Let's Compare NE and PITT

[PancakeBlockPaul]

Can you name any at all? A team that stunk and because of it drafted the great qb that led them to Sb glory.

Colts sucked to get luck albeit it was’t the sb didn’t they go 11-5 and to playoffs his first year or am I wrong?

 

[Ring 6]

I mostly agree, but I think the available offensive line players was really bad this last year. I do question prioritizing Polk over OT, but I’m willing to give them one more offseason to figure that out.

There were many players available better than what we are putting out there.

 

[Ring 6]

Colts sucked to get luck albeit it was’t the sb didn’t they go 11-5 and to playoffs his first year or am I wrong?

The colts made the playoffs 9 years in a row before that season.

 

[Rob0729]

I suspect that many steeler fans like never having a losing season and always having a playoff quality team.

Just BTW, being at the bottom for a couple of years does NOT guarantee you a SB quality team, or even make it very likely.

I think there are a lot of Steelers fans who are tired of being just an average to above average team and even some who want Tomlin fired. It wasn't long ago that they were competing for Super Bowls and not just to get into the playoffs. As a fan, I am not satisfied with my team creating a team that is built to be a wild card contender every year.

There is a chance the Pats could end up being cellar dwellers for years and be forced to draft a QB early 2-3 more times before they get it remotely like. But I still like the Patriots' prospects 2-3 years from now than the Steelers. The Patriots might have a future top 5 or even top 3 QB on their roster. Who knows? We know that it is highly likely the Steelers will be looking for a new starting QB next year with a low draft position in what is believed to be a shallow QB draft.

And no, being at the bottom doesn't guarantee you will become a Super Bowl team. But it does give you a chance to draft a franchise QB who will bring you back to contention. Drafting in the high teens or low 20s does not unless you are lucky for a Aaron Rodgers or Jordan Love to drop (notice that the Packers drafted both in years they didn't need to get a franchise QB and drafted them for the future?).

 

[Ring 6]

I think there are a lot of Steelers fans who are tired of being just an average to above average team and even some who want Tomlin fired. It wasn't long ago that they were competing for Super Bowls and not just to get into the playoffs. As a fan, I am not satisfied with my team creating a team that is built to be a wild card contender every year.

There is a chance the Pats could end up being cellar dwellers for years and be forced to draft a QB early 2-3 more times before they get it remotely like. But I still like the Patriots' prospects 2-3 years from now than the Steelers. The Patriots might have a future top 5 or even top 3 QB on their roster. Who knows? We know that it is highly likely the Steelers will be looking for a new starting QB next year with a low draft position in what is believed to be a shallow QB draft.

And no, being at the bottom doesn't guarantee you will become a Super Bowl team. But it does give you a chance to draft a franchise QB who will bring you back to contention. Drafting in the high teens or low 20s does not unless you are lucky for a Aaron Rodgers or Jordan Love to drop (notice that the Packers drafted both in years they didn't need to get a franchise QB and drafted them for the future?).

Funny that you are so adamant to follow a plan that never has happened and cite examples of the opposite and dismiss them as luck

 

[Rob0729]

Funny that you are so adamant to follow a plan that never has happened and cite examples of the opposite and dismiss them as luck

You don't think it was luck that Aaron Rodgers fell to the Packers in the draft? Rodgers was expected to go as high as the first pick as late as the day of the draft. The story of that draft was how he kept falling and falling down the draft board. It was absolute luck that the Packers drafted Rodgers. They never expected Rodgers to fall to them. Few people did. There is absolutely no way they went into the draft targeting Rodgers as their pick.

And the plan I laid out works all the time. Look at some of the leading Super Bowl contenders every year. The Bills. The Bengals. The Eagles when they beat the Pats. And the Colts did it with Peyton Manning (and drafted Marvin Harrison the year after drafting Manning). All of them were cellar dwellers who consistently drafted near the top of the draft, drafted their QBs and became contenders.

There are some teams that have resurrected QBs or traded for winners. But it is far rarer to do. Most teams with a great QB won't give them up. And few QBs who bombed elsewhere turn into true franchise QBs somewhere else.

 

[Ring 6]

You don't think it was luck that Aaron Rodgers fell to the Packers in the draft? Rodgers was expected to go as high as the first pick as late as the day of the draft. The story of that draft was how he kept falling and falling down the draft board. It was absolute luck that the Packers drafted Rodgers. They never expected Rodgers to fall to them. Few people did. There is absolutely no way they went into the draft targeting Rodgers as their pick.

And the plan I laid out works all the time. Look at some of the leading Super Bowl contenders every year. The Bills. The Bengals. The Eagles when they beat the Pats. And the Colts did it with Peyton Manning (and drafted Marvin Harrison the year after drafting Manning). All of them were cellar dwellers who consistently drafted near the top of the draft, drafted their QBs and became contenders.

There are some teams that have resurrected QBs or traded for winners. But it is far rarer to do. Most teams with a great QB won't give them up. And few QBs who bombed elsewhere turn into true franchise QBs somewhere else.

I’m not the one saying it isn’t luck.

Have the bills or bengals won a SB?
The Eagles certainly were not a team that bottomed out drafted a qb and he led them to SB championships.
Manning didn’t win a SB for 8 years.

So far you have zero examples. Keep trying.

 

[Rob0729]

I’m not the one saying it isn’t luck.

Have the bills or bengals won a SB?
The Eagles certainly were not a team that bottomed out drafted a qb and he led them to SB championships.
Manning didn’t win a SB for 8 years.

So far you have zero examples. Keep trying.

First of all, few QBs not name Brady or Mahomes have won a Super Bowl in the last ten years. In the last ten years, Brady and Mahomes won seven Super Bowls. In the other three, you had Stafford who was playing out of his mind that year (but he was a top pick just for another team), Hurts who was playing out of his mind, and Peyton Manning. No one is winning Super Bowls without a superstar. So based on your logic the only way to create a Super Bowl winner is to draft an one in a generation QB.

Second, Manning didn't have a Super Bowl for eight years because he played in the Patriots dynasty years. A lot of elite QBs were denied multiple or even one Super Bowl win because of Brady. Unfortunately for the league, they are going to run into

If you are going to look at Super Bowl wins in recent decades, then the only strategy to get a Super Bowl winner and a consistent winner is to draft a top one to three QB of all time. Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger are the only non-elite of all time QBs to win multiple Super Bowls in the last 25 years. Two QB in a quarter of a century. The only other QBs to win multiple Super Bowls were Brady, Mahomes, and Peyton. All top 3-5 QBs of all time.

In fact, in the last quarter century, only 13 teams have won Super Bowls. And two of those teams had the same QB who won (Pats and Bucs). Unfortunately, only one team can win and it usually the team with the elite QB. Best you can do building a team is to make them a Super Bowl contender quality team. Then the play of the field has to do the rest. Unfortunately, even if you have the best roster from top to bottom doesn't guarantee you even one Super Bowl victory.

 

[maust]

There are some teams that have resurrected QBs or traded for winners. But it is far rarer to do. Most teams with a great QB won't give them up. And few QBs who bombed elsewhere turn into true franchise QBs somewhere else.

Your post brought the Packers time wandering the wilderness to mind. The once proud franchise fell to cerifiable cellar dwellers pre Favre.
From '73-91 GB had 1 winning season They gave ATL their 1st for Favre, who had all of 4 pass attempts (with 2 INT's, yikes) for the Falcons. The argument could be made GB essentially made Favre their 1st round pick a year after missing out on him when the Falcons picked him ahead of them. Certainly he hadn't shown anything on the NFL level, he wasn't a winner and as basically a year later retroactive draft pick certainly hadn't 'bombed.' Favre won GB a SB, lost the next one and the Packers have only had 4 losing seasons since '91.

Makes me wonder in terms of this discussion how exactly we should classify Favre given his unique scenario?

 

[Ring 6]

First of all, few QBs not name Brady or Mahomes have won a Super Bowl in the last ten years. In the last ten years, Brady and Mahomes won seven Super Bowls. In the other three, you had Stafford who was playing out of his mind that year (but he was a top pick just for another team), Hurts who was playing out of his mind, and Peyton Manning. No one is winning Super Bowls without a superstar. So based on your logic the only way to create a Super Bowl winner is to draft an one in a generation QB.

Second, Manning didn't have a Super Bowl for eight years because he played in the Patriots dynasty years. A lot of elite QBs were denied multiple or even one Super Bowl win because of Brady. Unfortunately for the league, they are going to run into

If you are going to look at Super Bowl wins in recent decades, then the only strategy to get a Super Bowl winner and a consistent winner is to draft a top one to three QB of all time. Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger are the only non-elite of all time QBs to win multiple Super Bowls in the last 25 years. Two QB in a quarter of a century. The only other QBs to win multiple Super Bowls were Brady, Mahomes, and Peyton. All top 3-5 QBs of all time.

In fact, in the last quarter century, only 13 teams have won Super Bowls. And two of those teams had the same QB who won (Pats and Bucs). Unfortunately, only one team can win and it usually the team with the elite QB. Best you can do building a team is to make them a Super Bowl contender quality team. Then the play of the field has to do the rest. Unfortunately, even if you have the best roster from top to bottom doesn't guarantee you even one Super Bowl victory.

You seem to be confused. You are the one declaring that a playoff contending team is worse than a terrible team because the terrible team has the golden ticket to the SB by drafting earlier.
I am the one saying there is no evidence of that.
You responded by listing a few teams that do not meet your criteria, in fact 3 good examples of teams in exactly the trend you say is bad
Then you make excuses for why there aren’t examples.

It seems we are now down to drafting a qb in the 6th round or bring a playoff team and trading up to 10 as the parameters of your genius plan why stinking is better than contending.
But then you conclude with the best way is to build a consistent contender and have a shot. This is the exact opposite of your original argument and basically is my argument.

Are you through yet?

 

[Rob0729]

You seem to be confused. You are the one declaring that a playoff contending team is worse than a terrible team because the terrible team has the golden ticket to the SB by drafting earlier.
I am the one saying there is no evidence of that.
You responded by listing a few teams that do not meet your criteria, in fact 3 good examples of teams in exactly the trend you say is bad
Then you make excuses for why there aren’t examples.

It seems we are now down to drafting a qb in the 6th round or bring a playoff team and trading up to 10 as the parameters of your genius plan why stinking is better than contending.
But then you conclude with the best way is to build a consistent contender and have a shot. This is the exact opposite of your original argument and basically is my argument.

Are you through yet?

There is a difference between being a playoff contending team and a Super Bowl contending team. A playoff contender is fighting for a playoff spot. A Super Bowl contender is almost assured a playoff spot and are one of four or five teams with a legitimate shot at winning the Super Bowl.

I am saying that during the past two eras the best way to get to the Super Bowl and win it is to have an once in a generation, best of all time type of QB. Unfortunately, that is the toughest and least likely way to become a Super Bowl contender.

 

[Ring 6]

There is a difference between being a playoff contending team and a Super Bowl contending team. A playoff contender is fighting for a playoff spot. A Super Bowl contender is almost assured a playoff spot and are one of four or five teams with a legitimate shot at winning the Super Bowl.

I am saying that during the past two eras the best way to get to the Super Bowl and win it is to have a once in a generation, best of all time type of QB. Unfortunately, that is the toughest and least likely way to become a Super Bowl contender.

The argument was do you want to be a team that is competitive and a playoff contender (and improve to become a SB contender and champion) or a crappy team who wins 4 games, is missing many more pieces but gets to draft sooner.
History says the first is by far better.

 

[Drunken Cicerone]

Pittsburgh has a game braking defensive player

Patriots don’t have a top 100 player on their roster of spare parts.

Patriots roster is built like an expansion team. It’s about as weak an overall roster as you’d ever find in football

 

[FCB02062]

The Patriots are a joke and Pittsburgh is 3-0. Pittsburgh will be in consistent playoff contention for the forseable future and the Patriots will be eliminated come December for the foreseeable future. How's that for a comparison?

 

[farn]

1-2 vs 3-0

Everything else is noise.

 

[PatsFan2]

The argument was do you want to be a team that is competitive and a playoff contender (and improve to become a SB contender and champion) or a crappy team who wins 4 games, is missing many more pieces but gets to draft sooner.
History says the first is by far better.

 

[PatsFan2]

Sure wish we had Justin Fields he can run for his life and Throw it over 8 yards consistently.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Patrick Mahomes wasn’t a top 5 pick and fields was a late first.
Yes, a team with a good qb is all things equal better than a team with a bad qb.
That does nothing to prove a 5-12 team is closer to winning than a 10-7 team.

And 52 players combined are more important than the qb.

Fields was the 11th pick. L Jackson and J Love were late first.

 

[Ring 6]

Fields was the 11th pick. L Jackson and J Love were late first.

It was a typo I meant to say wasn’t, which fits the context of what I’m saying

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

The Patriots are a joke and Pittsburgh is 3-0. Pittsburgh will be in consistent playoff contention for the forseable future and the Patriots will be eliminated come December November for the foreseeable future. How's that for a comparison?

Fixed it for you.