Borges: Steelers challenge Patriots for supremacy

[PatsFanSince74]

Why are people here still clicking on that site? It just puts money in their pockets.

 

[DarrylS]

Borges has accomplished his goal, write a bs article and create controversy... as long as we read him, the longer he will exist.. it is the same equation that Felger uses during the year.. bad mouth Randy Moss = a lot of hits.

 

[godef]

Re: Borges:Steelers challenge Patriots for supremacy

IF they get one next year, how can you not argue. 3 for them, 3 for us. I really doubt Pittsburgh gets one next year, Borges also thinks it is far-fetched.

Unless the Pats flat out bomb the next season, they still would have a better overall record. The Pats have an 18-1 and two 17-2 seasons in this decade. The only thing for Pittsburgh that comes close is a 16-2 season in which they didn't play in the Super Bowl. And if they do head-to-head tiebreakers for regular seasons, then why not for the decade? In which case the Pats have a 4-2 (?) advantage thus far.

On the other hand (OK, here we go again), the Steelers still have two seasons to work with as the first decade of the 20th century runs from 2001-2010. If they pull a three-peat, then they would get the nod.

 

[Patriots2001]

They were debating this on the big show yesterday.It's pretty clear to me that even if the Stillers win next year the Pats still hold the edge by winning more ACF championships plus beating the Steelers twice on the road in the title game...End of discussion IMO.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Re: Borges:Steelers challenge Patriots for supremacy

Unless the Pats flat out bomb the next season, they still would have a better overall record. The Pats have an 18-1 and two 17-2 seasons in this decade. The only thing for Pittsburgh that comes close is a 16-2 season in which they didn't play in the Super Bowl. And if they do head-to-head tiebreakers for regular seasons, then why not for the decade? In which case the Pats have a 4-2 (?) advantage thus far.

On the other hand (OK, here we go again), the Steelers still have two seasons to work with as the first decade of the 20th century runs from 2001-2010. If they pull a three-peat, then they would get the nod.

Yup, Steelers have two more seasons to work with, and SO DO THE PATS! :cool2:

A lot of people incorrectly think the decade has only 1 more year to go, including Borges:

"The Pittsburgh Steelers’ thrilling, last-minute victory against the Arizona Cardinals Sunday night in Super Bowl XLIII opened up a new debate for next season, the final year in the first decade of the new millenium."

 

[TrueBeliever]

Re: Borges:Steelers challenge Patriots for supremacy

BINGO!!!
Beating them in the AFCCG twice, in their own house should count for something.

Just what I was thinking. Plus both years the mighty mighty Steelers won their SBs, they didn't have to face the Pats in the playoffs. There's no debate that the Pats are the better team in this decade.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Another Steelers-Patriots Team of the Decade comparison article, this time by a Steelers blogger.

Could the Steelers be the best team of theDecade? - Behind the Steel Curtain

Glad to see they have their facts straight:

"These stats show that right now the Patriots have a leg up on us is just about every statistical category, although with one season left the gap in records and statistics could become much smaller."

However, they couldn't resist hitting one below the belt:

"There is one intangible in many people’s minds that has already affected and will continue to effect how the Patriot’s "Dynasty" is remembered. SPYGATE. The infamous videotaping scandal has changed how the Patriots will be remembered forever, it has tainted their legacy and the New England franchise’s three Superbowl wins in the decade will always have an asterisk next to them for many fans of the league."

Lastly, it annoys me why people keep referring to the '09 season as the 'last season of the decade':

"With one more year left in the decade it still could be possible for our Steelers to be the first franchise to be consider team of the decade in two different decades, the 70’s and the 00’s."

The '09 season is NOT the last season of the decade, '10 is. Two more seasons to go. If fact, the author used stats from the 2000 season in his comparison which places Pats a slight disadvantage.

 

[JSn]

Lastly, it annoys me why people keep referring to the '09 season as the 'last season of the decade'

The '09 season is NOT the last season of the decade, '10 is. Two more seasons to go. If fact, the author used stats from the 2000 season in his comparison which places Pats a slight disadvantage.

No, they're defining decade correctly.

Here's a tolerable explanation:
Decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).

 

[Deus Irae]

No, they're defining decade correctly.

Here's a tolerable explanation:
Decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

decade - Definition of decade at YourDictionary.com

a period of ten years; esp., in the Gregorian calendar

1. officially, a ten-year period beginning with the year 1, as 1921-1930, 1931-1940, etc.
2. in common usage, a ten-year period beginning with a year 0, as 1920-1929, 1930-1939, etc.

The inherent problem with claiming that a decade starts with the "0" year, is that there was never a year "0".

 

[jmt57]

We've gone back and forth on the 'what years constitute a decade' more than once previously. I think the consensus is that while '10 is indeed technically the last year of the decade, most people consider a decade of going from '00 - '09. The first natural instinct is to think of 1980 as being part of the '80's, and not the '70's, for example.

 

[JSn]

The inherent problem with claiming that a decade starts with the "0" year, is that there was never a year "0".

Really? How old were you before your first birthday?

Also, Trent Reznor disagrees: nine inch nails: year zero

 

[Mountain_Commando]

We've gone back and forth on the 'what years constitute a decade' more than once previously. I think the consensus is that while '10 is indeed technically the last year of the decade, most people consider a decade of going from '00 - '09. The first natural instinct is to think of 1980 as being part of the '80's, and not the '70's, for example.

Makes sense, even though its wrong. I can live with it, as long as Pats bring home the 4th Lombardi :rocker:

 

[sdaniels7114]

The Superbowl two seasons from now will be played in 2011. Clearly not a part of this decade by any definition. Who's bright idea was it to put the New Year right in the middle of Football season?

 

[TrueBeliever]

The Superbowl two seasons from now will be played in 2011. Clearly not a part of this decade by any definition. Who's bright idea was it to put the New Year right in the middle of Football season?

Which is also why they go by Roman numerals for each Super Bowl, whereas the other sports just go by the year (i.e. the 2008 World Series but Super Bowl XLIII.) That doesn't bother me but apparently other people find it very irritating.

 

[Deus Irae]

Really? How old were you before your first birthday?

Seconds, hours, days, weeks and months.....

 

[TrueBeliever]

"I remember freaking out on my second birthday because I realized my age had doubled in just one year... I thought, 'If this keeps up, by the time I'm 5 I'll be 90'." - Steven Wright

 

[godef]

Really? How old were you before your first birthday?

Also, Trent Reznor disagrees: nine inch nails: year zero

Measuring age is not the same thing as measuring years. Whereas, once you are born, you are indeed 0 years old, but yet, you are in your 1st year, ergo you are in year 1 of your life.

Similarly, on New Years day at the start of 2001, the decade/century was 0 years old, yet it was the 1st year of the century.

 

[nantucketguy]

I think the championship title should have a * on it because of no Brady