It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:41 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 11102
Nick79 wrote:
Have you seen a replay of the Steelers/Rams Super Bowl from 1980 recently? The announcer opens the broadcast in the first possession describing the Steelers O-line, saying something like, "these guys are massive, they average 260 pounds across the offensive line" :lol:


Exactly.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:36 pm
Posts: 369
Still Lit wrote:
Offensive linemen today in general are much bigger. Russ Grimm would be one of the smallest guards in the league.

Athletes now in general are bigger, faster, stronger. I understand the 70s team was full of Hall of Fame bad asses. But the contemporary athlete seems to me to be on a different level. You're assuming that because the Steel Curtain dominated 70s teams, they would dominate teams now?

I wonder if Mel Blount could run fast enough actually to lay a hit on some of the WRs playing now.

Not buying it. At all.

Consider all the Olympic records that have been broken since the 70s. Athletes have gotten bigger, faster, stronger.

I am just using the Pats as the example but Julian Edelman aint fast. I think Blount would be on Gronk actually. I understand what you are saying, i disagree though. Wasnt Cliff Branch pretty damn fast? The Chargers wrs of that era? There were plenty of fast wrs back then. You talk like the nfl was full of slow midgets in that era.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
The lineman where definitely smaller, 250-260 was a pro or D1 college O-lineman, I played O-line in HS at 210. There where a couple guys I played with that got D1 O-line scholarships and they where considered ''huge" at the time going between 230-240. Now HS O-linemen are 300+.

But I will say there definitely where strong guys, some of those guys I knew that played D1, weren't as heavy, but still could bench like 450-500 pounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
Kids specialize more now, big kids might decide at a younger age to bulk up and play OT, or quit football to play basketball, or never play basketball or football at all and play soccer for 12 years, or play 150 game baseball schedules at age 12. So if you're concentrating on getting big for football, you aren't playing different sports as the seasons change like we did. When football season ended, me and my football teammates probably played basketball in the winter either for the school or the CYO or something and maybe lifted weights twice a week or something, nowadays lots of these kids are immersed in grooming themselves for a certain sport early.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:36 pm
Posts: 369
Nick79 wrote:
The lineman where definitely smaller, 250-260 was a pro or D1 college O-lineman, I played O-line in HS at 210. There where a couple guys I played with that got D1 O-line scholarships and they where considered ''huge" at the time going between 230-240. Now HS O-linemen are 300+.

But I will say there definitely where strong guys, some of those guys I knew that played D1, weren't as heavy, but still could bench like 450-500 pounds.

You guys got me on the lineman, but the rest of the field the Steelers players were fine size wise. Pitt actually had guys at that time that were not the norm as far as size. Bradshaw, Franco, Blount, Cunningham. Stallworth was skinny but tall for a wr back then....or was it because he was so skinny he looked tall? Jack Lambert was super light but also really tall and fast. Except for Gronk most of the Pats players are usully smaller. I dont think the size thing would really matter that much. Just my opinion. You also have to factor in the heart factor. Most of those guys played harder than most of these pussies today. They had hearts of lions. Size aint everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 1402
Sorry, but the guys today are actually no stronger than they were back then. Take a look at old photos of those 250 lb lineman - they were pretty big guys with good physiques. Today, these guys add weight to make them more "unmovable" (they look fat to me). They eat 8 meals a day loaded with carbs - something like 10,000 calories per day. In 20 years, if you don't weigh 400 lbs, you won't be able to be an NFL lineman. I would bet that if the NFL came out with a weight range and limit for each position, you would see better football. It would be faster and more dangerous than ever as player's athleticism wouldn't be hindered by their weight so much. The game would be fast as hell!

I think what some people are saying is that the play of the game was more destructive and ferocious as the rules valued it. Tom Brady would not have lasted 5 years in the league back then - he's too much of a pussy to be hit like they were back then! Half these QBs today wouldn't get up after the hit!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:36 pm
Posts: 369
alancac98 wrote:
Sorry, but the guys today are actually no stronger than they were back then. Take a look at old photos of those 250 lb lineman - they were pretty big guys with good physiques. Today, these guys add weight to make them more "unmovable" (they look fat to me). They eat 8 meals a day loaded with carbs - something like 10,000 calories per day. In 20 years, if you don't weigh 400 lbs, you won't be able to be an NFL lineman. I would bet that if the NFL came out with a weight range and limit for each position, you would see better football. It would be faster and more dangerous than ever as player's athleticism wouldn't be hindered by their weight so much. The game would be fast as hell!

I think what some people are saying is that the play of the game was more destructive and ferocious as the rules valued it. Tom Brady would not have lasted 5 years in the league back then - he's too much of a pussy to be hit like they were back then! Half these QBs today wouldn't get up after the hit!

