Winning matters - not whining

[oldecapecod11]

Perhaps Mike Tomlin was whining because he is still smarting (oxymoronically, of course) from being the biggest turkey
on Thanksgiving 2013?
A "cramp" can disappear nearly as fast as it starts but $35,000.00 said it didn't.
And, finally, the "steroid curtain" of the '70s says a lot for the integrity of the "stealers."
Meanwhile, what might the Patriots be sayin'? Just keep those cards and letters comin' folks while we win it again.


The Pats Aren’t The NFL’s Only Cheaters
September 10, 2015 NFL

3. Pittsburgh Steelers

Tripping (2013)
"Thanksgiving night of 2013... Tomlin was fined $100,000. Ouch."

Cramping (2012)
"Cramping... Emmanuel Sanders... He would be fined $35,000 for the fake."

But here’s a controversy that has last over nearly a 40 year period…

http://www.bluelionsports.com/the-pats- ... ers/5/?v=p

---

Steroids (1970-2007)
"Being known as a pioneer by your colleagues is usually a good thing, unless it involves steroid usage...
"Do you think this gave them a competition advantage during their 4 Super Bowl tear? Many do."

Next we’ll explore a team who committed the same offense as New England, one year before Spy Gate…

http://www.bluelionsports.com/the-pats- ... ers/6/?v=p

---

[MatthewToy]

When the Steelers offensive linemen were doing steroids in the 70s they weren't against the rules or even against the law. They didn't have the stigma attached to them like they would a decade later. They didn't even know what the long term effects would be yet. And when Tomlin did what he did everyone in Pittsburgh thought it was stupid. We don't just blindly defend everything they do. All the things the Patriots did was/is indefensible. No one outside the upper north east respects anything the Patriots have "accomplished" the past 15 years. And if you think going "LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID! LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID!" and linking things from websites no one has heard of is gonna change any of that, I'm afraid I've got some bad news.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

When the Steelers offensive linemen were doing steroids in the 70s they weren't against the rules or even against the law. They didn't have the stigma attached to them like they would a decade later. They didn't even know what the long term effects would be yet. And when Tomlin did what he did everyone in Pittsburgh thought it was stupid. We don't just blindly defend everything they do. All the things the Patriots did was/is indefensible. No one outside the upper north east respects anything the Patriots have "accomplished" the past 15 years. And if you think going "LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID! LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID!" and linking things from websites no one has heard of is gonna change any of that, I'm afraid I've got some bad news.

I appreciate that this kind of gross overstatement plays well on other forums & websites, but as I'm sure you would realize on a better day, it doesn't get you very far here.

The Patriots have been accused of doing a great many things. Lots of those things were not against the rules, and some still are not. How is it that things the Steelers did that are now, but weren't then, illegal don't tarnish their rings, but things the Patriots did that are now, but weren't then, illegal tarnish theirs?

[MatthewToy]

When the Steelers offensive linemen were doing steroids in the 70s they weren't against the rules or even against the law. They didn't have the stigma attached to them like they would a decade later. They didn't even know what the long term effects would be yet. And when Tomlin did what he did everyone in Pittsburgh thought it was stupid. We don't just blindly defend everything they do. All the things the Patriots did was/is indefensible. No one outside the upper north east respects anything the Patriots have "accomplished" the past 15 years. And if you think going "LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID! LOOK WHAT OTHER TEAMS DID!" and linking things from websites no one has heard of is gonna change any of that, I'm afraid I've got some bad news.

I appreciate that this kind of gross overstatement plays well on other forums & websites, but as I'm sure you would realize on a better day, it doesn't get you very far here.

The Patriots have been accused of doing a great many things. Lots of those things were not against the rules, and some still are not. How is it that things the Steelers did that are now, but weren't then, illegal don't tarnish their rings, but things the Patriots did that are now, but weren't then, illegal tarnish theirs?

They were also head slapping and bumping receivers all over the field before they were against the rules. (Mel Blount rule anybody?) You're right. TEAR DOWN THE ROONEY STATUE!

[oldecapecod11]

by MatthewToy » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:30 pm
"When the Steelers offensive linemen were doing steroids... when Tomlin did what he did everyone in Pittsburgh thought it was stupid... "
...All the things the Patriots did was/is indefensible. No one outside the upper north east respects anything the Patriots have "accomplished" the past 15 years...
" ...and linking things from websites no one has heard of is gonna change any of that, I'm afraid I've got some bad news."

