Why Pittsburgh Should Have 7 Rings

[Bolts223]

On 9/4/2018 at 9:13 AM, BayRaider said:

Atlanta was not making the Super Bowl that year. Green Bay vs Philly was the real NFC Champiomship. Falcons/Bears were probably the weakest top two seeds ive ever seen til this day. I remember telling all Green Bay vs Philly winner is going to the SB 100%. 

I'm glad Green Bay won but Philly vs Pittsburgh would of also been a fantastic Super Bowl. 

New Orleans would have had a great chance as well had they not crapped the bed against the Seahawks.

2010 was a pretty weak season in general. The best team far and away that year was the Pats but they didn't show up in the Jets game. The Packers were the next best team.

[footbull3196]

1 hour ago, Bolts223 said:

I hate this thread, so much wrong with this.

1) The Steelers are 6-2 in Super Bowls. Other organizations have been to just as many or more SB's than they have and all of them have won less times.

2) They very easily could have lost 3-4 of the SB's they did win.

3) There's no guarantee that they beat one of the other NFC teams (Probably the Falcons or Bears) in the SB in 2010 even if the Packers had missed the playoffs.

4) They were very fortunate that the Pats were taken out by the Jets in the divisional round. They likely get smoked in Foxborough if not for that.

5) This can also be said about 2008: They probably do not go to or win the SB that season without the Brady injury.

6) More importantly, you could make a case for several teams to have won more (or less) SB's than they actually have. What if Tyree catch never happens? What if Wes Welker doesn't drop that pass? The Patriots now have 7 SB's. On the flip side: What if there is no Tuck Rule call? What if The Seahawks don't pass the ball at the 2-yard line? What if 28-3 never happened? Now the Patriots only have 2 SB's. 

This is a very easy thing to do, and you can do it for most teams who have been in the postseason and/or Super Bowl a lot in their history. The NFL has an infinite number of what if's.

Ok fine, then let's forget about the 7 rings talk and focus on the real issue at hand in the thread since I did admit earlier I may have just been lazy when I made the title.  Please make a case on how the Steelers were going to lose in the Super Bowl to the Falcons, a team predicated on running success, when the Steelers had a run defense that was performing at an all time great level.  Please make a case on how the Steelers would lose to the Bears if they made the Super Bowl when they were quarterbacked by Jay Cutler.  Don't worry, I'll wait since I know youre gonna have an uphill battle in doing so

[Bolts223]

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

Ok fine, then let's forget about the 7 rings talk and focus on the real issue at hand in the thread since I did admit earlier I may have just been lazy when I made the title.  Please make a case on how the Steelers were going to lose in the Super Bowl to the Falcons, a team predicated on running success, when the Steelers had a run defense that was performing at an all time great level.  Please make a case on how the Steelers would lose to the Bears if they made the Super Bowl when they were quarterbacked by Jay Cutler.  Don't worry, I'll wait since I know youre gonna have an uphill battle in doing so

I never said that the Steelers shouldn't be favored in those match ups. 

We are talking hypothetical here. Nobody actually KNOWS what would have happened, all we know is that they would have faced another team than they did.

We've had 14+ point upsets in SB's, nothing is a given.

The Packers lost all 6 games that year by 4 points or less, if any of those games go the other way then it doesn't matter if Tampa Bay won that game or not.

A lot of things could have gone different that season:

- The Giants don't choke majorly against the Eagles and they are in the postseason. Maybe Eli gets really hot in that postseason like he did the next year and the Giants go on another SB run.

- The Packers don't get the injury bug in the middle of the regular season. They probably win like 12-13 games and this isn't even a debate about tiebreakers.

- The Patriots don't crap the bed against the Jets. They are probably the favorites to win the SB over both the Steelers and Packers at that point.

 

The Steelers were pretty lucky to even be in that SB to begin with, as they were definitely not the best AFC team that year. They won the AFC North that year due to a divisional record tiebreaker over Baltimore. If not for that, they are a wild card that has to win 3 games on the road to be in the SB.

Point being is that the Steelers were more lucky than unlucky to even be in the SB that year. The Packers were only a #6 seed due to a series of very unlucky events for them. (Injury bug, losing a ton of close games) It averaged out in the end.

[footbull3196]

19 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

I never said that the Steelers shouldn't be favored in those match ups. 

We are talking hypothetical here. Nobody actually KNOWS what would have happened, all we know is that they would have faced another team than they did.

We've had 14+ point upsets in SB's, nothing is a given.

The Packers lost all 6 games that year by 4 points or less, if any of those games go the other way then it doesn't matter if Tampa Bay won that game or not.

This is true, but none of those Packers games were lost because of an error by the officials that was in favor of the opposing team.  In this particular case, the Bucs lost the game against the Lions because of a screw up that the NFL even came out and admitted should have been called the other way.  Their loss was a direct result of the official calling an unnecessary penalty that wiped out a scoring play that would have provided the necessary margin for victory.  On the other hand, the Packers had nobody but themselves to blame for their losses that season

But I do agree with your main premise that even though the Steelers would have been favored in either one of those hypothetical super bowls, it wouldnt be a given that they would win it.  I'm just saying for the purpose of my thread, I see that as the most likely eventual outcome in my hypothetical situation

[footbull3196]

@Bolts223 also something else worth pointing out since I didn't see your edit until now

The 3 scenarios you brought up involve multiple plays (and even multiple games in the case of the Packers injury bug) swinging in the opposite direction to have the opposite effect in the end.  The scenario I brought up only involved a single play going in another direction to have a different effect, and that was the play that was proven to have been incorrectly called.  That's the difference between those situations and this one.  Those situations are dependent on a lot more happening