Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2009. Show Evil2009's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Half the Super Bowl Trophies awarded so far could probably be called 'tainted' for one reason or another. Give it a rest.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Rick - Was the rule that caught Belichick on the books at the time JJ was taping? 

    I don't know.  I would love to know.  But you are right.  JJ did admit to it.  But again it begs the Q I aksed before - If you are not caught, but admit it after the fact, does it taint your victory?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I don't believe any of the titles are tainted. Sure all this stuff is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all that happens behind the scene's in the NFL. Now it's just the Steelers players who took steroids, and those that administered the steroids have to pay the consequences both in death and in guilt.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ricky1554atl. Show ricky1554atl's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Rick - Was the rule that caught Belichick on the books at the time JJ was taping?  I don't know.  I would love to know.  But you are right.  JJ did admit to it.  But again it begs the Q I aksed before - If you are not caught, but admit it after the fact, does it taint your victory?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Just my opinion but to say any teams victory is tainted is the ultimate in disrespect. Total disrespect of an organization.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Who cares ? I am with prairie mike on this one: Let's Retire The Asterisks !

    I also believe that 70s Steelers are a great team. The had pro bowl players at every other position (eg: sign of great organization) that s--t just doesn't happen every season and even less in the salary cap era.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Q4073. Show Q4073's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Lets not talk about tainted organizations! When was the NFL actually testing for growth hormones? Not seriously until the 90's right? If that's the case lots of teams/individuals did them. At least some individuals came out and said they did them..remeber Lyle Alzado? Rest in Peace!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]So if the steelers of the 70s are tainted and the 49ers of the 80s are tainted and the patriots of the 00's are tainted, Then teams of the decades might go something like this? 70's - cowboys? 80's - skins? 90's - cowboys? 00's - steelers? Man I hate the cowboys.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    You'd have to discount the Cowboys in the 90s due to all the extracurricular activities of guys like Irvin. Half the team was coked up, so who knows what else they may have been on! I'm sure you could look at every championship team and find some technicality where they pushed the bar to the limit...or over it! Winning a Super Bowl takes more than just a few players being "the best". It requires a lot of teamwork, great coaching, mental concentration, and even a little luck on the way. The only way I'd say any SB win was "tainted" would be if the losing team intentionally threw the game. To try and belittle the Steelers' accomplishments is merely sinking to the level of all the other "whiners" out there who claimed NE would s u c k without the stupid videotapes (which would have been perfectly "legal" were they shot from twenty feet further back)! I do agree that SB 40 was suspect with all the seemingly lopsided calls, but I believe the Steelers were indeed the better team that day, and would have won without all that BS. None of these so called "offenses" are significant enough to have changed the outcome in any of those seasons, IMO.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Wiz, here is a short list, funny how the back judge was from Pittsburgh. Calls against the Seahawks The following is a list of the most oft-criticized calls that went against the Seahawks: First Quarter, 2:08 left, score tied 0-0:  Seattle quarterback  Matt Hasselbeck  threw a 16-yard pass that wide receiver  Darrell Jackson caught in the end zone, but the play was called back on an offensive pass interference call. Back Judge Bob Waggoner, a Pittsburgh native [ 6 ] , flagged Jackson for pushing off Steelers safety  Chris Hope . Seattle had to settle for a  Josh Brown  field goal. Critics claimed both Jackson and the defensive player were jostling for position and that officials should not have flagged either player. Michael Smith of ESPN  wrote that "Jackson extended his arm, yes, but both players were fighting for position, and he didn't create any separation by doing so." [ 7 ]  Adding to the controversy was the fact that Waggoner's flag was thrown several seconds after the play ended, which some saw as proof that Hope had lobbied for the call [ 8 ] . Second Quarter, 2:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0:  On third down from the Seattle one-yard line, Pittsburgh quarterback  Ben Roethlisberger took the snap, faked a handoff, and dove toward the left side of a pile along the goal-line before being hit by Seahawks linebacker  D.D. Lewis . He then extended his arm that was holding the ball to the goal line, though it is unclear as to whether the extension was before or after he was officially down. After first raising one hand (as if to indicate that the quarterback was down), head linesman  Mark Hittner raised a second arm to signal a touchdown. The play stood after review, to the considerable ire of Seahawks coach  Mike Holmgren , who berated Leavy on the way to the locker room following the first half. [ 9 ]  The play was hotly debated in the media between those who thought the play should have resulted in a fourth-down-and-inches situation [ 10 ]  and those who thought the ball crossed the goal line. [ 11 ] Roethlisberger appeared on the  The Late Show with David Letterman  the day after the game and told the host that, immediately after the play, he had told Cowher, "I don’t think I got in," but that the team was "ready to go for it on fourth down anyway." [ 12 ]  He later explained that he was referring to his initial impression only, and believes "the ball crossed the plane." [ 13 ] Fourth Quarter, 12:35 left, Steelers lead 14-10:  Hasselbeck completed an 18-yard pass to tight end  Jerramy Stevens  at the Steelers 1-yard line. The play was nullified by a penalty against Seattle right tackle  Sean Locklear  for holding Pittsburgh linebacker  Clark Haggans . Critics of the call dubbed it a "phantom hold," [ 14 ]  and the call drew dissent from  color commentator   John Madden ,  [ 15 ]  but others argued that, since NFL rules prohibit the encircling of a defender with hands or arms (i.e., "hooking") and since Locklear did appear briefly to have an arm around Haggans’ neck, the call was correct and not unusual. [ 16 ]  In addition, there is a dispute whether Haggans was offsides during the play, but in slow motion, "it looks like he crossed the line right at the snap, not early".  [ 16 ] Fourth Quarter, 10:54 left, Steelers lead 14-10:  Three plays after the nullified pass to Stevens, Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh cornerback  Ike Taylor , who returned the ball 24 yards. A 15-yard personal foul was whistled against Hasselbeck for a "low block," advancing the Steelers to their own 44-yard line. During the American television broadcast, commentator  Al Michaels  said, "We think this was a bad call," suggesting that Hasselbeck was not blocking another Pittsburgh player but was instead making a low tackle on a ball carrier, which is legal. However,  NFL Network  announcer  Rich Eisen  in a column he wrote for nfl.com claims it was the right call by the rules, even if the rule itself may be defective. [ 17 ]   Mike Pereira , the Director of Officiating for the NFL, has said that "the call was not correct" and "should not have been made." [ 18 ] Fourth Quarter, 4:45 left, Steelers lead 21-10:  With the Steelers' hoping to convert a first down on third-and-six in order to take more time off the clock, Roethlisberger was forced to call a timeout when Pittsburgh had difficulty getting a play off as the play clock ran down. The Steelers were awarded a timeout, but some contended that the play clock hit zero seconds before Roethlisberger called for a timeout, which would have constituted a delay-of-game and resulted in a five-yard penalty against Pittsburgh. [ 19 ]
    Posted by Harleyroadking111[/QUOTE]

    Upon further review, it is as follows:
    Jackson did push off- good call. I don't think he needed to, dummy.
    Big Ben in no way did he cross the plain.
    The previously mentioned 3 - 4th qtr calls were all bad too. 
    take a look - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOz8LxnTw0 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from passedball. Show passedball's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]I think if their fans are going to try and rub our nose in spygate till the end of time why not give it right back to them. I have not heard anything about this HGH scandel as of yet but I will say that I have been saying for months now that i thought James Harrison of the Steelers was juicing last year. So I am not surprised what so ever that there would eb a HGH scandel.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    The Steeler team doctor bought HGH with a retail value of $1,000,000. Where did that all go? Wink

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3831956
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jkstraw. Show jkstraw's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    I'm going to assume every team had/has their fair share of abusers.  They're all glass houses...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Let's give it a rest! This is not like MacGwire's record, which is an individual stat. Football is a team game, and regardless of any little infractions (actually, the roids weren't even illegal back in the 70s), you need to be pretty damn good to win a title. Just as the supposed videotapes weren't the difference between winning and losing, neither is a couple players who are juicing. There is a lot more involved in winning a Lombardi than just strength. Steroids didn't help Lynn Swann make those acrobatic catches, nor did tapes help Adam Viniateri kick those winning FGs, or help Willie Mac make all those clutch plays in the postseason. I can understand the concern over hitting HRs in baseball, but the Steelers were clearly the best team in those years when they won their titles in the 70s. Even last year, though they were in a lot of tight games, they came through in the clutch and pulled them out...right down to the SB. It's only the "sour grapes" crowd who talks of tainting and asterisks. Pittsburgh had some excellent teams, just like NE did in this decade. I'd rather just give them their due than sink to the level of the haters who simply love to whine because their own teams do not measure up!
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]
    If there's any basis of truth in the rumors, and there usually is, there were more than "a couple of players" juicing it. Being members of a team sport doesn't cut it as an excuse. When teams are as closely competitive as NFL teams are, juiced up players are a huge advantage. Of course the roids didn't help lynn swann's hands but they unquestionably would have brought a huge advantage, if,  say, every Olineman was carrying an additional 20 pounds of muscle.
    What's done is done but let's not just shrug it off. the pats got way more than their share of being dumped on for something way less significant that what the steelers may have done. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from clouts. Show clouts's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Agreed the Pats are getting it worse, but that is the case with the media today.  First, there is thing thingy called the Internet where rumors (and facts) spread like wildfire that didn't exist 30 years ago.  Second, the media likes to knock the leaders down a notch and build up the little guy.  To me, the Patriots experienced the good (against STL) and the bad (against NYG).  They went from the underdog knocking off the big dog and getting cheered for it, to having everyone cheer against them in just a few short years.  That has to stink, and I mean that seriously, not being an a-hole.  What changed in that time frame?  The stupid Spygate thing.  I agree everyone did it on some level, but they got caught because someone had an agenda.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Rick - Was the rule that caught Belichick on the books at the time JJ was taping?  I don't know.  I would love to know.  But you are right.  JJ did admit to it.  But again it begs the Q I aksed before - If you are not caught, but admit it after the fact, does it taint your victory?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    According to Mike Pereira, the rule has existed in the NFL Operations manual for a few decades.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nepatriotsfan1960. Show nepatriotsfan1960's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Yes, their titles should definitely be viewed as Tainted. The Steelers got off scott free. Think about the media today vs. the 70's when the Steelers won their Super bowls. The Patriots got persucated in the media and the camera gate incident was nothing compared to the all of the Steelers players playing on the juice. Because the steroid use happened in the 70's and it only became big news in the late 90's when all of their players started to die, it wasn't a huge media issue.
     

    Can you imagine if that happened now in 2009 and the scandel broke out in the media. They would get even more media attention than the Patriots camera gate did.


    Also to the poster who posted this:

    "This is not like MacGwire's record, which is an individual stat. Football is a team game, and regardless of any little infractions (actually, the roids weren't even illegal back in the 70s), you need to be pretty damn good to win a title. Just as the supposed videotapes weren't the difference between winning and losing, neither is a couple players who are juicing. There is a lot more involved in winning a Lombardi than just strength. Steroids didn't help Lynn Swann make those acrobatic catches, nor did tapes help Adam Viniateri kick those winning FGs, or help Willie Mac make all those clutch plays in the postseason. I can understand the concern over hitting HRs in baseball, but the Steelers were clearly the best team in those years when they won their titles in the 70s."

    You have to be kidding me. You think an entire teams offensive and defensive lines using steriods doesn't give another team an advantage over another team not using steriods. The game in the 70's was much more "run" orientated than "pass", making these strength type positions even more critical to the outcome of the game. You better believe it had an impact. When I first read about many years ago, I never looked at the Steelers of the 70's the same. 
     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    So if you get ridiculed in the then they aren't tainted?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Rick - Was the rule that caught Belichick on the books at the time JJ was taping?  I don't know.  I would love to know.  But you are right.  JJ did admit to it.  But again it begs the Q I aksed before - If you are not caught, but admit it after the fact, does it taint your victory?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Nope.

    Watch the Ten Most Controversial Calls on NFL Network. Kenny Stabler actually finally admits that he deliberately threw the ball forward on the play. 30 years after it happened. Who cares. It makes for great stories. There are still people who claim the Immaculate Reception didn't hit Jack Tatum first, but there is no way physically possible the ball caromed off Fuqua's back at the speed and distance that it did. 

    By the way, the Tuck Rule was #2 which does and doesn't make sense because it was the correct interpretation of the rule. Sugar Bear's "roughing" call was #7. 

    From the editing, the biggest whiners ever are the Raiders players. I think they complained about every controversial call even ones that weren't against them or involving them.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? : Nope. Watch the Ten Most Controversial Calls on NFL Network. Kenny Stabler actually finally admits that he deliberately threw the ball forward on the play. 30 years after it happened. Who cares. It makes for great stories. There are still people who claim the Immaculate Reception didn't hit Jack Tatum first, but there is no way physically possible the ball caromed off Fuqua's back at the speed and distance that it did.  By the way, the Tuck Rule was #2 which does and doesn't make sense because it was the correct interpretation of the rule. Sugar Bear's "roughing" call was #7.  From the editing, the biggest whiners ever are the Raiders players. I think they complained about every controversial call even ones that weren't against them or involving them.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    I was watching NFL's Greatest Games Pats vs Raiders 01' Playoffs. Week 2 of the season the same "Tuck" play happened against the Pats when we played the Jets. They were talking to BB and he figured the call might be overturned because they experienced that same situation earlier in the year.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? : I was watching NFL's Greatest Games Pats vs Raiders 01' Playoffs. Week 2 of the season the same "Tuck" play happened against the Pats when we played the Jets. They were talking to BB and he figured the call might be overturned because they experienced that same situation earlier in the year.
    Posted by Wizardsjag[/QUOTE]

