Jax fans need to worry now

0 views
Skip to first unread message

cman

unread,
Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98
to
PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
jell (win divs, etc.)

Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
not.

Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.


Keith Huddleston

unread,
Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98
to
cman wrote:
>
> PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
> playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
> see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
> jell (win divs, etc.)
>

Wait a minute, wasn't this team a game away from the SB last year? Why
do they need 6+ games *and* the preseason to "jell"? Face it, by the
time this team "jells", the division will be well out of reach - heck
the playoffs might be out of reach...cman, better abandon "Team Titanic"
before its too late...

Humdeki

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to

>>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.<<

Mark my words, Pittsburgh will go 2-2 in their next 4 games. Losses in KC and
vs Green Bay. KC may not have done well today, BUT they DO NOT lose at home
(except in the playoffs).....
>>----------//>HuMDeKi ((Go Jags!!))

fat eagle

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>jell (win divs, etc.)
>

>Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
>precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
>out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
>faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
>not.
>

>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
>

so what if you make a run? The jags are getting ready to make a run
of their own, and they havent lost a game yet. I watched the end of
the game, and i didnt see any ability to pass from korshit.

George Lewis

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>jell (win divs, etc.)

So, when does this start? First you said that they would play poorly
for the first couple games, then it was a couple more, and recently I
saw a post of yours in the Steeler group that said they should start
to gell within the next three. Funny how you keep changing it.

>Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
>precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
>out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
>faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
>not.

Too bad he's not a better passer. How many weeks has he gone without a
TD pass? Three? It takes more than fancy running to make a QB.

>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.

But do you realize that it won't matter unless the Jags start losing?
At some point the Jags will have to have drop a few to let Pittsburgh
catch up (a win vs. Miami puts us up two games). If they don't, the
Steelers will be playing for a wildcard. The only definite losses I
see for the Jags are Denver and Minn. with the game in Pitts. being a
little iffy. Other than that, I think the remaining games on our
schedule are very winable.


reastlack

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>
>PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>jell (win divs, etc.)
>
>Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
>precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
>out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
>faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
>not.
>
>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
>

This is nothing like the Steeler loss at Jacksonville last year. Even
though they lost, it was remarkable how confident and almost smug the
Steeler fans and coaches were after that game. It was like they once again
knew that the Steelers were the team to beat in the division, which was
true. As a Jaguar fan, I remember that very, very well. I also remember
coming away from that game confident that we could compete for the
division, but knowing that the Steelers would still be the team standing in
our way - the "class of the division" to use a term from an earlier thread.
Now we know that was also true.

This year, though, I'm getting a different impression from the Steeler
woes. This game does nothing to change that. If the Steelers were getting
back on track, then they would have blown Cinci's weak defense away, Bettis
or no Bettis. For the first time in several years, I have the feeling that
the Steelers may not have all of the pieces in place to rebuild themselves
as a contender this season. Of course, that's just my impression, and I
could be wrong.

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another Jax fan who thinks Jax might go 16-0.

LOL!

PGH lost 2 games. Do you think Jax will go 15-1?????????????

George Lewis wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>
> >PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
> >playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
> >see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
> >jell (win divs, etc.)
>

> So, when does this start? First you said that they would play poorly
> for the first couple games, then it was a couple more, and recently I
> saw a post of yours in the Steeler group that said they should start
> to gell within the next three. Funny how you keep changing it.
>

Quit putting words in my mouth. I never qualified PGH as only needing 2 games
to jell. They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year, so they
are ahead of the game.

From what I saw Sunday, PGH is close to getting it together. They just need a
better game plan than coveing Pickens with single coverage. That was the
difference of the game. Even with Bettis out, PGH was man handling Cinci.
They are on their way, and if you understood football, you'd plainly see
that.


> >Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
> >precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
> >out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
> >faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
> >not.
>

> Too bad he's not a better passer. How many weeks has he gone without a
> TD pass? Three? It takes more than fancy running to make a QB.
>

He passed just fine. Again, do you even know what you are talking about?