Classic example, how strong was Mike Webster? Anyone know how much he benched. I cant see him having any problem with some fat ass DT today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 11102
alancac98 wrote:
Sorry, but the guys today are actually no stronger than they were back then. Take a look at old photos of those 250 lb lineman - they were pretty big guys with good physiques. Today, these guys add weight to make them more "unmovable" (they look fat to me). They eat 8 meals a day loaded with carbs - something like 10,000 calories per day. In 20 years, if you don't weigh 400 lbs, you won't be able to be an NFL lineman. I would bet that if the NFL came out with a weight range and limit for each position, you would see better football. It would be faster and more dangerous than ever as player's athleticism wouldn't be hindered by their weight so much. The game would be fast as hell!

I think what some people are saying is that the play of the game was more destructive and ferocious as the rules valued it. Tom Brady would not have lasted 5 years in the league back then - he's too much of a pussy to be hit like they were back then! Half these QBs today wouldn't get up after the hit!


Fine, we have fat fuck linemen now. Still doesn't change my position. There is no way the Steelers 70s defense would maul lines today like they did then. The training, the power-to speed-to size ratios are just so much higher now.

That pussy Brady has a lot of rings.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:25 pm
Posts: 466
It is difficult to compare eras without translating one of the teams to the others environment. If the cheats were playing in the 70s, we would hurt Brady and Gronk in the first quarter. No way would they take the pounding that we would deliver. If the Steelers of the 70s were playing today, they would have the benefit of today's training and diet programs, and the players would have been bigger as well. Lambert, Ham and Russell could all cover and would make Gronks life miserable. Joe Greene up the middle would collapse the pocket on Brady. Our DBs (especially Blount) would play well in this time era. They could cover. Larry Brown would do very well against the cheats DLine. Franco would be Franco. And Edelman would have trouble going over the middle and meeting Donnie Shell. I would like our chances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 11102
But then they would not be 70s athletes any more.

Gronk doesn’t need to be transported to the 70s to get injured often.

Easy for everyone to call Brady a pussy who would fold.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:36 pm
Posts: 369
Still Lit wrote:
But then they would not be 70s athletes any more.

Gronk doesn’t need to be transported to the 70s to get injured often.

Easy for everyone to call Brady a pussy who would fold.

Lets see Brady take a Bradshaw dump on the head ala Turkey Jones or a Jim Mcmahon- Charles Martin hit. Hell, if anyone gets within 5 yards of his knee he starts pointing and asking for a flag. Brady may have all those rings but he is a bona fide pussy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:07 am
Posts: 258
Yes, 6 = 6. But, this is a "what have you done for me lately" world. And lately the Steelers haven't done jack.

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? Well, the Pats are doing the same to the Steelers.

Yes, 6 = 6. But really, who cares? It's time to be relevant now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 9223
Steel Reign wrote:
Yes, 6 = 6. But, this is a "what have you done for me lately" world. And lately the Steelers haven't done jack.

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? Well, the Pats are doing the same to the Steelers.

Not really. It hasn't been DECADES since we last won.

_________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:28 pm
Posts: 5282
Poltargyst wrote:
Steel Reign wrote:
Yes, 6 = 6. But, this is a "what have you done for me lately" world. And lately the Steelers haven't done jack.

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? Well, the Pats are doing the same to the Steelers.

Not really. It hasn't been DECADES since we last won.


Yeah, just remove the S. :roll:

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
#NoMoTomlin
#BecauseTomlin
#FreeSTD
#Obviously


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:38 pm
Posts: 1131
Poltargyst wrote:
Steel Reign wrote:
Yes, 6 = 6. But, this is a "what have you done for me lately" world. And lately the Steelers haven't done jack.

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? Well, the Pats are doing the same to the Steelers.

Not really. It hasn't been DECADES since we last won.


The Browns and Lions and Packers fans talking about pre-merger championships are like SF Giants fans counting pre-World Series championships as championships. It was an entirely different league.

At least the 70s Steelers won their championships in the post-merger NFL and fans aren't trying to count wins from the 1940s or 1920s.


Last edited by W&M_Steeler on Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:57 pm
Posts: 272
JaySteel72 wrote:
alancac98 wrote:
Sorry, but the guys today are actually no stronger than they were back then. Take a look at old photos of those 250 lb lineman - they were pretty big guys with good physiques. Today, these guys add weight to make them more "unmovable" (they look fat to me). They eat 8 meals a day loaded with carbs - something like 10,000 calories per day. In 20 years, if you don't weigh 400 lbs, you won't be able to be an NFL lineman. I would bet that if the NFL came out with a weight range and limit for each position, you would see better football. It would be faster and more dangerous than ever as player's athleticism wouldn't be hindered by their weight so much. The game would be fast as hell!

I think what some people are saying is that the play of the game was more destructive and ferocious as the rules valued it. Tom Brady would not have lasted 5 years in the league back then - he's too much of a pussy to be hit like they were back then! Half these QBs today wouldn't get up after the hit!

Classic example, how strong was Mike Webster? Anyone know how much he benched. I cant see him having any problem with some fat ass DT today.


My failing memory recalls a factoid of Jon Kolb benching 550.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
Steel Reign wrote:

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? .


