It's Phil Collins time(or whiney ***** time)

[Ike Kelly]

What seems lost in what Coolie is saying, and I am not speaking for him at all, is there is DEBATE and then there is continuing rehash of negative and somewhat derogatory statements about the team, the season and of course the administration. The fact of the matter is, the league is what Commisioner Rozzelle dreamed of. Complete parity. Any team can beat anyone else. Look at the schedule...since week one there has been upsets every week and I mean big ones. Four weeks ago, Steelers were unstoppable. Today they are a pariah. Same for every team out there SEA, KC, SF and NE whose has losses to bad teams. GB too has had bad losses, but are on a roll these past couple weeks. Point I am trying to make is debate requires both sides of rational discussion. Coolie just brings to the surface there is currently no debate when it comes to the team admin, past, present and even the future. Just bombastic rhetoric of opinions and orchestrated statistics. One of the highly regarded posters, TMC, is no longer participates on this board because there was no qualitive discussion or debate. Just each other's side (of highs and lows) to their view of the team. I know some who have been with the board a long time since Cowher was coaching can remember wanting him gone five years straight even SB XL. Heck even when we beat Arizona, there were drop Tomlin/ we are set for 10 years arguments. So to the heated convo, agree to disagree?

 

[Idioteque]

What seems lost in what Coolie is saying, and I am not speaking for him at all, is there is DEBATE and then there is continuing rehash of negative and somewhat derogatory statements about the team, the season and of course the administration. The fact of the matter is, the league is what Commisioner Rozzelle dreamed of. Complete parity. Any team can beat anyone else. Look at the schedule...since week one there has been upsets every week and I mean big ones. Four weeks ago, Steelers were unstoppable. Today they are a pariah. Same for every team out there SEA, KC, SF and NE whose has losses to bad teams. GB too has had bad losses, but are on a roll these past couple weeks. Point I am trying to make is debate requires both sides of rational discussion. Coolie just brings to the surface there is currently no debate when it comes to the team admin, past, present and even the future. Just bombastic rhetoric of opinions and orchestrated statistics. One of the highly regarded posters, TMC, is no longer participates on this board because there was no qualitive discussion or debate. Just each other's side (of highs and lows) to their view of the team. I know some who have been with the board a long time since Cowher was coaching can remember wanting him gone five years straight even SB XL. Heck even when we beat Arizona, there were drop Tomlin/ we are set for 10 years arguments. So to the heated convo, agree to disagree?

I posted some findings not long ago. None of the league's top teams has lost more than one game to a sub-.200 team over the last few years. We've lost seven such games. Which doesn't include the TEN and JAX near-losses.

Parity is one thing. We're another. It's a normal, natural thing for us to either lose or eeeek by against the dregs of the league. For the good teams in football, it's a blue moon occurrence.

 

[CoolieMan]

What seems lost in what Coolie is saying, and I am not speaking for him at all, is there is DEBATE and then there is continuing rehash of negative and somewhat derogatory statements about the team, the season and of course the administration. The fact of the matter is, the league is what Commisioner Rozzelle dreamed of. Complete parity. Any team can beat anyone else. Look at the schedule...since week one there has been upsets every week and I mean big ones. Four weeks ago, Steelers were unstoppable. Today they are a pariah. Same for every team out there SEA, KC, SF and NE whose has losses to bad teams. GB too has had bad losses, but are on a roll these past couple weeks. Point I am trying to make is debate requires both sides of rational discussion. Coolie just brings to the surface there is currently no debate when it comes to the team admin, past, present and even the future. Just bombastic rhetoric of opinions and orchestrated statistics. One of the highly regarded posters, TMC, is no longer participates on this board because there was no qualitive discussion or debate. Just each other's side (of highs and lows) to their view of the team. I know some who have been with the board a long time since Cowher was coaching can remember wanting him gone five years straight even SB XL. Heck even when we beat Arizona, there were drop Tomlin/ we are set for 10 years arguments. So to the heated convo, agree to disagree?

some here wanted Cowher fired at halftime of the bungles playoff game that year......

 

[Steelr4evr]

I know at one point i was convinced Kordell Stewart had blackmail pictures on Cowher. He had transcended into being god awful(the bronco afc championship game was his undoing for good),yet still started. Another AFCCG loss and i may have went postal,but for all of his shortcomings(martyball) in the playoffs he sure as hell always had guys that ******* brought it all year. After we drafted Ben and i saw him play my attitude changed about getting past that AFCCG hump and wanting Cowher to get on with his life's spittle.

 

[Ike Kelly]

I posted some findings not long ago. None of the league's top teams has lost more than one game to a sub-.200 team over the last few years. We've lost seven such games. Which doesn't include the TEN and JAX near-losses.

Parity is one thing. We're another. It's a normal, natural thing for us to either lose or eeeek by against the dregs of the league. For the good teams in football, it's a blue moon occurrence.

Fact checks can define what is or is not. How it's interpreted is how it's presented. "Normal/natural" thing I disagree. Does it happen enough, yes. Something that the Rooneys probably do notice...and will include in their decision if the team keeps missing the playoffs. However, good teams lose to bad teams all the time. The parity in the league is how balanced the league is week to week in competitiveness.

The first several weeks there have surprises...TN d KC, Mia d NE, Bears d 49ers, SD d Sea, Det d GB, KC d NE, Dal d Sea, STL d Sea, Was d Dal....that was just a quick glance THIS year.

The acid test is coaching preparation and player execution. Each week defines who is on a streak and who isn't. Obviously we are not. We were, but have cooled off. Why? Many factors, some which we are not privy to. Fact of the matter is coaches coach, players play, unless both are in sync, there won't be success. Something the Rooneys know more than any of us, based upon their success in the business.

We can digest facts and present them any way we like...how many losing seasons did Cowher, Noll have in the same time as Tomlin? More. Period, since Tomlin hasn't had one. How many Playoff losses? Fact doesn't justify the means does it since Cowher had a better winning record avg. Speculation on the future is part of the fun of this board. But head bashing serves no purpose. We can respect the opinions as long as agree or disagreement can reciprocated cordially. And by no means is disrespective of anybody.

 

[Ike Kelly]

I posted some findings not long ago. None of the league's top teams has lost more than one game to a sub-.200 team over the last few years. We've lost seven such games. Which doesn't include the TEN and JAX near-losses.

Parity is one thing. We're another. It's a normal, natural thing for us to either lose or eeeek by against the dregs of the league. For the good teams in football, it's a blue moon occurrence.

Fact checks can define what is or is not. How it's interpreted is how it's presented. "Normal/natural" thing I disagree. Does it happen enough, yes. Something that the Rooneys probably do notice...and will include in their decision if the team keeps missing the playoffs. However, good teams lose to bad teams all the time. The parity in the league is how balanced the league is week to week in competitiveness.

The first several weeks there have surprises...TN d KC, Mia d NE, Bears d 49ers, SD d Sea, Det d GB, KC d NE, Dal d Sea, STL d Sea, Was d Dal....that was just a quick glance THIS year.

The acid test is coaching preparation and player execution. Each week defines who is on a streak and who isn't. Obviously we are not. We were, but have cooled off. Why? Many factors, some which we are not privy to. Fact of the matter is coaches coach, players play, unless both are in sync, there won't be success. Something the Rooneys know more than any of us, based upon their success in the business.

We can digest facts and present them any way we like...how many losing seasons did Cowher, Noll have in the same time as Tomlin? More. Period, since Tomlin hasn't had one. How many Playoff losses? Fact doesn't justify the means does it since Cowher had a better winning record avg. Speculation on the future is part of the fun of this board. But head bashing serves no purpose. We can respect the opinions as long as agree or disagreement can reciprocated cordially. And by no means is disrespective of anybody.

 

[Omar10213245]

Fact checks can define what is or is not. How it's interpreted is how it's presented. "Normal/natural" thing I disagree. Does it happen enough, yes. Something that the Rooneys probably do notice...and will include in their decision if the team keeps missing the playoffs. However, good teams lose to bad teams all the time. The parity in the league is how balanced the league is week to week in competitiveness.

The first several weeks there have surprises...TN d KC, Mia d NE, Bears d 49ers, SD d Sea, Det d GB, KC d NE, Dal d Sea, STL d Sea, Was d Dal....that was just a quick glance THIS year.

The acid test is coaching preparation and player execution. Each week defines who is on a streak and who isn't. Obviously we are not. We were, but have cooled off. Why? Many factors, some which we are not privy to. Fact of the matter is coaches coach, players play, unless both are in sync, there won't be success. Something the Rooneys know more than any of us, based upon their success in the business.

We can digest facts and present them any way we like...how many losing seasons did Cowher, Noll have in the same time as Tomlin? More. Period, since Tomlin hasn't had one. How many Playoff losses? Fact doesn't justify the means does it since Cowher had a better winning record avg. Speculation on the future is part of the fun of this board. But head bashing serves no purpose. We can respect the opinions as long as agree or disagreement can reciprocated cordially. And by no means is disrespective of anybody.

what's the point of this reply? no **** speculation is part of the fun, why do you think people come to a message board? bashing heads serves no purpose?? what purpose, exactly, should we be serving? Do we actually have anything to do with the team? And please don't start with the "how many losing seasons" garbage, that's been put to bed here, too many times to count.