> >Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
>

> But do you realize that it won't matter unless the Jags start losing?
>

LOL! Yea, Jax will go 16-0. LOL!


> At some point the Jags will have to have drop a few to let Pittsburgh
> catch up (a win vs. Miami puts us up two games). If they don't, the
> Steelers will be playing for a wildcard. The only definite losses I
> see for the Jags are Denver and Minn. with the game in Pitts. being a
> little iffy. Other than that, I think the remaining games on our
> schedule are very winable.

LOL! I'll hold you to this. Let it be known: George thinks Jax can only
lose to Den and Minn, no other team will beat them this year. LOL! I love
rookie fans!


cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
Another example of you just not knowing very much.

Bill Cowhers Steeler record in KC during the reg. season: 2-1.

So what were you saying again?

GB in PGH on MNF? I'll take PGH.

This is just another example of lack of knowledge. Cowher has a winning record
*IN* KC! That doesn't guarantee a win, but obviously you were lacking knowledge on
this one like usual

Humdeki wrote:

> >>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.<<
>

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
13-22 for 151 yards. That's 59% and he ran for another 103, 258 yards of
offense.

Next time you want to make a claim, try getting not to look the fool. Since
when is 59% passing with no ints a poor day?

PGH had some problems Sunday, but Kordell wasn't one of them. It was probably
his best day this season. And he is only getting better!

Deal with it, fear it, but don't deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fat eagle wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>
> >PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
> >playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
> >see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
> >jell (win divs, etc.)
> >

> >Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
> >precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
> >out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
> >faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
> >not.
> >

> >Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
> >
>

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
You know, instead of saying all thsi again, maybe you should just type "replay"
and I'll know it's the same old theme I hear every year about PGH.

The year they were 3-4 and went to the super bowl, I heard this too.

PGH was clearly better than Cinci, but using single coverage on Pickens will
change that in a heart beat, and it did.

reastlack wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
> >
> >PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
> >playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
> >see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
> >jell (win divs, etc.)
> >
> >Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
> >precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
> >out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
> >faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
> >not.
> >
> >Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
> >
>

L.Harbour

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>jell (win divs, etc.)
>
>Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.

You could be right c. Last year the Steelers went on a tear after losing
the Monday night game to Jacksonville. The race was very interesting and
went down to the wire. Things will get interesting again this year. The
Jaguars have a three game road trip coming up and there's a chance they
could go 1-2 on that trip. In fact, before the end of the season, I won't
be shocked to see the Steelers take the division lead for awhile.

The key this year is that the Jaguars are winning the games they wouldn't
have won last year, and will make a run of their own after the three game
road trip. That's when the Jags play 5 of 8 at home, where they're 16-2
over since 1996. Also, there's only one team (Green Bay) that has a better
record over the last 26 regular season games.

In short, even if the Steelers do pull ahead for awhile, it probably won't
be enough this year.

L.


cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
Hahhahahah

Yea, and Jax will go 16-0!

LOL!

Keith Huddleston wrote:

> cman wrote:
> >
> > PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
> > playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
> > see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
> > jell (win divs, etc.)
> >
>

> Wait a minute, wasn't this team a game away from the SB last year? Why
> do they need 6+ games *and* the preseason to "jell"? Face it, by the
> time this team "jells", the division will be well out of reach - heck
> the playoffs might be out of reach...cman, better abandon "Team Titanic"
> before its too late...
>

> > Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
> > precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
> > out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
> > faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
> > not.
> >

Cheryl

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:27:19 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

<snip>

>Quit putting words in my mouth. I never qualified PGH as only needing 2 games
>to jell. They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year, so they
>are ahead of the game.

<snip>

uh, I just randomly picked a couple years to verify your statement,


"They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year,"

1996, Steelers started 3 - 1.

Not a pot shot, cman. It's called backing up statements with facts.

--
Go Jaguars!
http://users.southeast.net/~cheryl


Humdeki

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to

151 yards passing is good for a QB? No TDs passing is good for a QB? 103
yards rushing is good for a running-back, but last time I checked, Kordell was
the guy that was supposed to throw it, not run it. Pittsburgh is looking more
and more like a one-dimensional team each week....CMAN, you are the only one
saying JAX will go 16-0...

>>13-22 for 151 yards. That's 59% and he ran for another 103, 258 yards of
offense.

Next time you want to make a claim, try getting not to look the fool. Since
when is 59% passing with no ints a poor day?

PGH had some problems Sunday, but Kordell wasn't one of them. It was probably
his best day this season. And he is only getting better!<<


>>----------//>HuMDeKi ((Go Jags!!))

Humdeki

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to

>>Another example of you just not knowing very much.

Bill Cowhers Steeler record in KC during the reg. season: 2-1.

So what were you saying again?

GB in PGH on MNF? I'll take PGH.

This is just another example of lack of knowledge. Cowher has a winning record
*IN* KC! That doesn't guarantee a win, but obviously you were lacking knowledge
on
this one like usual<<

CMAN, didn't you just make a list of the "best" teams in the NFL?? Wasn't KC
on it? WAKE UP!! You admitted KC was a better team than Pittsburgh- now
because I said Pittsburgh will lose, you change your mind???
>>----------//>HuMDeKi ((Go Jags!!))

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
I don't know if PGH will win in KC, but they have a shot at it. And if they lose in
KC does that mean KC is better? What if the game was in PGH? Is CInci better than
PGH? I doubt it.

This is just another example of you not knowing your stuff.

Too boring to have a discussion with right now. You need to learn a bit more.

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
Wait a minute, you don't get it. I said they started ahead of the game, meaning
they started better than 2-2. If all you are going to do is support my point,
that's not much fun. Go back to the post and you will see this point is fairly
clear.

cman

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
That's it. This is the last time I'm taking time to educate you.

Humdeki wrote:

> 151 yards passing is good for a QB? No TDs passing is good for a QB?

Then Brunell had some bad games then, huh? That's what you must be saying. He's
averaging 216 yards, with some of his games around 150 yards passing. Did he stink
those games then? Or is it the QBs job to make the offense score, whether it's
with passing or running or whatever?


> 103
> yards rushing is good for a running-back, but last time I checked, Kordell was
> the guy that was supposed to throw it, not run it.

By who's definition? Is there a rule book that says what the QB is supposed to do?
When Brunell runs well, you brag about it, now it's a bad thing when Kordell does
it huh?

> Pittsburgh is looking more
> and more like a one-dimensional team each week....CMAN, you are the only one
> saying JAX will go 16-0...
>

Nope, because many have stated PGH can't possibly catch up to Jax being 2 games
out. That means they are expecting Jax do go at least 15-1. They'd have to to make
the above true.

Enough of you. You don't get it

reastlack

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote in article
<36222156...@ncinter.net>...

> You know, instead of saying all thsi again, maybe you should just type
"replay"
> and I'll know it's the same old theme I hear every year about PGH.
>
> The year they were 3-4 and went to the super bowl, I heard this too.
>

Like I said, it's just my impression so far. I have as much respect for
Cowher as anybody, and if anybody can turn the Steelers around it's him.
I'm not saying that the Steelers aren't a good team, or anything like that,
just that I don't see them getting to the level where they can get to the
super bowl this year.

fat eagle

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:31:12 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>13-22 for 151 yards. That's 59% and he ran for another 103, 258 yards of
>offense.
>
>Next time you want to make a claim, try getting not to look the fool. Since
>when is 59% passing with no ints a poor day?
>
>PGH had some problems Sunday, but Kordell wasn't one of them. It was probably
>his best day this season. And he is only getting better!

5 yds a pass. Its tough to get 60% when youre passing a yard past the
los every time. right.

