Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:02 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:Hell yes I'm averaging in the cost BOTH ways..that's what we're discussing RIGHT? :roll:
Plugging in an adequate saftey for a star would naturally be a downgrade, but it's only one player out of eleven.
I'm saying if the ONE of eleven on offense is the best RB in the NFL, it would potentiate more than one excellent player on defense.
Now you can argue with that but you'd be wrong.
You're an offensive and defensive coordinator...who would you assign more people to, the best offensive threat in the NFL, or an excellent D-back?
Do you plan your game strategy and stuff 8 guys in the box to stop L.T. or send 8 guys after a saftey on every play?
Mike, I'm beginning to think that all those years of watching "Air Coryell" has resulted in permanent brain damage. What is it about Pittsburgh ALREADY having one of, if not THE most potent rushing attacks in the NFL that you don't understand? They rushed for 2400 yards last year. How would having LT on the field all the time have changed that?
LT is a great player, but a dominant saftey like Polamalou doesn't exactly come a dime a dozen either. Or have you already stopped cursing the release of Rodney Harrison?
Let me get this straight...are we pimping last years stat's. or are we talking L.T. vs. Polamalu?
I thought so....so then, let us go ahead and look at this year....
Pitt....rushing..524 yds. (7th. overall) 5 T.D.'s.. RB's receiving..102 yds.
L.T....rushing..512 yds. (3rd. overall) 9 T.D.'s.. L.T. receiving..130 yds.
Oh BTW...Pitt is 7th. overall as a team...L.T.'s stats are his alone..
"but a dominant saftey like Polamalou doesn't exactly come a dime a dozen either". Concur..I watched him at S.C. as well
I rest my case.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:07 pm
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:Let me get this straight...are we pimping last years stat's. or are we talking L.T. vs. Polamalu?
I thought so....so then, let us go ahead and look at this year....
Pitt....rushing..524 yds. (7th. overall) 5 T.D.'s.. RB's receiving..102 yds.
L.T....rushing..512 yds. (3rd. overall) 9 T.D.'s.. L.T. receiving..130 yds.
Oh BTW...Pitt is 7th. overall as a team...L.T.'s stats are his alone..
"but a dominant saftey like Polamalou doesn't exactly come a dime a dozen either". Concur..I watched him at S.C. as well
I rest my case.
As of right now, San Diego is averaging 8 more yards a game rushing than Pittsburgh. I'm sure the return of Bettis to the lineup won't make that gap any wider. In fact, I suspect that by the end of the year the Steelers will again be in the top 3 rushing.
I'll give you those 8 yards rushing and keep the defense that held LT to 61 yards intact.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:24 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:Let me get this straight...are we pimping last years stat's. or are we talking L.T. vs. Polamalu?
I thought so....so then, let us go ahead and look at this year....
Pitt....rushing..524 yds. (7th. overall) 5 T.D.'s.. RB's receiving..102 yds.
L.T....rushing..512 yds. (3rd. overall) 9 T.D.'s.. L.T. receiving..130 yds.
Oh BTW...Pitt is 7th. overall as a team...L.T.'s stats are his alone..
"but a dominant saftey like Polamalou doesn't exactly come a dime a dozen either". Concur..I watched him at S.C. as well
I rest my case.
As of right now, San Diego is averaging 8 more yards a game rushing than Pittsburgh. I'm sure the return of Bettis to the lineup won't make that gap any wider. In fact, I suspect that by the end of the year the Steelers will again be in the top 3 rushing.
I'll give you those 8 yards rushing and keep the defense that held LT to 61 yards intact.
...and the Pitt RB's are taking up 4 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:27 pm
by jiminphilly
We would trade any safety in the league for LT.
Sinc-
Every fucking GM and coach in the league.
You can build a secondary around Polly
You can build a TEAM around LT.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:28 pm
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:...and the Pitt RB's are taking up 4 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
Both the Steelers and the Chargers carry 5 running backs. The difference is all 5 of the Steelers backs have been proven under fire.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:29 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:Let me get this straight...are we pimping last years stat's. or are we talking L.T. vs. Polamalu?
I thought so....so then, let us go ahead and look at this year....
Pitt....rushing..524 yds. (7th. overall) 5 T.D.'s.. RB's receiving..102 yds.
L.T....rushing..512 yds. (3rd. overall) 9 T.D.'s.. L.T. receiving..130 yds.
Oh BTW...Pitt is 7th. overall as a team...L.T.'s stats are his alone..
"but a dominant saftey like Polamalou doesn't exactly come a dime a dozen either". Concur..I watched him at S.C. as well
I rest my case.
As of right now, San Diego is averaging 8 more yards a game rushing than Pittsburgh. I'm sure the return of Bettis to the lineup won't make that gap any wider. In fact, I suspect that by the end of the year the Steelers will again be in the top 3 rushing.
I'll give you those 8 yards rushing and keep the defense that held LT to 61 yards intact.
...and Pitt's stats require 6 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:36 pm
by Sirfindafold
jiminphilly wrote:You can build a TEAM around LT.
a TEAM with two wins and three losses.
The rb position is overrated.
sin,
Denver Broncos
1st place AFC West
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:27 am
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:...and Pitt's stats require 6 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
No Mike, they both are carrying 5 RBs. Face it, RB production from Pittsburgh's backs over the course of a year is comprable, if not better than what the entire Chargers backfield brings to the table.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:27 am
by Dumbass
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:...and Pitt's stats require 6 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
No Mike, they both are carrying 5 RBs. Face it, RB production from Pittsburgh's backs over the course of a year is comprable, if not better than what the entire Chargers backfield brings to the table.
I think the point is, shitbrick, that LT is the shit and your ass sucks canal water (a saying from your years).
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:45 am
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:...and Pitt's stats require 6 roster spots and L.T....well he takes up 1.... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
No Mike, they both are carrying 5 RBs. Face it, RB production from Pittsburgh's backs over the course of a year is comprable, if not better than what the
entire Chargers backfield brings to the table.
Do not concur...for the record:
The Bolts have TWO RB's TWO FB's and a kick returner.
The Stillers have FOUR RB's (one of whom contribute's zip) ONE FB, and a kick returner.
Earlier I showed you that L.T.'s stat's are better than the ENTIRE Stiller backfield...so what's your point regarding the entire Stiller backfield being possibly better than the ENTIRE Charger backfield? :roll:
L.T. gets 98% of the ENTIRE Charger RB's carries...so just go ahead and say it...possibly the ENTIRE Stiller backfield might be comparable to L.T. by season's end...Four to One, I still like L.T.'s chances.... in fact, I'd be willing to put my $$$$ where my mouth is...interested?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:02 pm
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:Do not concur...for the record:
The Bolts have TWO RB's TWO FB's and a kick returner.
The Stillers have FOUR RB's (one of whom contribute's zip) ONE FB, and a kick returner.[/quote]
The Steelers use players from other positions for kick returns. They don't use running backs. Look at the roster Mike, both teams have 5 players listed as RBs.
Earlier I showed you that L.T.'s stat's are better than the ENTIRE Stiller backfield...so what's your point regarding the entire Stiller backfield being possibly better than the ENTIRE Charger backfield? :roll:
You took stats from part of one season. Way to prove Mark Twain right about liars, damn liars and statistics.
L.T. gets 98% of the ENTIRE Charger RB's carries...so just go ahead and say it...possibly the ENTIRE Stiller backfield might be comparable to L.T. by season's end...Four to One, I still like L.T.'s chances.... in fact, I'd be willing to put my $$$$ where my mouth is...interested?
You would be willing to lay money that LT doesn't get dinged and knocked out before the end of the season?
That's a fool's bet Mike. Which is my whole point to you. If LT is injured, the Bolts lose almost all of their productivity and have to hope that a guy who never sees any significant game time can fill the gap. The Steelers have 4 guys who, when healthy, contribute to the team's rushing attack.
And they get as much, if not more, productivity than the ENTIRE San Diego rushing attack. Which is all LT right?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:47 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:Do not concur...for the record:
The Bolts have TWO RB's TWO FB's and a kick returner.
The Stillers have FOUR RB's (one of whom contribute's zip) ONE FB, and a kick returner.
The Steelers use players from other positions for kick returns. They don't use running backs. Look at the roster Mike, both teams have 5 players listed as RBs.
I still only see two RB's listed on the Bolt's roster! Even if you count Pinnock who is a FB and Sproles who is RB-KR that's only four. I'll give you Sproles..that's three.
21Tomlinson, LaDainian RB 5-10 221 Texas Christian 5 06/23/79
33 Turner, Michael RB 5-10 237 Northern Illinois 2 02/13/82
34 Pinnock, Andrew FB-RB 5-10 250 South Carolina 3 03/12/80
43 Sproles, Darren RB-KR 5-6 181 Kansas State R 06/20/83
Who am I overlooking? serious question, I may be looking right at someone and missing them.
Earlier I showed you that L.T.'s stat's are better than the ENTIRE Stiller backfield...so what's your point regarding the entire Stiller backfield being possibly better than the ENTIRE Charger backfield? :roll:
You took stats from part of one season. Way to prove Mark Twain right about liars, damn liars and statistics.
Silly me, I thought we were talking about this season 
L.T. gets 98% of the ENTIRE Charger RB's carries...so just go ahead and say it...possibly the ENTIRE Stiller backfield might be comparable to L.T. by season's end...Four to One, I still like L.T.'s chances.... in fact, I'd be willing to put my $$$$ where my mouth is...interested?
You would be willing to lay money that LT doesn't get dinged and knocked out before the end of the season?
That's a fool's bet Mike. Which is my whole point to you. If LT is injured, the Bolts lose almost all of their productivity and have to hope that a guy who never sees any significant game time can fill the gap. The Steelers have 4 guys who, when healthy, contribute to the team's rushing attack.
And they get as much, if not more, productivity than the ENTIRE San Diego rushing attack.
Which is all LT right?[/quote]
Right.... Thanks for proving my point!
If L.T. was injured, the whole league would know who Michael Turner is. Like Willie parker, Turner is a stud RB who would be starting on a good many teams. Turner at 237 is a bruising runner with Parker like speed. Thing is...L.T. has not had a history of injuries to this point. Obviously, it can happen to anyone at any time..right Ben?
If the Steelers had L.T. he would probably get 98% of the work load..right? ( granted The Bus would get 3rd. and inches calls.)
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:56 pm
by Mikey
Count on this, CM, you will never have the last word in a discussion with BSmack.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:59 pm
by BSmack
Mikey wrote:Count on this, CM, you will never have the last word in a discussion with BSmack.
Still bleeding?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:16 pm
by Mikey
BSmack wrote:Mikey wrote:Count on this, CM, you will never have the last word in a discussion with BSmack.
Still bleeding?
Nope. Just
at your predictable anklebiting.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:16 pm
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:I still only see two RB's listed on the Bolt's roster! Even if you count Pinnock who is a FB and Sproles who is RB-KR that's only four. I'll give you Sproles..that's three.
21Tomlinson, LaDainian RB 5-10 221 Texas Christian 5 06/23/79
33 Turner, Michael RB 5-10 237 Northern Illinois 2 02/13/82
34 Pinnock, Andrew FB-RB 5-10 250 South Carolina 3 03/12/80
43 Sproles, Darren RB-KR 5-6 181 Kansas State R 06/20/83
Who am I overlooking? serious question, I may be looking right at someone and missing them.
How about Lorenzo Neal? They both carry 5 players who are listed as running backs. Yes, they deploy them differently. You seem to think that LT getting 98% of the carries is a better way to go. I think that speading the workload around makes more sense.
Silly me, I thought we were talking about this season
We are. But the season ain't over, and you're citing stats that are skewed by the fact that the Chargers have played an extra game. And you are convienently ignoring the results from the time the two teams were on the field at the same time. You know, when the Steelers outgained the Chargers by nearly 40 yards?
Right.... Thanks for proving my point! If L.T. was injured, the whole league would know who Michael Turner is. Like Willie parker, Turner is a stud RB who would be starting on a good many teams. Turner at 237 is a bruising runner with Parker like speed. Thing is...L.T. has not had a history of injuries to this point. Obviously, it can happen to anyone at any time..right Ben?
So far LT has been one of the most durable backs around. That may well continue. But the fact remains that the Steelers and Chargers backfields have similar levels of productivity. So why take out a key defensive player from a secondary that relies on?
If the Steelers had L.T. he would probably get 98% of the work load..right? ( granted The Bus would get 3rd. and inches calls.)
I suspect he would have. But we'll never know. The last time the Steelers had a draft pick that high was when the US was still sending men to the moon.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:20 pm
by trev
Even though the Steelers WON the damn game, B will continue at nauseum IB style.
Maybe he'll shut up* after the Chargers win the AFC title game.
*No such luck?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:25 pm
by BSmack
trev wrote:Even though the Steelers WON the damn game, B will continue at nauseum IB style.
Maybe he'll shut up* after the Chargers win the AFC title game.
*No such luck?