 

[Vader]

The first several weeks there have surprises...TN d KC, Mia d NE, Bears d 49ers, SD d Sea, Det d GB, KC d NE, Dal d Sea, STL d Sea, Was d Dal....that was just a quick glance THIS year.

Almost none of those games were like the Steelers losing to TB at home. Miami is 7-5 and are divisional rivals with NE. Seattle losing to SD was no biggie either. Seattle isn't great on the road and SD is a 8-4. Dallas beating Seattle was a shock but Dallas is 9-4. Detroit beating GB is not a shock. Detroit is 8-4 and they are divisional rivals. KC is tough at home so beating NE was expected by many. The only real shocker in the entire group that you listed is TN d KC. And that was the first game of the year when they were both 0-0.

I don't see one game in that bunch where a 1 win team beats a 6 win team like what happened with the Jets and Steelers.

 

[POP]

I posted some findings not long ago. None of the league's top teams has lost more than one game to a sub-.200 team over the last few years. We've lost seven such games. Which doesn't include the TEN and JAX near-losses.

Parity is one thing. We're another. It's a normal, natural thing for us to either lose or eeeek by against the dregs of the league. For the good teams in football, it's a blue moon occurrence.

Dude, you just rocked it with facts and truth. It should be interesting to see what the tantrum-throwing crowd will do in response. Oh wait, it will probably be deleted, per normal.

 

[Idioteque]

Fact checks can define what is or is not. How it's interpreted is how it's presented. "Normal/natural" thing I disagree. Does it happen enough, yes. Something that the Rooneys probably do notice...and will include in their decision if the team keeps missing the playoffs. However, good teams lose to bad teams all the time. The parity in the league is how balanced the league is week to week in competitiveness.

Happens to us 7 times as often as it does GB, NE, IND, SEA, SF, or DEN. Seven times more often. Over a span of four seasons.

Happens to Tomlin's Steelers twice as often as Cowher's Steelers, despite having basically the same core of players.

If you truly can't see a trend there then I guess I'm out of talking points.

The first several weeks there have surprises...TN d KC, Mia d NE, Bears d 49ers, SD d Sea, Det d GB, KC d NE, Dal d Sea, STL d Sea, Was d Dal....that was just a quick glance THIS year.

Some of these don't make sense. The Dolphins, Chargers, Chiefs, and Cowboys are all squarely in the playoff hunt if not leading the charge. How is DAL over SEA the same as TB, NYJ, and NO over us? What you're doing is blending "surprise wins" like a solid Dolphins team beating the Pats with "astounding wins" like the winless Bucs beating us in Pittsburgh.

We can digest facts and present them any way we like...

I didn't present them in any special way. I listed the # of losses to teams under .200 since 2011. Very straightforward presentation.

how many losing seasons did Cowher, Noll have in the same time as Tomlin? More. Period, since Tomlin hasn't had one.

Which is impressive if you consider non-losing seasons to be successful. 8-8 with no playoffs isn't very successful in my eyes. I tend to judge a season's success on playoff appearances/performance, not "did we beat the Browns in Week 17 to make it to 8-8?"

How many non-playoff seasons did Cowher have in his first seven seasons? One. Tomlin? Three, possibly four now.

How many Playoff losses?

Well, Cowher was in the playoffs a lot more often than Tomlin, so # of losses doesn't tell us much.

 

[POP]

Almost none of those games were like the Steelers losing to TB at home. Miami is 7-5 and are divisional rivals with NE. Seattle losing to SD was no biggie either. Seattle isn't great on the road and SD is a 8-4. Dallas beating Seattle was a shock but Dallas is 9-4. Detroit beating GB is not a shock. Detroit is 8-4 and they are divisional rivals. KC is tough at home so beating NE was expected by many. The only real shocker in the entire group that you listed is TN d KC. And that was the first game of the year when they were both 0-0.

I don't see one game in that bunch where a 1 win team beats a 6 win team like what happened with the Jets and Steelers.

You nailed it. To say "Good teams lose to bad teams" all the time is a half truth. Define "all the time." I'd say once a week is about the average. Tomlin's record vs. the worst teams in significant and noteworthy. Those trying to paint it otherwise look beyond silly.