The bad news is that you obviously miss the point.
Read carefully Jeremy's message and you might begin to understand.
Additionally, you will see that there are those outside the upper north east that DO understand the issue(s.)
You are just not one of them.

"Guilty" is NOT a verdict that has been used in the case of the Patriots.

But, that too, is not really the crux of the matter.
Simply stated... the Patriots have not done anything worse than a multitude of teams have done or tried to do.
The difference is that the Patriots have been outstandingly successful with what they have done and are still
near the top of the hill.
Only the Seahawks are - in any way - threatening to those poor former Boston orphans.
The rest of the league is at least two notches beneath.
(Well, maybe the Packers are only one level down.)

For you edification, the long-term effects of steroids WERE known in the '70s.
They were simply not published and made into headlines.
Additionally, everyone in Pittsburgh did NOT think what Tomlin did was stupid.
And, you are blindly defending nothing. After being found or proven guilty, no defense is needed.
Perhaps you noticed there was no appeal of any of the penalties imposed upon the Steelers.
If you did not, now you know.

Whether or not anyone has ever heard of a particular web site is totally irrelevant.
No one ever heard of espn when it began, nor of the PFRA for that matter before it began.
The link to the site indicated was at both nfl.com and sportsillustrated so someone must have heard of it.
The suggestion might be to specificy and simply admit you never heard of it.

By the way, the most significant event to ever take place in the city at the confluence happened
forty-four years ago this month.
There was nothing between that and the aftermath of the Battle of Fort Duquense and nothing
has even come close to equaling it since.

Right now, the Patriots are one of only sixteen teams with a chance for an undefeated season.
For the Steelers, it's already "Wait 'til next year."
bonne chance

[MatthewToy]

"Guilty" is NOT a verdict that has been used in the case of the Patriots.

Yes, they were fined and had draft picks taken away but they weren't guilty of anything. Sounds more like they were innocent of not being guilty. Imagine how much more could've been taken away had Roger "Corruptus In Extremus" Goodell not felt like he owed Robert Kraft a favor and took it easy on the Pats.

By the way, the most significant event to ever take place in the city at the confluence happened
forty-four years ago this month.
There was nothing between that and the aftermath of the Battle of Fort Duquense and nothing
has even come close to equaling it since.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. If you're looking for a Pittsburgh vs. Boston debate that'll have to take place another time. But I do love my [expletive deleted] city.

[7DnBrnc53]

Steroids (1970-2007)
"Being known as a pioneer by your colleagues is usually a good thing, unless it involves steroid usage...
"Do you think this gave them a competition advantage during their 4 Super Bowl tear? Many do."

The author of that article doesn't know what they are talking about. The Steelers of the 70's weren't even close to the first to use steroids in pro football. As far as I know, the 1963 Chargers were. They had a strength coach by the name of Alvin Roy who introduced them to Dianabol.

They were also head slapping and bumping receivers all over the field before they were against the rules. (Mel Blount rule anybody?) You're right. TEAR DOWN THE ROONEY STATUE!

I think that a writer (I think that it was Dr. Z, but I am not sure) tries to give the 1973 Dolphins some credit for the eventual rule changes because of their treatment of Isaac Curtis during their divisional playoff with Cincinnati.

[BD Sullivan]

Steroids (1970-2007)
"Being known as a pioneer by your colleagues is usually a good thing, unless it involves steroid usage...
"Do you think this gave them a competition advantage during their 4 Super Bowl tear? Many do."

The author of that article doesn't know what they are talking about. The Steelers of the 70's weren't even close to the first to use steroids in pro football. As far as I know, the 1963 Chargers were. They had a strength coach by the name of Alvin Roy who introduced them to Dianabol.

In 1973, the Chargers were fined for essentially running a free drug store in their locker room.

[Andrew McKillop]

The '63 Chargers were indeed the first team to systematically use steroids. It started at the Chargers' training camp at Rough Acres. Supposedly the players were told that they'd be fined an exhibition paycheck if they refused to take the drugs. Very dark stuff!

[7DnBrnc53]

The '63 Chargers were indeed the first team to systematically use steroids. It started at the Chargers' training camp at Rough Acres. Supposedly the players were told that they'd be fined an exhibition paycheck if they refused to take the drugs. Very dark stuff!

They were fined an exhibition check? I didn't hear about that part of this story, but I found out about the overall story from Bleacher Report, of all places (forgive me for using them. I am not a member of this crappy site):

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2324 ... onceptions