AFC Championship: Patriots vs Steelers, the buildup

[tims4wins]

Reiss on Mitchell

Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss 17m17 minutes ago



Mike Reiss Retweeted PatsFanFotoShop

Unlike last week, when it was clear he wouldn't be there, it's trending in the right direction this week.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Brady looked and sounded better at his press conference today, too. He forgot to whine about having been sick, though, so Max Kellerman is sticking with the Pats!

 

[Silverdude2167]

Just listened to "The Ringer NFL Show" podcast. According to them, the Steelers have the perfect defense to attack the Pats (Interior blitz/rushing, Houston showed the blueprint!) and Bell will destroy the Pats D.

Disappointing podcast because they only talked about how they think Pitt will attack the Pats, not what the Pats can do.

If you listen to them talk the Pats seem to have no chance (even though one guy picks the pats because he does not want to pick against BB/Brady at home).

 

[snowmanny]

Mercilus and Clowney played ridiculously well. So that's the blueprint.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I've heard this across multiple platforms this week. Unless Mercilus and Clowney got traded this week to join Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware in Pittsburgh I'm not sure how they can replicate their scheme. It takes very good pass rushers winning 1-on-1 battles combined with good press corners and coverage LBs to slow the Patriots offense. I'm just not convinced Pittsburgh has all of that.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Just listened to "The Ringer NFL Show" podcast. According to them, the Steelers have the perfect defense to attack the Pats (Interior blitz/rushing, Houston showed the blueprint!) and Bell will destroy the Pats D.

Disappointing podcast because they only talked about how they think Pitt will attack the Pats, not what the Pats can do.

If you listen to them talk the Pats seem to have no chance (even though one guy picks the pats because he does not want to pick against BB/Brady at home).

I actually tweeted them how disappointed I was. They spent half the podcast talking Atlanta/Green Bay, then spent the other half of the podcast talking about how Pittsburgh can beat New England and Atlanta's offensive coordinator leaving Atlanta.

Very unsatisfying.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I've heard this across multiple platforms this week. Unless Mercilus and Clowney got traded this week to join Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware in Pittsburgh I'm not sure how they can replicate their scheme. It takes very good pass rushers winning 1-on-1 battles combined with good press corners and coverage LBs to slow the Patriots offense. I'm just not convinced Pittsburgh has all of that.

Exactly. The guys on the ringer podcast decided that because the Steelers like to Blitz the a gap that they will be able to replicate Houston's success.

Wow! If only at some point in the last 15 years other teams thought of that!

My favorite part, of course, was that five minutes earlier they mentioned in passing that Tom Brady has a 130+ passer rating against the Blitz. Houston followed the Giants "blueprint" in that they have a front that can get pressure without blitzing. The Steelers do not.

Blitz at your own risk.

 

[E5 Yaz]

They're just saving the Patriots talk for the next two weeks

 

[Super Nomario]

Just listened to "The Ringer NFL Show" podcast. According to them, the Steelers have the perfect defense to attack the Pats (Interior blitz/rushing, Houston showed the blueprint!) and Bell will destroy the Pats D.

Disappointing podcast because they only talked about how they think Pitt will attack the Pats, not what the Pats can do.

If you listen to them talk the Pats seem to have no chance (even though one guy picks the pats because he does not want to pick against BB/Brady at home).

The Patriots usually have fewer star players than most other playoff teams, while having Brady, being excellent 10-53, and having an advanced understanding of how to adjust to different opponents and execute a variety of plans. Every year, pundits convince themselves that the team with the bigger names is "more talented," whatever that means, and will beat the Pats. It's like they haven't watched any of this team in the last 15 years.

 

[Captaincoop]

I've been sick over the last few days and watching these old Pats-Steelers games on NFL network. It's striking how much less high-end talent the Pats had than the Steelers in 2001 and 2004 and yet pounded them both times on the road. Now we have good talent around Brady and on defense. It's good to be a Pats fan.

