Most undeserving team to win a national title, college or pro...

And the whiny bullshit continues.

It is completely innacurate to label the Steelers as a one-year wonder or a fluke. Remember what that team did in 2004. The Steelers went 15-1 in the regular season, including blowout victories over the Patriots and Eagles, the two teams that ended up in the Super Bowl. The Patriots that year simply did what the Steelers last season -- they peaked at the right time and beat Pittsburgh in the playoffs.

After that loss, all you hear is about how the Steelers underachieve in the playoffs because they had lost so many AFC title games at home. Then they rally from a mid-season slump to win it all and they are a fluke. What a load of garbage.

No, the Steelers are not a dynasty like the Patriots have been, but that doesn't make their title any less legitimate and it sure doesn't put them out there as the most undeserving champion of all time.

The four most important players on that team -- Roethlisberger, Polamalu, Joey Porter and Hines Ward -- have all either played hurt or missed time this season. Roethlisberger's nightmare of an offseason turned him from a very effective passer into a turnover machine. Give the Steelers last year's version of Roethlisberger and even with all the other injuries, they'd be in contention.

 

To be honest, I haven't read all the posts; and even though it's not a college or pro title, the most underserving champion of all time is the 1972 Gold Medal-winning Soviet basketball team.

 

Hasn't it been learned that three judges were paid by Koreans? I think that's the case, but Roy Jones still has that blasted silver medal after beating the living shit out of the Korean.

 

Ouofplace, I will say that fluke was too harsh a word.
But in complaining that the Steelers lost four key players, you're making my point.
They aren't the Patriots. They have a slim margin for error when it comes to talent. Therefore my judgement about their title.
A great defense can carry a team to the Super Bowl, but well-rounded teams (Patriots) have a much better shot year-in and year-out.

 

Excellent call.

Anyone who thinks the most recent Super Bowl was a screwing for the ages should have to watch the tape of the final moments of that game or the aforementioned Roy Jones, Jr. fight to see a prime example of a Grade A, should've-at-least-bought-them-dinner first screwing.

 

I used to think that, but the HBO documentary from a few years ago kind of muddled the situation a bit. The Soviets really didn't get three chances to win the game; the restart after the timeout happened before the clock had been reset to three seconds (I think the clock was set at 50 seconds for whatever reason). The idiot refs weren't paying attention when they let the Soviets inbound the ball.

Nonetheless, there's no excuse for the FIBA executive coming out of the stands to order any game official to do anything, let alone put time on the clock. I can't blame the U.S. players for their outrage in that regard. But the controversy isn't quite as cut and dry as I once thought.

The Roy Jones decision in Seoul was more outrageous, and more overtly corrupt.

 

Fry, it's not just four guys. I just didn't want to get overly detailed.

Pro Bowl nose tackle Casey Hampton missed the end of the Atlanta game and the Oakland game. They lost the top two backup outside linebackers the same time Porter was out, so they had to bring Arnold Harrison up from the practice squad to start two games. The right outside linebacker is the key pass rusher and arguably the most important position in a 3-4 defense and they went from one of the best in the game to a guy who still needs a day job.

They also lost Jeff Hartings, a Pro Bowl center, during the Oakland game.

This leaves out the free agent departure of Antwan Randel-El and Kim Von Oehlhoffen and the retirement of Jerome Bettis. You think maybe they missed Bettis when it was 1st-and-goal at the one late in the fourth quarter last week and they lost a total of four yards on two running plays?

And it can be fewer than four player that make a big impact. Go back to the 2004. The Patriots were missing Deion Branch and Cory Dillon when the Steelers blew them off the field in mid-season. Those two come back and it's a completely different AFC championship game later that same season.

 

I also noticed you avoided my stronger point. You can't call the Steelers a one-year fluke when they went 15-1 in the regular season and lost to the Super Bowl champs in the AFC title game the year before winning the Super Bowl themselves.

Well, you can, but you'd clearly be wrong.

Just like you are wrong about last year's Steelers being a purely defensive team. They took charge of their three AFC playoff games with their passing game as much as their defense and also featured a 12,000-yard rusher (Willie Parker).

You probably just know what you saw in the Super Bowl, their worst performance in the entire post-season.

 

Sirs, Madames,

I know I shall be roasted for this but ...












1980 US Olympic hockey team.

I've never believed things were entirely all square on that game. The Soviet team in the years before and after that game dominated the NHL's best and made a mockery of the world championships. Arguably the best stretch for a national program in the game's history--with this one peculiar hiccup. The veteran Soviet players were disenchanted with Tikhonov. The US team had a few guys who had NHL careers of some distinction but nobody you'd label a star. Mark Johnson was the most talented American (should have had a much better NHL career and had one great season for me in a hockey pool) and the Soviets left guys at home who were better.

It was exciting, I'll grant you that. But is it comparable to the Soviet hoops triumph in '72? Maybe the course of the game is different but I'm convinced that the Soviet basketball team was a helluva lot closer to being the equal of the Americans than was the case for Brooks's crew and the Big Red Machine. (The roster of the '72 US basketball team, Doug Collins notwithstanding, was in no way comparable to the Dream Team.)

YHS, etc

 

terrorist

 

Big difference: The 1980 Olympic hockey team didn't have to cheat to win. The Soviets didn't play well, but they lost fair and square.

The Russians in 1972 did.

 

The US, if I remember correctly, didn't lose to anybody else in that tournament. There were a bunch of guys who had solid NHL careers, so it isn't as if they had limited talent. Jim Craig was fantastic, and we have seen hot goaltenders carry teams deep into the Stanley Cup playoffs. In 1988, Sean Burke was the goaltender on a Canadian team which won the Silver medal and he led the Devils to a seventh-game of the semifinal round after winning two series. That sort of thing is what makes hockey such a great sport.

I think Tikhonov changed goalies in that game, and that may have had some impact. I don't think it is right to say the Soviets dominated the NHL's best through the whole period. They had all of their best players on Red Army or the other big team (Spartak) and they played against amateurs in the Olympics. The best test ever was the 1987 Canada Cup - those three videos were the greatest hockey I have ever seen, and Canada came out on top there.