>Deal with it, fear it, but don't deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>fat eagle wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>> >playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>> >see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>> >jell (win divs, etc.)
>> >

>> >Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
>> >precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
>> >out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
>> >faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
>> >not.
>> >
>> >Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
>> >
>>

George Lewis

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:27:19 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Another Jax fan who thinks Jax might go 16-0.
>
>LOL!
>
>PGH lost 2 games. Do you think Jax will go 15-1?????????????
>

>George Lewis wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:13:15 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >PGH loss today, just like when they lost to Jax last year after out
>> >playing them. The thing you people need to worry about is that you can
>> >see PGH starting to jell, and we all know what happen when they start to
>> >jell (win divs, etc.)
>>

>> So, when does this start? First you said that they would play poorly
>> for the first couple games, then it was a couple more, and recently I
>> saw a post of yours in the Steeler group that said they should start
>> to gell within the next three. Funny how you keep changing it.
>>
>

>Quit putting words in my mouth. I never qualified PGH as only needing 2 games
>to jell. They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year, so they
>are ahead of the game.
>

>From what I saw Sunday, PGH is close to getting it together. They just need a
>better game plan than coveing Pickens with single coverage. That was the
>difference of the game. Even with Bettis out, PGH was man handling Cinci.
>They are on their way, and if you understood football, you'd plainly see
>that.

They might be on the way, but it may come too late. I seriously doubt
that the Jags will fold.

>> >Hats off to Cincy, but they won't figure in this year's div. This is the
>> >precise kind of loss PGH has always built from, and anyone who saw KS
>> >out there blowing by tacklers like no one else can do (he is *much*
>> >faster than Brunell), knows PGH is starting to get it together, loss or
>> >not.
>>

>> Too bad he's not a better passer. How many weeks has he gone without a
>> TD pass? Three? It takes more than fancy running to make a QB.
>>
>
>He passed just fine. Again, do you even know what you are talking about?

Really? He didn't play well enough to win.

>> >Mark my words, this is the beginning of a run! Remember I said that.
>>

>> But do you realize that it won't matter unless the Jags start losing?
>>
>
>LOL! Yea, Jax will go 16-0. LOL!

*sigh* Try to follow along here:

If the Jags keep up their present pace, a Pittsburgh comeback won't
matter. The Steelers may need them to drop several games in order to
regain the lead.

>
>> At some point the Jags will have to have drop a few to let Pittsburgh
>> catch up (a win vs. Miami puts us up two games). If they don't, the
>> Steelers will be playing for a wildcard. The only definite losses I
>> see for the Jags are Denver and Minn. with the game in Pitts. being a
>> little iffy. Other than that, I think the remaining games on our
>> schedule are very winable.
>
> LOL! I'll hold you to this. Let it be known: George thinks Jax can only
>lose to Den and Minn, no other team will beat them this year. LOL! I love
>rookie fans!

I didn't mean it that way. I meant that the Jags are _capable_ of
winning the rest and that 13 or 14 wins are possible. But I'm not
going to try to explain this to you any further. You don't seem able
to understand without taking things out of context. But what else is
new?

JAGS#1

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:17:35 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>Wait a minute, you don't get it. I said they started ahead of the game, meaning
>they started better than 2-2.

wrong you said, and i quote

"They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year, so they
are ahead of the game"

so you see it says they started every year. that means every. once
again it is you who look foolish.

P.S. cheri i want to enter the rename cman with my entry: TFBman.
stands for troll flamebaiter man.

>If all you are going to do is support my point,
>that's not much fun. Go back to the post and you will see this point is fairly
>clear.
>
>Cheryl wrote:
>

>> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:27:19 -0400, cman <chuc...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>>

>> <snip>


>>
>> >Quit putting words in my mouth. I never qualified PGH as only needing 2 games
>> >to jell. They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year, so they
>> >are ahead of the game.
>>

>> <snip>
>>
>> uh, I just randomly picked a couple years to verify your statement,

>> "They have started 2-2 every year under Cowher but this year,"
>>

>> 1996, Steelers started 3 - 1.
>>
>> Not a pot shot, cman. It's called backing up statements with facts.
>>
>> --
>> Go Jaguars!
>> http://users.southeast.net/~cheryl
>
>
>


"ignorance is niether accepted nor tolerated"

JAGS#1

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages