harder" division leaders. But they don't. They still beat the Saints and destroy lesser teams like the Steelers with ease. They've also gotten to the SB so they've had to go through the same teams they played during the year again. I just think it is a weak argument unless you are talking about the NBA and the Eastern Conference. In the NFL all the teams play each other in a standard cycle. The pats* were 4-2 last year in their division. So that means they went 8-2 against the rest of the league.

I'd buy the argument if they went 6-0 against their division and then went 9-7 or 10-6 overall. But that doesn't happen. They were 14-2 in 2010. They lost one of those 2 games to the Jets. Then in the playoffs they get beat by the Jets again. Just don't buy the argument. I'd rather stick to the "they're good but they are still cheaters" argument.

I hear you Vader, I just don't think the AFC East is as tough as the AFC North. They didn't sweep our division last year, and barely beat the Browns. Don't know how they can take Balt and us to the woodshed and luck out vs the Browns, but it happened. So they were 4-2 last year in the division where where they the year before? 6-0, 2011 5-1, 2010 5-1, 2009 4-2, 2008 4-2, 2007 6-0, 2006 5-1, 2005 5-1, 2004 5-1, 2003 5-1 That's averaging 5 wins per year in the division. Doubt they would have had the same numbers playing Pit, Balt, and Cin twice a year. Guess that's why the Browns are so bad.

To me I can equate the teams like this. CLE = BUF (though you can argue slightly worse for CLE), CIN = JETS, that leaves a HUGE difference between BAL and MIA heavily in Baltimore's favor, so to me, yes it's easier to play Mia, Buf, and the Jets over playing Bal, Cin, and Cle each year.

 

[blitzburghv5]

Ryan Tannehill, Chad Henne,Cleo Lemon, Jay Fiedler, AJ Feely (MIA)
JP Losman, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, EJ Manuel (BUF)
Geno Smith, Mark Sanchez, Brett Favre, Chad Pennington (Jets)
Tom Brady (Pats)

 

[Confluence]

Ryan Tannehill, Chad Henne,Cleo Lemon, Jay Fiedler, AJ Feely (MIA)
JP Losman, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, EJ Manuel (BUF)
Geno Smith, Mark Sanchez, Brett Favre, Chad Pennington (Jets)
Tom Brady (Pats)

I see the challenge here.

Tannehill's wife, the chick that Favre sent the dick pic to, and Brady's boss. What do I win?

 

[Vader]

I hear you Vader, I just don't think the AFC East is as tough as the AFC North. They didn't sweep our division last year, and barely beat the Browns. Don't know how they can take Balt and us to the woodshed and luck out vs the Browns, but it happened. So they were 4-2 last year in the division where where they the year before? 6-0, 2011 5-1, 2010 5-1, 2009 4-2, 2008 4-2, 2007 6-0, 2006 5-1, 2005 5-1, 2004 5-1, 2003 5-1 That's averaging 5 wins per year in the division. Doubt they would have had the same numbers playing Pit, Balt, and Cin twice a year. Guess that's why the Browns are so bad.

To me I can equate the teams like this. CLE = BUF (though you can argue slightly worse for CLE), CIN = JETS, that leaves a HUGE difference between BAL and MIA heavily in Baltimore's favor, so to me, yes it's easier to play Mia, Buf, and the Jets over playing Bal, Cin, and Cle each year.

It may not be as tough but it isn't the NFC West of a few years ago. Everybody sucked in that division. The Steelers were 4-2 last year in the division. As bad as they played the year before they were 3-3. 2011- 4-2, 2010- 5-1, 2009- 2-4 they lost to the clowns who were horrible that year at 5-11. The bungles were 10-6, and the rats were 9-7. So the entire division was down.

With the way the NFL does the scheduling I just don't think it is a big deal what division you play in. All teams play twice as many games out of division. And like I said, the pats* are beating these other divisions to rank up their win totals. They also win playoff games against other divisions. Unlike the bungles who play decent during the year but can't buy a play off win.