 

[Ike Kelly]

Omar, Vader, idioteque, those games were mentioned in the parity comment at the end of the proceeding paragraph. Sort of providing examples of week to week occurrences in the NFL. We don't see those 6-7 win streaks that dictate leaders of the division's anymore because of the parity. My intent wasn't to try to prove the team's recent trend is similar to the games this year.

Vader, idioteque have been on this board a long time....you guys know when your point has been made. Justification isn't necessary IMO, as I can or any one other can respectfully agree to disagree or vice versa. The head bashing serves no purpose to allow that. There are always two sides. That is the point of having the board. I agree there is some accountabilities with the coaching staff/evaluators that need addressed with the team. There were similar problems under Cowher, and we know how that played out. I'm pretty sure the front office has or will notice at the end of the season regardless how it ends and make the adjustments. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

In the meantime, regardless of how "they" look now or if by some miracle they win 4 straight, it's still going to be a week to week assessment because of how the league has parity in both conferences.

Or maybe it's a conspiracy that the head bashing is used to see who can create the longest running post title.

 

[Ike Kelly]

Omar, Vader, idioteque, those games were mentioned in the parity comment at the end of the proceeding paragraph. Sort of providing examples of week to week occurrences in the NFL. We don't see those 6-7 win streaks that dictate leaders of the division's anymore because of the parity. My intent wasn't to try to prove the team's recent trend is similar to the games this year.

Vader, idioteque have been on this board a long time....you guys know when your point has been made. Justification isn't necessary IMO, as I can or any one other can respectfully agree to disagree or vice versa. The head bashing serves no purpose to allow that. There are always two sides. That is the point of having the board. I agree there is some accountabilities with the coaching staff/evaluators that need addressed with the team. There were similar problems under Cowher, and we know how that played out. I'm pretty sure the front office has or will notice at the end of the season regardless how it ends and make the adjustments. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

In the meantime, regardless of how "they" look now or if by some miracle they win 4 straight, it's still going to be a week to week assessment because of how the league has parity in both conferences.

Or maybe it's a conspiracy that the head bashing is used to see who can create the longest running post title.

 

[Idioteque]

Omar, Vader, idioteque, those games were mentioned in the parity comment at the end of the proceeding paragraph. Sort of providing examples of week to week occurrences in the NFL. We don't see those 6-7 win streaks that dictate leaders of the division's anymore because of the parity. My intent wasn't to try to prove the team's recent trend is similar to the games this year.

With all due respect, it was.. you said it was no big deal that we lose to garbage teams, because the Cowboys beat the Seahawks and the Dolphins beat the Pats. That's not nearly the same as consistently losing to or nearly losing to winless and awful teams.

Vader, idioteque have been on this board a long time....you guys know when your point has been made. Justification isn't necessary IMO, as I can or any one other can respectfully agree to disagree or vice versa.

Respectfully disagreeing with an opinion is one thing. Being presented with black and white numbers that prove we've lost X games, then arguing against them, is different. We can certainly debate WHY we lose to such ****** teams so often, as that's a matter of opinion from our vantage point. But there's no opinion involved in pointing out a concrete number of losses.

When you then claimed that I was twisting stats around to make them look a certain way, I refuted that. No "head bashing" or justification involved there.

 

[topseed]

The fact of the matter is, the league is what Commisioner Rozzelle dreamed of. Complete parity. Any team can beat anyone else. Look at the schedule...since week one there has been upsets every week and I mean big ones. Four weeks ago, Steelers were unstoppable. Today they are a pariah. Same for every team out there SEA, KC, SF and NE whose has losses to bad teams. GB too has had bad losses, but are on a roll these past couple weeks.

New England doesn't have any losses to bad teams. They lost at Miami, at KC, and at GB. Green Bay doesn't have any bad losses. They lost at Seattle, at Detroit, and at New Orleans (the Saints are 3-3 at home).

Getting tired of people attempting to equate these types of losses to the embarrassments versus the complete dregs of the league like the Bucs and Jets. The Patriots and Packers rarely lose to **** teams, and when it does happen to occur, it's an aberration, not a trend.

 

[Ike Kelly]

L

With all due respect, it was.. you said it was no big deal that we lose to garbage teams, because the Cowboys beat the Seahawks and the Dolphins beat the Pats. That's not nearly the same as consistently losing to or nearly losing to winless and awful teams.



Respectfully disagreeing with an opinion is one thing. Being presented with black and white numbers that prove we've lost X games, then arguing against them, is different. We can certainly debate WHY we lose to such ****** teams so often, as that's a matter of opinion from our vantage point. But there's no opinion involved in pointing out a concrete number of losses.

When you then claimed that I was twisting stats around to make them look a certain way, I refuted that. No "head bashing" or justification involved there.

Should have known better than jumping down the rabbit hole. Should have had Coolie ban me before it started. It behoove me that folks can have a mindset before even finishing reading a post, much less attempting to place words in my content.

Nowhere did I state "it was no big deal we lose to garbage teams". My comments were directed at the surprises in games weekly in the NFL and how parity now defines the NFL.

You are correct, it has nothing to do with "consistently losing to or nearly losing to awful teams", considering I never opined that. Just as you stated I was arguing black and white numbers from W/L records, I never refuted the numbers, just your opinion of what you think it means. You interpret it as a coaching/drafting issue primarily. I believe it related to parity in the league.

Lastly, idioteque I never claimed you twisted stats, again the current state of the NFL drives the numbers. You are a longtime poster on here, Ive seen your viewpoint for awhile on the board, I have agreed and disagreed with them in the past with no problems. I don't currently agree with the notion that it is entirely the reasons you state (coaching, etc.) there is another team playing that wants to win. Because of how the league is now (parity), the margin for error is smaller in order to win football games, regardless of who is coaching. No disrespect to you or any other poster. That is all it is. Coolie, kick me off the island, if you wish.

 

[Ike Kelly]

L

With all due respect, it was.. you said it was no big deal that we lose to garbage teams, because the Cowboys beat the Seahawks and the Dolphins beat the Pats. That's not nearly the same as consistently losing to or nearly losing to winless and awful teams.



Respectfully disagreeing with an opinion is one thing. Being presented with black and white numbers that prove we've lost X games, then arguing against them, is different. We can certainly debate WHY we lose to such ****** teams so often, as that's a matter of opinion from our vantage point. But there's no opinion involved in pointing out a concrete number of losses.

When you then claimed that I was twisting stats around to make them look a certain way, I refuted that. No "head bashing" or justification involved there.

Should have known better than jumping down the rabbit hole. Should have had Coolie ban me before it started. It behooves me that folks can have a mindset before even finishing reading a post, much less attempting to place words in my content.

Nowhere did I state "it was no big deal we lose to garbage teams". My comments were directed at the surprises in games weekly in the NFL and how parity now defines the NFL.

You are correct, it has nothing to do with "consistently losing to or nearly losing to awful teams", considering I never opined that. Just as you stated I was arguing black and white numbers from W/L records, I never refuted the numbers, just your opinion of what you think it means. You interpret it as a coaching/drafting issue primarily. I believe its related to parity in the league.

Lastly, idioteque I never claimed you twisted stats, again the current state of the NFL drives the numbers. You are a longtime poster on here, Ive seen your viewpoint for awhile on the board, I have agreed and disagreed with them in the past with no problems. I don't currently agree with the notion that it is entirely the reasons you state (coaching, etc.) there is another team playing that wants to win. Because of how the league is now (parity), the margin for error is smaller in order to win football games, regardless of who is coaching. No disrespect to you or any other poster. That is all it is. Coolie, kick me off the island, if you wish.

 

[south dakota STEEL]

and those that don't care if the Steelers lose, even though they are in the middle of a play off battle...just hoping for a higher draft pick...**** off also. Until they are out of it, I want them to win as many games as possible.....

ALWAYS want them to win. That's the only reason to watch.

 

[Idioteque]

L

Should have known better than jumping down the rabbit hole. Should have had Coolie ban me before it started. It behooves me that folks can have a mindset before even finishing reading a post, much less attempting to place words in my content.

Nowhere did I state "it was no big deal we lose to garbage teams". My comments were directed at the surprises in games weekly in the NFL and how parity now defines the NFL.

You are correct, it has nothing to do with "consistently losing to or nearly losing to awful teams", considering I never opined that. Just as you stated I was arguing black and white numbers from W/L records, I never refuted the numbers, just your opinion of what you think it means. You interpret it as a coaching/drafting issue primarily. I believe its related to parity in the league.

Lastly, idioteque I never claimed you twisted stats, again the current state of the NFL drives the numbers. You are a longtime poster on here, Ive seen your viewpoint for awhile on the board, I have agreed and disagreed with them in the past with no problems. I don't currently agree with the notion that it is entirely the reasons you state (coaching, etc.) there is another team playing that wants to win. Because of how the league is now (parity), the margin for error is smaller in order to win football games, regardless of who is coaching. No disrespect to you or any other poster. That is all it is. Coolie, kick me off the island, if you wish.

Your exact words were, "How it's interpreted is how it's presented" and "We can digest facts and present them any way we like." And I've never once claimed that the problem is "entirely" one thing or another.