 

[5dice]

A

The Patriots usually have fewer star players than most other playoff teams, while having Brady, being excellent 10-53, and having an advanced understanding of how to adjust to different opponents and execute a variety of plans. Every year, pundits convince themselves that the team with the bigger names is "more talented," whatever that means, and will beat the Pats. It's like they haven't watched any of this team in the last 15 years.

Thank you for saying eloquently what I have been screaming at my radio, tv and phone all week. We live in a star fucker sports world. They are taking a break from debating LeBron James versus Steph Curry and other star-based tripe and threesome of Ben, Brown and Bell is more big names to spit out in one hot take than one Tom Brady. The really "deep" analysis then goes to "Tom Brady hates being disrupted in the pocket." This game can't get here fast enough.

 

[leftfieldlegacy]

The Patriots usually have fewer star players than most other playoff teams, while having Brady, being excellent 10-53, and having an advanced understanding of how to adjust to different opponents and execute a variety of plans. Every year, pundits convince themselves that the team with the bigger names is "more talented," whatever that means, and will beat the Pats. It's like they haven't watched any of this team in the last 15 years.

Craig Patrick: You're missing some of the best players.

Herb Brooks: I'm not looking for the best players, Craig. I'm looking for the right ones.

 

[wiffleballhero]

The Patriots usually have fewer star players than most other playoff teams, while having Brady, being excellent 10-53, and having an advanced understanding of how to adjust to different opponents and execute a variety of plans. Every year, pundits convince themselves that the team with the bigger names is "more talented," whatever that means, and will beat the Pats. It's like they haven't watched any of this team in the last 15 years.

This is also a shit load easier to talk about for hours on end.

I doubt it is so much that pundits are 'convinced' of anything, it is just an entertainment job. They bloviate to the widest possible audience. Furthermore, part of the format of shit like sports radio is that it reinforces people's sense that they, too, know what they are talking about. If you devote an hour to DVOA and the construction of the special teams roster, or whatever, it hardly reinforces an audience's sense that they know what the fuck is going on. They will feel like they are in school.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Watching coverage yesterday, I couldn't help but be taken back to the early years, and - admittedly oversimplifying - wondering:

1) Do the Steeler weapons pose more of a challenge than the Peyton Colts teams that were allegedly unstoppable and hitting their stride in the playoffs and "more talented?"

2) Were those Patriots defenses THAT much more capable of shutting down "elite" offenses?

Edit typos and adding a thought

 

[BaseballJones]

Watching coverage yesterday, I couldn't help but be taken back to the early years, and - admittedly oversimplifying - wondering:

1) Do the Steeler weapons pose more of a challenge than the Peyton Colts teams that were allegedly unstoppable and hitting their stride in the playoffs and "more talented?"

Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James, and Dallas Clark were, IMO, a much better offensive group than what the Steelers have at present. The 2004 Colts scored 522 points that year. I know Big Ben missed some games, but this year's Steelers scored 399.

2) Were those Patriots defenses THAT much more capable of shutting down "elite" offenses?

Maybe.

 

[Marbleheader]

1. No
2. Yes

Those early 2000's Patriots defenses were not only significantly more talented, the rules allowed them to actually play defense.

 

[Saints Rest]

Watching coverage yesterday, I couldn't help but be taken back to the early years, and - admittedly oversimplifying - wondering:

1) Do the Steeler weapons pose more of a challenge than the Peyton Colts teams that were allegedly unstoppable and hitting their stride in the playoffs and "more talented?"

2) Were those Patriots defenses THAT much more capable of shutting down "elite" offenses?

Edit typos and adding a thought

My thoughts on these two points:
1. Today's Steelers team is a pale comparison to those Indy teams (2003-2006). Peyton > Big Ben; Marvin/AB is close; Bell is a bit better than Edge. But the Steelers don't have a TE to compare to Clark or WRs beyond AB to compare to Wayne or Stokley. OTOH, the Steelers D today is likely better but not by a lot, compared to the Colts.
2. Yes. Mainly because the Pats of 2001-2004 had stars on D at every level. Seymour was better than any DL today; Bruschi/Johnson/Vrabel was a better crew at LB; and Law/Milloy were equal or better than Butler/DMac

 

[TomTerrific]

For the most part, the Post Gazette AFC Championship coverage isn't terrible, but this article is some Doyel-level trolling.

Serves me right for checking up on the Pittsburgh take.

 

[Devizier]

In a normal game, 90-some odd percent of America roots against the Patriots. Now plenty of people hate the Steelers, which possibly drops that percentage down to 80 or so. In that context, national pundits discussing how the Patriots can be beaten makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Norm loves Vera]

For the most part, the Post Gazette AFC Championship coverage isn't terrible, but this article is some Doyel-level trolling.

Serves me right for checking up on the Pittsburgh take.

I have been reading the gazette all week, and it has been pretty vanilla.

This part of the article is pure trolling:

"That requires us to believe there won’t be any equipment guys sneaking footballs into the bathroom to deflate them for Brady.

It also requires us to believe there weren’t hidden cameras filming practices in the Steelers South Side facility this week or that there weren’t cameras hidden in the Heinz Field press box filming signals during the first meeting between these two teams.

And it requires us to believe that there won’t be some mysteriously timed malfunctions in the headsets the Steelers coaches use to communicate.

And let’s not forget those funky formations from a 2015 playoff game between the Ravens and Patriots that caused John Harbaugh to lose his mind. It turns out the formations were (barely) legal, but we all know they violated the spirit of the rules and thus “formationgate” is very real.

Again, though, I believe this is a kinder, gentler Patriots team and one that has turned over a new leaf, so none of that should come into play."

Sadly, thinking like this is pretty much inline with non Patriot fans nationwide that I met during travels. Patriots are the new Black.

 

[BaseballJones]

And let’s not forget those funky formations from a 2015 playoff game between the Ravens and Patriots that caused John Harbaugh to lose his mind. It turns out the formations were (barely) legal, but we all know they violated the spirit of the rules and thus “formationgate” is very real.

I just don't understand this point, like, at all. A formation is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL. There is no "barely legal" formation. I mean, you are required to have seven men on the line of scrimmage. If you "only" have seven men on the line of scrimmage, is that "barely legal", because, after all, if just one of those guys took a step back, it would suddenly be ILLEGAL? That's as close to illegal as it gets, right?

How does an innovative and legal formation, or innovative and legal play, violate the "spirit" of the rules? Is this from the same school of complaints that Big Ben was from when he whined about the Patriots' defensive line shifting (legally) on the goal line? It's legal, but it's an "unwritten rule" not to do that, even though he said they'd seen the Pats do it all the time on tape and therefore should have seen it coming?

I mean, what is wrong with people?

 

[E5 Yaz]

I mean, what is wrong with people?

What is wrong with people is that despite knowing what such articles will say, they will read them anyway.

After which, they feel required to vent against them here -- which then leads to others to share in the venting.

It's childish. It's stupid. "They said bad things about my team. Why do they do that? Why do they do that to me????"

It's as if the patron saint of Patriots fans is Nancy Kerrigan

 

[SumnerH]

How does an innovative and legal formation, or innovative and legal play, violate the "spirit" of the rules?

Because it's deceptive! This is football, it's supposed to be macho and smash mouth, not tricky!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go call a play action pass for our team.

 

[Saints Rest]

I just don't understand this point, like, at all. A formation is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL. There is no "barely legal" formation. I mean, you are required to have seven men on the line of scrimmage. If you "only" have seven men on the line of scrimmage, is that "barely legal", because, after all, if just one of those guys took a step back, it would suddenly be ILLEGAL? That's as close to illegal as it gets, right?

How does an innovative and legal formation, or innovative and legal play, violate the "spirit" of the rules? Is this from the same school of complaints that Big Ben was from when he whined about the Patriots' defensive line shifting (legally) on the goal line? It's legal, but it's an "unwritten rule" not to do that, even though he said they'd seen the Pats do it all the time on tape and therefore should have seen it coming?

I mean, what is wrong with people?