After the Chargers win the AFC title game?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:36 pm
by ChargerMike
BSmack wrote:ChargerMike wrote:I still only see two RB's listed on the Bolt's roster! Even if you count Pinnock who is a FB and Sproles who is RB-KR that's only four. I'll give you Sproles..that's three.
21Tomlinson, LaDainian RB 5-10 221 Texas Christian 5 06/23/79
33 Turner, Michael RB 5-10 237 Northern Illinois 2 02/13/82
34 Pinnock, Andrew FB-RB 5-10 250 South Carolina 3 03/12/80
43 Sproles, Darren RB-KR 5-6 181 Kansas State R 06/20/83
Who am I overlooking? serious question, I may be looking right at someone and missing them.
How about Lorenzo Neal? They both carry 5 players who are listed as running backs. Yes, they deploy them differently. You seem to think that LT getting 98% of the carries is a better way to go. I think that speading the workload around makes more sense.
I did miss Neal, oh he's a FB isn't he!
Silly me, I thought we were talking about this season
We are. But the season ain't over, and you're citing stats that are skewed by the fact that the Chargers have played an extra game. And you are convienently ignoring the results from the time the two teams were on the field at the same time. You know, when the Steelers outgained the Chargers by nearly 40 yards?
Nearly 40 yards....gosh that's amazing! Don't forget the fact you also outgained us through the air by almost 6 yards
Right.... Thanks for proving my point! If L.T. was injured, the whole league would know who Michael Turner is. Like Willie parker, Turner is a stud RB who would be starting on a good many teams. Turner at 237 is a bruising runner with Parker like speed. Thing is...L.T. has not had a history of injuries to this point. Obviously, it can happen to anyone at any time..right Ben?
So far LT has been one of the most durable backs around. That may well continue. But the fact remains that the Steelers and Chargers backfields have similar levels of productivity. So why take out a key defensive player from a secondary that relies on him.
I wouldn't get rid of Polamalu...but I sure as hell would take L.T. in a trade for him..
If the Steelers had L.T. he would probably get 98% of the work load..right? ( granted The Bus would get 3rd. and inches calls.)
I suspect he would have. But we'll never know. The last time the Steelers had a draft pick that high was when the US was still sending men to the moon.
Touche
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:36 pm
by trev
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:46 pm
by BSmack
ChargerMike wrote:I did miss Neal, oh he's a FB isn't he!
Yea, he's a fullback. Which, last I checked is still played in the backfield on most occasions. Not very holistic eh?
Nearly 40 yards....gosh that's amazing! Don't forget the fact you also outgained us through the air by almost 6 yards
No, I wouldn't trade Roethlisberger for Brees either. Trev, you can rest easy.
I wouldn't get rid of Polamalu...but I sure as hell would take L.T. in a trade for him..
If the Steelers had wanted a proven top shelf feature back, they could have gotten Shawn Alexander or Edggerin James for a hell of a lot less than Troy Polamalu. The asking price for either one of those guys was a first rounder. And you know what? Not a single fucking team in the NFL took the bait.
What does that tell you about the value of feature backs?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:46 pm
by Raydah James
Did somebody forget to forward the morons posting in this thread the memo that this game has been over for 2
fucking days?
The sheer idiocy on display here is hilarious-and color me shocked that BSmack, the master of the double stuffed weekend man sandwich, is in the middle of something yet again.
Trev, get your hot little ass in the Raider-Charger thread and start stirring shit up with your passive aggression......
TIA
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:17 pm
by ChargerMike
"Did somebody forget to forward the morons posting in this thread the memo that this game has been over for 2 fucking days?
Threads with BSmack carry over for quite some time, of course I suppose I have to include myself in there as well.
BTW..Has anybody told Raiduhfan their record over the past 20 years.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:31 pm
by BSmack
Raydah James wrote:Did somebody forget to forward the morons posting in this thread the memo that this game has been over for 2 fucking days?
Unlike the Raiders season, which has been over since it began.
The sheer idiocy on display here is hilarious-and color me shocked that BSmack, the master of the double stuffed weekend man sandwich, is in the middle of something yet again.
Yes, and that large cavernous space I am residing in would be your dome. Which, I might add, reeks of hair care products.
Trev, get your hot little ass in the Raider-Charger thread and start stirring shit up with your passive aggression...... TIA
Its hardly her fault she views the aftermath of a Steelers game with more interest than a glorified bye week with the Raiders.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:06 pm
by Dumbass
BSmack wrote:yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap