Pats / Steelers Legacy

[NWPATSFAN]

Maybe Alaska allowed them?

 

[Ojb81]

We've been over this before. Nothing has changed. In 1990 they became a class III drug. Prior to they were still controlled and required perscriptions. You couldn't buy them over the counter. Well at least not in the 70s. Before that I could care less. Stay focused Skippy

Right. And more than half the league was using them without a 2nd thought, squeaky Pete. Ergo, not really all that much of a talking point.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Right. And more than half the league was using them without a 2nd thought, squeaky Pete. Ergo, not really all that much of a talking point.

So they were illegal. Thank for proving my point again. But feel free to keep face palming my posts even when you're wrong.

 

[Ojb81]

So they were illegal. Thank for proving my point again. But feel free to keep face palming my posts even when you're wrong.

I facepalm you because you're a dumbass and can't accept reality

 

[dbldwn711]

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I facepalm you because you're a dumbass and can't accept reality

Says the dumbass who was wrong again and can't admit it.

Will you provide said proof of over 50% of the NFL using steroids? No need to provide any Steelers they're well documented. So that leaves you about 800 names per any given year.

Get set, go!

 

[Pure Steel]

The 1963 Chargers were the originals...

 

[YankeeRebel]

Steroid use? Wait, you think the Steelers were the only team using them during an era when they were legal, both in terms of US laws and NFL regulations?

No I am not, are you implying the Pats are the only team that benefited from videography?

If they play under pre '77 or '78 rules, Pats wouldn't have a chance against that D. Post '78 or today's rules, it'd be a toss up.

BS this whole they don't let them play D anymore is weak. How can that be yet they still say D wins championships

 

[Ojb81]

No I am not, are you implying the Pats are the only team that benefited from videography?

Of course not

 

[realityball]

... this comparison is more about team history vs one era in the NFL ... this century (so far) of the Patriots dominance is incomparable for sure ... but there’s something to be said about a team that has had success for the duration ...

 

[mrschaney]

The Pats are more impressive to me because they have done it all since 2001. In this age of free agency, the Patriots have had a rotating cast, while Terry Bradshaw had Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, Mean Joe Greene, etc. etc. etc. They kept a great group of hall of famers together , but if you go back and look at some of the Patriots earlier Super Bowls, you hear alot of names that have now been forgotten. The Patriots seem to have a different core and no matter who they put out there, they find a way to win.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Ill take your free agency and parity and raise you a "new rules where you arent allowed to play defense" era

Then who are those 11 men on the field facing against the offence?

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

No I am not, are you implying the Pats are the only team that benefited from videography?



BS this whole they don't let them play D anymore is weak. How can that be yet they still say D wins championships

Nope. Wrong!

Before 1977 DBs were allowed to mug receivers anywhere on the field. 25 TD passes and 3000 yards in a season was a lot and it wasn't unusual for top QBs to have almost as many INTs as TD passes in a season. You could also hit a QB and drive them into the ground just as long as you didn't spike them head first, without a penalty. Also, deliberate head shots on offensive players was completely legal. I could go on and on but everyone gets the point. Not saying you can't still play D but to act like there's no difference is just being ignorant of or ignoring NFL history.

That Steelers' D pre-Mel Blunt rule (notice it's named after a Steeler) would beat the living crap out of any modern offensive if allowed to play under the old rules. There is zero doubt about that!!!

 

[PatsFan2003]

As of this moment, I call it a draw. But I grew up in a world of Steelers lunch boxes and Mean Joe green commercials on TV --- but, really, what N.E. has done is more impressive.

I think the overall span of Patriots dominance has been longer then the Steelers but both are great franchises

 

[YankeeRebel]

Of course not

I feel cheating by every team goes on every year, it's only when the get caught that it's an issue. Didn't the 9er get caught manipulating the cap?

 

[YankeeRebel]

Nope. Wrong!

Before 1977 DBs were allowed to mug receivers anywhere on the field. 25 TD passes and 3000 yards in a season was a lot and it wasn't unusual for top QBs to have almost as many INTs as TD passes in a season. You could also hit a QB and drive them into the ground just as long as you didn't spike them head first, without a penalty. Also, deliberate head shots on offensive players was completely legal. I could go on and on but everyone gets the point. Not saying you can't still play D but to act like there's no difference is just being ignorant of or ignoring NFL history.

That Steelers' D pre-Mel Blunt rule (notice it's named after a Steeler) would beat the living crap out of any modern offensive if allowed to play under the old rules. There is zero doubt about that!!!

And yet defense still wins championships. That is the point these rules changes were about player safety and logic for the most. So IMO the argument of these rules changes made a huge difference is moot. The game has transitioned away from big dumb burly men killing one another. Defenses today, are smarter, faster, more athletic, more complex so I really don't see where being able to mug a guy all the way downfield ( which is a bit of a myth ), or piling driving a QB was much of an advantage.

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

I think the overall span of Patriots dominance has been longer then the Steelers but both are great franchises

Not over all. The Steelers' have been dominating since the 70's, the Patriots only since 2001. However, Brady and BB have the longest dominance by a single QB and coach combo. I'd still give the overall edge to Pittsburgh since they've dominated with 3 straight HCs since 1969. The only 3 HCs they've had in that time span btw. We have to see what the Pats do post BB and Brady before they can enter the overall discussion.

I know some will put more emphasis on the single combo dominance but IMO you have to prove you can do it again and again over many decades like the Steelers have already done to surpass the Steelers or at least equal them.


Now I know this is a Steeler/Pats thread but to throw out some other teams that have had multiple dominate HC/QB combos the teams that come to mind are GB, Giants, Dallas, SF and Oakland. I think that's it. And my definition is different HC and QB that won SBs which eliminates the Redskins and their three Joe Gibbs/different QB combos. Ravens don't count either because I'm talking dominate QBs and not defenses.

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

And yet defense still wins championships. That is the point these rules changes were about player safety and logic for the most. So IMO the argument of these rules changes made a huge difference is moot. The game has transitioned away from big dumb burly men killing one another. Defenses today, are smarter, faster, more athletic, more complex so I really don't see where being able to mug a guy all the way downfield ( which is a bit of a myth ), or piling driving a QB was much of an advantage.

Wrong Again!!! The changes in the late 70's had nothing to do with player safety and all to do with increasing offense and scoring to add excitement to the game. D doesn't win championships cause you still have to outscore the other team and no team's D has out scored opponents all by themselves. On the flip side offense doesn't win by themselves either because you have to keep a team from scoring more than you do. It takes all 3 phases to win. Stop throwing out stupid catch phrases.

So you don't know how being mugged downfield stops a WR from catching the ball??? Have someone pin your arms to your side, have someone else throw a football to you while your arms are pinned or have someone knock you aside right before the ball is thrown (all allowed before the Mel Blount rule). If that doesn't get the point across, you're hopeless.

 

[Pure Steel]

Just google the Mel Blount Rule.....It will help the uninformed.....

 

[YankeeRebel]

Wrong Again!!! The changes in the late 70's had nothing to do with player safety and all to do with increasing offense and scoring to add excitement to the game. D doesn't win championships cause you still have to outscore the other team and no team's D has out scored opponents all by themselves. On the flip side offense doesn't win by themselves either because you have to keep a team from scoring more than you do. It takes all 3 phases to win. Stop throwing out stupid catch phrases.

So you don't know how being mugged downfield stops a WR from catching the ball??? Have someone pin your arms to your side, have someone else throw a football to you while your arms are pinned or have someone knock you aside right before the ball is thrown (all allowed before the Mel Blount rule). If that doesn't get the point across, you're hopeless.

Okay slick your claiming I am wrong does not make it so, I guess it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I will not banter back and forth over opinion, opinion which cannot be wrong.

Enjoy the rest of your day.