Back in the late 90's, IIRC, a large part of the reason the Yankees did so well, was that they did something new: the Yankees decided to work the count early to get the starters out of games and get into the soft underbelly of the bullpen. Did people whine about it? Did anyone call it "barely legal?"
Ten years earlier, Tony LaRussa decided to create a bullpen that was about matchups and about single, clean innings for his closer (and later his setup guy). Did people (other than Goose Gossage) try to change the rules?
Why is it in football, the supposedly "macho sport" has so many whiners?

 

[koufax32]

Back in the late 90's, IIRC, a large part of the reason the Yankees did so well, was that they did something new: the Yankees decided to work the count early to get the starters out of games and get into the soft underbelly of the bullpen. Did people whine about it? Did anyone call it "barely legal?"
Ten years earlier, Tony LaRussa decided to create a bullpen that was about matchups and about single, clean innings for his closer (and later his setup guy). Did people (other than Goose Gossage) try to change the rules?
Why is it in football, the supposedly "macho sport" has so many whiners?

I think it's just football's version of "they play the game the right way!" Mike Tomlin, John Harbaugh, and the like are the football equivalent of Mike Matheny and his unwritten rules.

 

[snowmanny]

You mention the Yankees. Joe Girardi said he wanted the shift banned after employing it cost Nathan Eovaldi a shot at a no-hitter. In short everyone's a whining hypocrite.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/15389059/joe-girardi-new-york-yankees-ban-shift-baseball

Except us.

But in all seriousness, the level of sore-loser crybabiness of Colts, Ravens and Steelers fans/media/players/management (and you can throw Jets management in there too of course) is monumental.

Edit: prefer "historic" to "monumental."
Also, Jets may qualify in all categories.

 

[BigSoxFan]

We all may be a bunch of whiny babies but the Patriots players and coaches themselves have always been pretty good sports after a loss. Belichick has stormed off a couple times but otherwise will not make excuses. We all know Brady's mentality and politeness after games. Only time they really squawk, and I surely could be missing something, is when they do get royally screwed. Like Gronk in Carolina.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I just don't understand this point, like, at all. A formation is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL. There is no "barely legal" formation.

2 of the players in the formation had just turned 18 a week ago.

 

[reggiecleveland]

It isn't hard to figure out.

In some respect the Patriots are the Yankees. But baseball is different, especially its history. Lots of people hate the Yankees. But unlike the Yankees they do not have a long tradition that built a romantic, often exaggerated history. Baseball became popular through the newspaper and radio, both mediums were dominated by New York. If you did not live in one of the MLB cities you followed the Yankees or Giants, later the Dodgers, then the Giants moved to San Fran, the Dodgers to LA. So despite many Yankee haters, there are also tons of Yankee lovers spread out there. Baseball also tends to embrace dynasties.

But the Pats have grown one dominant stretch during the internet era where hate, and snark dominate and misinformation and echo chambers elect presidents. Colbert nailed it with truthiness. Who cares if the Pats really cheated, it sounds true enough and fits a narrative. Football's history is largely one of TV, that loves central casting characters. and a simple narrative. "Just win baby" "The Steel Curtain". The Pats win different ways, different years, ball control and defense, high scoring passing attack. And unlike Bill Walsh or Don Shula the genius that runs this show rather than talk at length in self-promotion disdains the media, and seems to hide the charisma he must certainly have. The fact the on the field leader is movie star handsome, married to an actual super model, that embraces fashion not nascar makes an easy target for the tailgating crew. The NFL has built themselves on the "any given Sunday" parity and it annoys many people that one team has overcome this often at the expense of New York teams or the anointed face of the league in the "Aw Shucks" admittedly funny and likable pitchman Peyton Manning. Imagine if the Pistons had kept beating the Bulls? Seriously Imagine if Joe Dumars had 4 rings and Michael Jordan 1 or none?

 

[wilked]

But the Pats have grown one dominant stretch The NFL has built themselves on the "any given Sunday" parity and it annoys many people that one team has overcome this often at the expense of New York teams

Can't use a different reference?

 

[RetractableRoof]

2 of the players in the formation had just turned 18 a week ago.

You owe me a keyboard. Lol

 

[BaseballJones]

2 of the players in the formation had just turned 18 a week ago.

Nicely done.

 

[InstaFace]

Patriots.com will be streaming live from Bob Kraft's house tonight at 7:00pm, for "All Access Live".

I'm expecting some serious Ron Burgundy decor.

 

[Curt S Loew]

Patriots.com will be streaming live from Bob Kraft's house tonight at 7:00pm, for "All Access Live".

I'm expecting some serious Ron Burgundy decor.

He does this for all the home AFCCG. Goodell came in 2014. I remember there was talk the Pats were gonna get off easy for deflategate due to their "chummy" relationship.

 

[koufax32]

He does this for all the home AFCCG. Goodell came in 2014. I remember there was talk the Pats were gonna get off easy for deflategate due to their "chummy" relationship.

"For all the AFCCG."

Our team has done this enough to create a long standing tradition. Should the league rename the game the Patriot Invitational?

 

[Curt S Loew]

"For all the AFCCG."

Our team has done this enough to create a long standing tradition. Should the league rename the game the Patriot Invitational?

I was thinking the same thing as I was typing it.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Back in the late 90's, IIRC, a large part of the reason the Yankees did so well, was that they did something new: the Yankees decided to work the count early to get the starters out of games and get into the soft underbelly of the bullpen. Did people whine about it? Did anyone call it "barely legal?"
Ten years earlier, Tony LaRussa decided to create a bullpen that was about matchups and about single, clean innings for his closer (and later his setup guy). Did people (other than Goose Gossage) try to change the rules?
Why is it in football, the supposedly "macho sport" has so many whiners?

Football has the most openly anti-intellectual fan base of the four major sports.
A lot of the audience actively wants to believe that if one team beat another then it must be tougher. That teams like the late 70's Bears and the recent incarnations of Jeff Fisher's perennial losers can routinely be "tougher" than the teams they're facing and yet almost always lose to them creates too much cognitive dissonance to be acknowledged.

 

[Leather]

Football has the most openly anti-intellectual fan base of the four major sports.
A lot of the audience actively wants to believe that if one team beat another then it must be tougher. That teams like the late 70's Bears and the recent incarnations of Jeff Fisher's perennial losers can routinely be "tougher" than the teams they're facing and yet almost always lose to them creates too much cognitive dissonance to be acknowledged.

The rampant anti-intellectualism explains, in no small part, why an expansion team from a northeast college town will never be embraced the way the Steelers or Cowboys were.

No other sport deals in socio-economic self-association like football. If baseball is about tradition, football is about social class. And at the end of the day, it's a lot easier to wrap yourself im the outdated notion that Pittsburgh is a rough and tumble industrial town with the team to match, while Boston is Harvard and libtards with the brainiac aloof coach, so go Pittsburgh.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

The rampant anti-intellectualism explains, in no small part, why an expansion team from a northeast college town will never be embraced the way the Steelers or Cowboys were.

No other sport deals in socio-economic self-association like football. If baseball is about tradition, football is about social class. And at the end of the day, it's a lot easier to wrap yourself im the outdated notion that Pittsburgh is a rough and tumble industrial town with the team to match, while Boston is Harvard and libtards with the brainiac aloof coach, so go Pittsburgh.

Disclaimer: I in no way mean to wrongly convey any personal issue with you by what I'm about to say. This reply is based on the words you typed, with sincerely no background behind it.

That out of the way, this is perhaps one of the douchiest posts I've seen in a bit.

If you think people hate the Pats because they come from Boston and Harvard and Libtards then you're either working with an agenda or you're a tad out of touch. You're also giving the average football fan far too much credit.

They hate the Pats because of scandal and media slant. Because they win and the media plays up narrative. Because they beat the parity system and have a pretty boy QB, a dickhead as a HC and an owner that wear Sketchers with his $1k suit and white collared shirt. Because they've been told to hate all that.

The Steelers and Cowboys got so much institutional love because of how broadcasts worked when they were the premiere franchises and they grew roots far outside their market - they were 'national' teams because they were shown everywhere, much like Notre Dame. They were embraced so much because they didn't have 24 hour media coverage highlighting every little thing and people trying to turn it into a scandal to get clicks. Things were simpler. It had nothing to do with social class or status or political slant and it still doesn't today.

Quite frankly if the Steelers or Cowboys (or any other team in any other of the four major sports) reeled off a run like the Pats over the last fifteen years, they wouldn't receive the love the teams from the 70s or 80s did. It doesn't work like that anymore. Boston being the town doesn't help because of the success of all our sports being so successful the last 15 years, our fans coming off as obnoxious, etc etc. but socio-economic self-association? Come on man. The people calling out in hate on the Pats aren't the type that still wistfully think of Pitt as a steel town. They're idiots watching hottakezzzz and those cross all genres.

I won't even touch the 'rampant anti-intellectualism' as that's like free cookies.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Disclaimer: I in no way mean to wrongly convey any personal issue with you by what I'm about to say. This reply is based on the words you typed, with sincerely no background behind it.

That out of the way, this is perhaps one of the douchiest posts I've seen in a bit.

If you think people hate the Pats because they come from Boston and Harvard and Libtards then you're either working with an agenda or you're a tad out of touch. You're also giving the average football fan far too much credit.

They hate the Pats because of scandal and media slant. Because they win and the media plays up narrative. Because they beat the parity system and have a pretty boy QB, a dickhead as a HC and an owner that wear Sketchers with his $1k suit and white collared shirt. Because they've been told to hate all that.

The Steelers and Cowboys got so much institutional love because of how broadcasts worked when they were the premiere franchises and they grew roots far outside their market - they were 'national' teams because they were shown everywhere, much like Notre Dame. They were embraced so much because they didn't have 24 hour media coverage highlighting every little thing and people trying to turn it into a scandal to get clicks. Things were simpler. It had nothing to do with social class or status or political slant and it still doesn't today.

Quite frankly if the Steelers or Cowboys (or any other team in any other of the four major sports) reeled off a run like the Pats over the last fifteen years, they wouldn't receive the love the teams from the 70s or 80s did. It doesn't work like that anymore. Boston being the town doesn't help because of the success of all our sports being so successful the last 15 years, our fans coming off as obnoxious, etc etc. but socio-economic self-association? Come on man. The people calling out in hate on the Pats aren't the type that still wistfully think of Pitt as a steel town. They're idiots watching hottakezzzz and those cross all genres.

I won't even touch the 'rampant anti-intellectualism' as that's like free cookies.

I agree with everything except for you said except for you insulting Kraft. He'd never wear sketchers. He's way too classy for that, only custom RKK Air Force ones for him!

You also forgot the triad of BB, Brady and Kraft love Trump.

 

[Devizier]

Just a note; the average national impression of the New England fanbase is probably closer to The Town than Good Will Hunting.

A good deal of the hate directed at Boston/New England fans has to do with the fact that our teams have collectively won 9 championships in the last 15 years.

 

[pappymojo]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/22/police-apprehend-boston-man-for-false-alarm-at-steelers-hotel/

25 year old caught pulling fire alarms at Steelers hotel room.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/22/police-apprehend-boston-man-for-false-alarm-at-steelers-hotel/

25 year old caught pulling fire alarms at Steelers hotel room.

Give that man a free ticket to the game today.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

nm

 

[Ferm Sheller]

nm

 

[KiltedFool]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/22/police-apprehend-boston-man-for-false-alarm-at-steelers-hotel/

25 year old caught pulling fire alarms at Steelers hotel room.

Which one of you was it?

 

[Ed Hillel]

Which one of you was it?

25, not 45.

 

[sodenj5]

Give that man a free ticket to the game today.

You guys really are the Yankees fans of the football universe. Good luck today.

 

[Ed Hillel]

You guys really are the Yankees fans of the football universe. Good luck today.

It's too bad nobody did that to the Dolphins before their game, it may have actually woken them up for kickoff.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

You guys really are the Yankees fans of the football universe. Good luck today.

If we support videotaping practices and signals, screwing with the opponent's headsets, and deflating footballs, then I certainly support the good ol' 3 am alarm.

It's too bad nobody did that to the Dolphins before their game, it may have actually woken them up for kickoff.

Boom.