STEELER WEEK..... v2.0 ..... and this one is in 2021!
-
Ben is sitting on Sunday...
The Steelers clinched the AFC North title thanks to a harrowing comeback win over the Indianapolis Colts in Week 16, and Tomlin notes he'll now "airmail" choice players to the playoffs. The impromptu bye week won't extend to everyone, however, but most certainly Roethlisberger -- whom the team wants at full strength for a potential run at the Super Bowl.
"The vast majority of guys that have been playing, will be playing," Tomlin added, per Andrew Siciliano of NFL Network.
Watch it be Watt, Heyward, Tuitt.
Watch it be Watt, Heyward, Tuitt.
Gotta think so...
Can't afford to see any of them hurt.
Also thinking maybe Mincah...
-
Ben is sitting on Sunday...
The Steelers clinched the AFC North title thanks to a harrowing comeback win over the Indianapolis Colts in Week 16, and Tomlin notes he'll now "airmail" choice players to the playoffs. The impromptu bye week won't extend to everyone, however, but most certainly Roethlisberger -- whom the team wants at full strength for a potential run at the Super Bowl.
"The vast majority of guys that have been playing, will be playing," Tomlin added, per Andrew Siciliano of NFL Network.
Andrew Siciliano@AndrewSicilianoTomlin says he's hoping to "airmail" some starters into the playoffs.
But he also said...
"The vast majority of guys that have been playing, will be playing."Ben is sitting on Sunday...
But will the Refs allow Garret to even touch Rudolph the Reindeer?
-
Ben is sitting on Sunday...
But will the Refs allow Garret to even touch Rudolph the Reindeer?
-
Ben is sitting on Sunday...
But will the Refs allow Garret to even touch Rudolph the Reindeer?
But will the Refs allow Garret to even touch Rudolph the Reindeer?
We should send Sendejo on blindside blitz mission late hit on Mason maybe spark a fight and see if the Steelers retaliate and lose some important guys for the playoffs- that would be steeler move- provoke a fight and get away free.
-
@the-gipper said:
So? Do you subscribe to the theory that Ohio State/Michigan is no great rivalry? Or to the "things gotta be even" theory?
What if the Browns win 35 of the next 40 games between them? Will you all claim it is no rivalry just because we were on the winning side?
Here is a freeking clue for you all:
The Browns/Steelers rivalry has NEVER ever never been "Even".......it has ALWAYS been lopsided. It was lopsided in the Browns favor all throughout the 50s and 60s. It was lopsided in the Steelers favor in the 70s. It was lopsided in the Browns favor in the 80s. It has been lopsided in the Steelers favor in the 2000s.....
So, if your claim is that it has to be an evenly matched arrangement for something to be a rivalry....then the Browns and Steeler have NEVER been a rivalry. Just look at the records.
This year, they are both pretty good.....That has been a very, very rare occurrence.
The part you seem to be glossing over (by accident or purpose), is you are arguing history of the rivalry (which is well founded), and those arguing against you are saying recently. By saying that Browns/Steelers is still THE rivalry is only looking at history.
Take out Cincinnati, you can only go from 1996 for Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which certainly has been a better rivalry in that time.
You guys are arguing different points in all honesty.
-
@hoorta said:
Thank you, and well said. What was a historical rivalry has no bearing on what a majority of a certain team's fans would consider one now. As I sort of mentioned- as a Browns fan, you'd have to be almost Social Security age to remember when the Steelers were considered a big rival. That's disappearing into the mists of time, like the Browns- Giants. Jim Brown against Sam Huff. Ask any 20 year old about that one, and you're going to get a blank stare. That sort of stuff only matters to history geeks- like Gipper.
Were the Canton Bulldogs and Akron Pros big rivals? Who knows, and who cares?
NO, You do NOT have to be Social Security Age as that won't even work. Because like I said...by YOUR definition, that two teams have to be fighting each other for league/division dominance.......as old as you and I are, the Browns/Steelers were NEVER a rivalry, Ever......because they NEVER, ever competed at a high level against each other on a consistent basis. NEVER. In 70 years they maybe were in competition for a division title less times than you can count on one hand.
-
@hoorta said:
I knew you'd backtrack and try to argue definitions. Believe whatever you want to then, I won't waste any more time arguing minutiae.
By "definitions" you mean "facts". And trust me, as a lawyer and a judge....EVERY argument is about minutiae. But it is that minutiae that mean the difference between winning or losing millions of dollars, or between a very long prison sentence or freedom.
-
@the-gipper said:
Fair enough.....If you look at my statement, I said that the Browns/Steelers is the longest, most historical, most storied rivalry in this division....which it is. These guys seem to be arguing that JUST because it has not been an even affair of late that a rivalry does not exist. And I say bullshit. They seem to be saying that just because two teams have been competitive of late constitutes a major rivalry.....and I say, No, not necessarily.....but it does constitute major current competitiveness......like the Chiefs and Bills.
This was your 1st comment on it in this thread.
don't see them letting up. I would think they would want to put the nail in our coffin if they could. As much as people may deny it....this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN.
So my statement still stands. When looking at it as historical, then yes Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Which is one POV. When looking at recent/current, then it certainly would be viewed as PITT/BALT (which is another POV). Both of those can be correct.
Just from the few years of reading on here Gipper, you seem to be someone who thinks there can only be one correct answer for something, which in turn causes these disagreements.
But just to further on your example with OSU/Michigan, yes that is certainly still viewed as probably the biggest rivalry in college sports, along with Duke/UNC and Army/Navy, and Auburn/Alabama.
Those 3 aren't changing ever.
But how about these: Nebraska/Oklahoma, Miami/Florida State, Florida/Florida State, Miami/Virginia Tech?
Sure, Nebraska/Oklahoma isn't because of realignment, But Fla/FSU weren't in same conference at its height, and the others ARE in same conference.
And you also are benefit to being invested in Cle/Pitt, whether viewing it as historical or current. But fans of say Dallas/Washington would have viewed that somewhat close, and now it doesn't have the same feel. Besides, college rivalries are much more deep seeded.
And like it or not, some of the luster of the Pittsburgh Cleveland rivalry was taken away when one of them in fact was without a franchise, and some of that hate from the Pittsburgh side transferred with the Browns players to Baltimore.
-
don't see them letting up. I would think they would want to put the nail in our coffin if they could.
Well......let's do this: Let's perhaps make them regret "letting up" and not putting the nail in the Browns coffin. Let's beat them this week....and if by chance they should meet again in the playoffs, beat their asses again, and let them cry in their beer.
-
@the-gipper said:
You obviously have shown again that you are unwilling to admit to anything "wrong" with something you wrote.
When your FIRST comment is, "this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN", that is NOT admitting that is based off history, i.e. still means past and present.
Not even bothering with the right, wrong thing.
And you have absolutely no idea on if they are still considered just as big, that is just an assumption. But go ahead and believe that. And while YOU may have never viewed Miami/VT as a big rivalry, I can assure you that it was viewed differently in those circles. But again, that points to the fact that people in those circles/areas would be more invested (i.e. Browns/Steelers).
As for example of Dallas/Washington, both have been top teams in that division multiple times over last decade, and the animosity has waned from what I can see.
As for the last part, that point went over your head it appears, or you purposely made it look like it. The point wasn't that the rivalry was between players and thus them moving to Baltimore just naturally moved there. It's the fact that the bitter rivalry of Cleveland ceased to have a team, i.e. no rivalry in that span. The Steelers Ravens rivalry organically grew through the competition. The point was that the time lost between Browns Steelers and rise of Ravens has effected the long standing rivalry.
And it's just part of it that the competitiveness of the teams effects the view of a rivalry. Some can still seem big when one has been down, but to all it seems bigger when it is competitive. We all want our team (whoever it is) to win every time, but for examples didn't THE game seem bigger 10 years ago? Or even look at this from last year, what seemed bigger, the Ravens win or the Steelers win? Sure there are circumstances that effect the view, but you can't honestly say that 25 years ago a win over Pitt didn't mean more.
-
@the-gipper said:
You obviously have shown again that you are unwilling to admit to anything "wrong" with something you wrote.
When your FIRST comment is, "this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN", that is NOT admitting that is based off history, i.e. still means past and present.
Not even bothering with the right, wrong thing.
And you have absolutely no idea on if they are still considered just as big, that is just an assumption. But go ahead and believe that. And while YOU may have never viewed Miami/VT as a big rivalry, I can assure you that it was viewed differently in those circles. But again, that points to the fact that people in those circles/areas would be more invested (i.e. Browns/Steelers).
As for example of Dallas/Washington, both have been top teams in that division multiple times over last decade, and the animosity has waned from what I can see.
As for the last part, that point went over your head it appears, or you purposely made it look like it. The point wasn't that the rivalry was between players and thus them moving to Baltimore just naturally moved there. It's the fact that the bitter rivalry of Cleveland ceased to have a team, i.e. no rivalry in that span. The Steelers Ravens rivalry organically grew through the competition. The point was that the time lost between Browns Steelers and rise of Ravens has effected the long standing rivalry.
And it's just part of it that the competitiveness of the teams effects the view of a rivalry. Some can still seem big when one has been down, but to all it seems bigger when it is competitive. We all want our team (whoever it is) to win every time, but for examples didn't THE game seem bigger 10 years ago? Or even look at this from last year, what seemed bigger, the Ravens win or the Steelers win? Sure there are circumstances that effect the view, but you can't honestly say that 25 years ago a win over Pitt didn't mean more.
You obviously have shown again that you are unwilling to admit to anything "wrong" with something you wrote.
When your FIRST comment is, "this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN", that is NOT admitting that is based off history, i.e. still means past and present.
Not even bothering with the right, wrong thing.
And you have absolutely no idea on if they are still considered just as big, that is just an assumption. But go ahead and believe that. And while YOU may have never viewed Miami/VT as a big rivalry, I can assure you that it was viewed differently in those circles. But again, that points to the fact that people in those circles/areas would be more invested (i.e. Browns/Steelers).
As for example of Dallas/Washington, both have been top teams in that division multiple times over last decade, and the animosity has waned from what I can see.
As for the last part, that point went over your head it appears, or you purposely made it look like it. The point wasn't that the rivalry was between players and thus them moving to Baltimore just naturally moved there. It's the fact that the bitter rivalry of Cleveland ceased to have a team, i.e. no rivalry in that span. The Steelers Ravens rivalry organically grew through the competition. The point was that the time lost between Browns Steelers and rise of Ravens has effected the long standing rivalry.
And it's just part of it that the competitiveness of the teams effects the view of a rivalry. Some can still seem big when one has been down, but to all it seems bigger when it is competitive. We all want our team (whoever it is) to win every time, but for examples didn't THE game seem bigger 10 years ago? Or even look at this from last year, what seemed bigger, the Ravens win or the Steelers win? Sure there are circumstances that effect the view, but you can't honestly say that 25 years ago a win over Pitt didn't mean more.
Gunz- I think you've seen why I rapidly gave up debating with Gipper over what constitutes a rivalry. He just keeps responding and spinning until the other side gives up. And I'm not wasting any more time arguing semantics with him.
-
You obviously have shown again that you are unwilling to admit to anything "wrong" with something you wrote.
When your FIRST comment is, "this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN", that is NOT admitting that is based off history, i.e. still means past and present.
Not even bothering with the right, wrong thing.
And you have absolutely no idea on if they are still considered just as big, that is just an assumption. But go ahead and believe that. And while YOU may have never viewed Miami/VT as a big rivalry, I can assure you that it was viewed differently in those circles. But again, that points to the fact that people in those circles/areas would be more invested (i.e. Browns/Steelers).
As for example of Dallas/Washington, both have been top teams in that division multiple times over last decade, and the animosity has waned from what I can see.
As for the last part, that point went over your head it appears, or you purposely made it look like it. The point wasn't that the rivalry was between players and thus them moving to Baltimore just naturally moved there. It's the fact that the bitter rivalry of Cleveland ceased to have a team, i.e. no rivalry in that span. The Steelers Ravens rivalry organically grew through the competition. The point was that the time lost between Browns Steelers and rise of Ravens has effected the long standing rivalry.
And it's just part of it that the competitiveness of the teams effects the view of a rivalry. Some can still seem big when one has been down, but to all it seems bigger when it is competitive. We all want our team (whoever it is) to win every time, but for examples didn't THE game seem bigger 10 years ago? Or even look at this from last year, what seemed bigger, the Ravens win or the Steelers win? Sure there are circumstances that effect the view, but you can't honestly say that 25 years ago a win over Pitt didn't mean more.
Gunz- I think you've seen why I rapidly gave up debating with Gipper over what constitutes a rivalry. He just keeps responding and spinning until the other side gives up. And I'm not wasting any more time arguing semantics with him.
Gunz- I think you've seen why I rapidly gave up debating with Gipper over what constitutes a rivalry. He just keeps responding and spinning until the other side gives up. And I'm not wasting any more time arguing semantics with him.
Well, here are some of the semantics that are at issue here:
A. A team cannot have a rivalry with every team on its schedule. At most I think a team can have maybe 3 major rivalries.
B. But....a team CAN have a major rivalry with more than one team: The Browns/Steelers is a major rivalry. The Steelers and Ravens can also have a major rivalry.
C. Among the AFCN rivalries....the Browns/Steeler is the oldest, most historic most traditional rivalry notwithstanding that it has been hammer and nail lately. (and can that change soon?)
D. Just because one....or both teams are down and out over a period of time does not diminish the nature of the rivalry. It only diminishes the spotlight thrown on that rivalry because the potential stakes involved are not as consequential.
E. I do not think that just because 2 teams are good at the same time and are in competition for say a conference title necessarily makes that an historic "rivalry". The Browns/Broncos, Browns/Giants of yore were, to me, just two good teams competing for a title. Same as the Pats/Colts or Pats/Ravens or Pats/Steelers (none of which are as major of a rival for the Pats as the Jets are) or 49ers/Cowboys...and maybe a few others.
F. The Browns historic rivals are the Steelers. And yes, they do have rivalries with the Ravens and the Bengals.....because in my view, those two teams are the bastard stepchildren of the Browns for reasons you all know why.
So, you can call these "semantics" I just call them "the facts" for the most part, with a few opinions thrown in. Tell us how many you disagree with.
-
@the-gipper said:
So? Do you subscribe to the theory that Ohio State/Michigan is no great rivalry? Or to the "things gotta be even" theory?
What if the Browns win 35 of the next 40 games between them? Will you all claim it is no rivalry just because we were on the winning side?
Here is a freeking clue for you all:
The Browns/Steelers rivalry has NEVER ever never been "Even".......it has ALWAYS been lopsided. It was lopsided in the Browns favor all throughout the 50s and 60s. It was lopsided in the Steelers favor in the 70s. It was lopsided in the Browns favor in the 80s. It has been lopsided in the Steelers favor in the 2000s.....
So, if your claim is that it has to be an evenly matched arrangement for something to be a rivalry....then the Browns and Steeler have NEVER been a rivalry. Just look at the records.
This year, they are both pretty good.....That has been a very, very rare occurrence.
The part you seem to be glossing over (by accident or purpose), is you are arguing history of the rivalry (which is well founded), and those arguing against you are saying recently. By saying that Browns/Steelers is still THE rivalry is only looking at history.
Take out Cincinnati, you can only go from 1996 for Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which certainly has been a better rivalry in that time.
You guys are arguing different points in all honesty.
The part you seem to be glossing over (by accident or purpose), is you are arguing history of the rivalry (which is well founded), and those arguing against you are saying recently. By saying that Browns/Steelers is still THE rivalry is only looking at history.
Take out Cincinnati, you can only go from 1996 for Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which certainly has been a better rivalry in that time.
You guys are arguing different points in all honesty.
Smart observation...
When one team dominates for a period the rivalry intensity of the fans of the team that is up wanes, while that of the fans of the down team increases. Basically boils down to complacency vs. frustration.
Even in the tOSU and team-up-north rivalry there are ebbs and flows... most recently with tOSU dominating I know my interest has declined. It does get a bump when UM changes HCs, looking for the next one to bring them back to relevance, but as soon as that path does not materialize, then back down it goes. Of course the other, even bigger source, of bumps are upsets... and The Rivalry has had more than its share of those over the years.
Thinking back on the Browns as I was growing up... PTG was never a rival as we dominated them. In the 60's our chief rivals were the Packers and the Colts, and then came the Cowboys for a period. That was because those were the teams we were facing in NFL Championships and later the playoffs.
Our PTG rivalry blossomed in the '70s as they began to rise and coincidentally we declined. It was that transition period that fueled it. Later as we showed promise again under Sam and Marty in the late-'70s and '80s, it really heated up.
And it was on its way up again in the '90s until...
-
I think Gipper is just frustrated over the Browns lousy record against the Steelers since 1995. And to a lesser extent back in the 70s when they were winning Super Bowls and Cleveland was in the dumpster.
Personally, I don't view this upcoming game as a rivalry at all. Pittsburgh is just another team standing in the way of us reaching a goal we haven't reached in a long time- the playoffs.
-
No Practice reports as yet, but Injury reports have been updated.
Ours confirms the bad, CoVid news, but on a positive note does "upgrade" Wills to Questionable.
Four Questionables now appear in PTG's update. No starters, but Allen has seen a lot of snaps recently as a hybrid LB. Adeniyi is Watt's backup at LOLB.
-
I think Gipper is just frustrated over the Browns lousy record against the Steelers since 1995. And to a lesser extent back in the 70s when they were winning Super Bowls and Cleveland was in the dumpster.
Personally, I don't view this upcoming game as a rivalry at all. Pittsburgh is just another team standing in the way of us reaching a goal we haven't reached in a long time- the playoffs.
I think Gipper is just frustrated
over the Browns lousy record against the Steelers since 1995.FIFY...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
@the-gipper said:
Just a few points I'll touch on.
1. I certainly have a sense of humor, but it also seems that at times people that conduct themselves as you (smarter than everyone and point out minute issues with others posts) need to be pointed out themselves. So again, there IS a BIG difference in saying historically and still.
Along those same lines, I don't care one bit if by YOUR opinion it was, is currently, and will always be THE rivalry. But I take issue with you (or anyone for that matter) continuously telling someone they are wrong on something that doesn't have a definitive answer.
2. You pointing out that it is the game of year in AFCN to deduct your reasoning is asinine. A single game doesn't denote a rivalry for one, and 2 then others point that it is now Balt/Pitt would have more merit since those games have had meaning
3. Yes, obviously this game means a lot. But you chose to ignore the other information in that paragraph talking about LAST YEAR. Context really is your friend when trying to argue. So I will reword it for you so maybe you can understand. Back in the 90s and before, did a win/loss over your bitter rival seem to have more meaning than the win and loss last year vs. that same team who you would have us believe is still THE rivalry for both?
4. Nobody ever said a team can only have ONE rivalry. In fact, most have said the opposite. But you are putting emphasis on THE rivalry.
5. And if you don't want to even see a possibility that Cleveland not having a franchise made even a dent in the rivalry then that is just you refusing to explore it.
But that really wouldn't surprise me. You take your opinion as the ONLY one that could be correct. Heck, I would bet that if all Steelers were polled and asked and they said Ravens you would say it's just the current players. And if it was done to include fans and they said the same you would come up with some other explanation to explain why your view of it is correct and theirs incorrect
-
^ Like being hit with a velvet hammer...
Within the past 48 hours wasn't it claimed that their playing all their starters would be the definitive acknowledgement by PTG as to the stature of the CLE-PTG "rivalry"?
I seem to remember something like that...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Meanwhile back at the thread....
I think today's practice report is that one team is while the other has (again) closed their facility.
https://www.nfl.com/news/two-additional-positive-covid-19-tests-force-browns-to-close-facility
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login