I don't, I respect history, they where the team of the '50s, they won something like 7 championships in 10 years, when former Brown Chuck Noll was hired in '69, the perception still was like the Browns to the Steelers was like the Pats to the Jets is today. Even worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
W&M_Steeler wrote:
fans aren't trying to count wins from the 1940s or 1920s.


They all still count. Like Pitt has 9 National Championships all just as valid as titles won today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:38 pm
Posts: 1131
Nick79 wrote:
W&M_Steeler wrote:
fans aren't trying to count wins from the 1940s or 1920s.


They all still count. Like Pitt has 9 National Championships all just as valid as titles won today.


No one can take away the Packers' 1920s and 1930s championships, but they're championships of a league that doesn't really exist anymore. Pre-merger NFL is like pre-merger MLB. There are teams that have National League championships from the 1880s. They don't count as World Series championships and aren't lumped in together as undifferentiated "championships". Same with the NFL. Being the NFL champion of 1936 isn't equivalent to winning the Super Bowl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
W&M_Steeler wrote:
Nick79 wrote:
W&M_Steeler wrote:
fans aren't trying to count wins from the 1940s or 1920s.


They all still count. Like Pitt has 9 National Championships all just as valid as titles won today.


No one can take away the Packers' 1920s and 1930s championships, but they're championships of a league that doesn't really exist anymore. Pre-merger NFL is like pre-merger MLB. There are teams that have National League championships from the 1880s. They don't count as World Series championships and aren't lumped in together as undifferentiated "championships". Same with the NFL. Being the NFL champion of 1936 isn't equivalent to winning the Super Bowl.

In my mind IT IS, an NFL championship is still a championship, you can only win what exists the day you are playing. I think MLB differentiates, I don't think NFL does, I think they still count the Packers as having the most titles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5893
Nick79 wrote:
Kids specialize more now, big kids might decide at a younger age to bulk up and play OT, or quit football to play basketball, or never play basketball or football at all and play soccer for 12 years, or play 150 game baseball schedules at age 12. So if you're concentrating on getting big for football, you aren't playing different sports as the seasons change like we did. When football season ended, me and my football teammates probably played basketball in the winter either for the school or the CYO or something and maybe lifted weights twice a week or something, nowadays lots of these kids are immersed in grooming themselves for a certain sport early.


All that specialization is why kids/young adults get injured so fucking much.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 4067
R S wrote:
Nick79 wrote:
Kids specialize more now, big kids might decide at a younger age to bulk up and play OT, or quit football to play basketball, or never play basketball or football at all and play soccer for 12 years, or play 150 game baseball schedules at age 12. So if you're concentrating on getting big for football, you aren't playing different sports as the seasons change like we did. When football season ended, me and my football teammates probably played basketball in the winter either for the school or the CYO or something and maybe lifted weights twice a week or something, nowadays lots of these kids are immersed in grooming themselves for a certain sport early.


All that specialization is why kids/young adults get injured so fucking much.

True! Little league pitchers throw more innings than pro pitchers do. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 9223
Obviously wrote:
Poltargyst wrote:
Steel Reign wrote:
Yes, 6 = 6. But, this is a "what have you done for me lately" world. And lately the Steelers haven't done jack.

You know how when the Browns' fans run around and talk about the 213493843 non-SB championships they have from dinosaur times and you laugh your ass off at them? Well, the Pats are doing the same to the Steelers.

Not really. It hasn't been DECADES since we last won.


Yeah, just remove the S. :roll:

You're trying to tell me we have it as bad as the Browns fans who haven't won a championship since 1964? :roll: yourself.

_________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 9223
Nick79 wrote:
In my mind IT IS, an NFL championship is still a championship, you can only win what exists the day you are playing. I think MLB differentiates, I don't think NFL does, I think they still count the Packers as having the most titles.

I divide the league up into different eras. The Packers won the pre-super bowl era. But I can't buy that winning a championship pre-super bowl is the same as winning a super bowl. For one thing, back in the 20's, the league didn't set schedules. Each team set their own schedule, and teams played different numbers of teams on their schedule during a season. Also, there were no playoffs. The team that finished with the best record was just called the league champion that year. Am I really supposed to have as much respect for that as a team winning a super bowl today? Also, pre-super bowl, the NFL champions didn't have to beat the champions of another league which is what winning a super bowl is today. Winning a NFL championship pre-super bowl is like winning a conference championship game today. They are different eras and should be kept--and accounted--differently.

_________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 6 > 6* = BS
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:50 pm
Posts: 5081
Nick79 wrote:
BethlehemSteel wrote:

The media folks gave the Pgh Writers their take on the Steelers image at the SB.....it's now taken a major hit. Will Art wake the fuck up and realize it? It starts by firing his clown coach


I think this ''3 coaches in 50 years'' thing is too big a part of his identity for him to do anything. It's like the whole franchise's biggest badge of honor, even bigger than the 6 Lombardis.

Agreement and that philosophy is stale. Nobody stays anywhere for 15 years anymore. Stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CdnSteelerFan, Jobus Rum, KC and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group