    It was also called about two or three weeks prior to the playoffs in a regular season game. It was either the Bucs or the 49'ers who benefitted. It wasn't a rule I was familiar with before that. When Brady was hit, I jumped, but after seeing the replay, I knew it would be overturned for the same reason.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? : Nope. Watch the Ten Most Controversial Calls on NFL Network. Kenny Stabler actually finally admits that he deliberately threw the ball forward on the play. 30 years after it happened. Who cares. ???ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? THOSE CHEATIN ARSS RAIDERS OF YESTERYEAR MAKE THESE RAIDERS DESERVE EVERY ONE OF THE CURRENT 11 IN A ROW LOSING STREAK TO SD, BASED ON THAT 1 PLAY ALONE. I HOPE THEY LOSE ANOTHER 11 IN A ROW TO SD It makes for great stories.YOU TAKE YOUR GREAT STORY AND PUT IT WHERE THE SUN DONT SHINE PAL There are still people who claim the Immaculate Reception didn't hit Jack Tatum first, but there is no way physically possible the ball caromed off Fuqua's back at the speed and distance that it did.  By the way, the Tuck Rule was #2 which does and doesn't make sense because it was the correct interpretation of the rule. Sugar Bear's "roughing" call was #7.  From the editing, the biggest whiners ever are the Raiders players. I think they complained about every controversial call even ones that weren't against them or involving them.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? :
    Posted by jbolted[/QUOTE]

    Wow, you sure got a lot of keyboard muscles. For a loser who is ostracized by fans of the team he supports, I mean.

    Maybe you can find solace on a Patriots fan board. <snicker>

    Oh, BTW, San Diego's bvstvrd child, if you look at the response, someone had actually asked the question and I was responding. No one cares if you don't care. You are a turd.



     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    From the editing, the biggest whiners ever are the Raiders players. I think they complained about every controversial call even ones that weren't against them or involving them.

    I can agree with that! It seems that the Raiders have always been "whiners". Isn't it funny how the team that has had the most complaints about dirty play and pushing the rules are the same ones to cry loudest to the league when something goes against them!

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? THOSE CHEATIN ARSS RAIDERS OF YESTERYEAR MAKE THESE RAIDERS DESERVE EVERY ONE OF THE CURRENT 11 IN A ROW LOSING STREAK TO SD, BASED ON THAT 1 PLAY ALONE. I HOPE THEY LOSE ANOTHER 11 IN A ROW TO SD

    Bold text, italicized, AND underlined (not to mention the caps lock)! I guess you don't have strong feelings about the Raiders, do you?

    Maybe you can find solace on a Patriots fan board. <snicker>

    Oh, BTW, San Diego's bvstvrd child, if you look at the response, someone had actually asked the question and I was responding. No one cares if you don't care. You are a turd.

    Bolt does get overly excited when speaking about the Raiders! You make a good point about him possibly being ostracized by his fellow Chargers fans, too. He seems to be here as much as the most staunch of the regulars! I suppose all those years of never winning a championship is really eating on him (even though for the fourth year running he is predicting a Lombardi for SD). Hopefully he won't quit his day job (if he has one) to become a psychic!!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    Maybe Jbolt deserves a break.  His team is the only in his division not to win a superbowl.  Historically, the San Diego Chargers are the dregs of the AFC West.  If you love them, as jbolt does, how can you not be a little sensitive toward the other teams in your division. 

    Plus - San Diego is a west coast team with a temporary address.  No one of any significance really cares about them. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? : Wow, you sure got a lot of keyboard muscles. For a loser who is ostracized by fans of the team he supports, I mean. Maybe you can find solace on a Patriots fan board. <snicker /> Oh, BTW, San Diego's bvstvrd child, if you look at the response, someone had actually asked the question and I was responding. No one cares if you don't care. You are a turd.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
    Me, disagreeing w/ you, tells me I'm on the right course. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]Maybe Jbolt deserves a break.  His team is the only in his division not to win a superbowl.  Historically, the San Diego Chargers are the dregs of the AFC West.  If you love them, as jbolt does, how can you not be a little sensitive toward the other teams in your division.  Plus - San Diego is a west coast team with a temporary address.  No one of any significance really cares about them. 
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    dreg this through your memory bank

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8BP0ChEfZQ&feature=related
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?

    In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should any of the Steelers Super Bowl Titles be viewed as Tainted? : 
     Me, disagreeing w/ you, tells me I'm on the right course. 
    Posted by jbolted[/QUOTE]

    A little punctuation happy, huh? That is just another sure sign of keyboard muscles. 

    Of course, the extra commas make the sentence look like it was written by a turd.

    Which it was.


     

Share