Everyone always criticized me on the old board whenever I'd say that the Steelers were in trouble or that they'd be in a rebuild or that they're struggling, but it looks like the time has finally come.

It was always that the Steelers just reloaded and never were in a rebuild mode, but now even experts are using the "rebuild" term.

They traded Pickens for basically nothing, meaning that their receiving room has pretty much a bunch of nobodies, and Pat at TE.

Do they think Will Howard will be the next Tom Brady-style late round pick to take them to the promised land?

In writing for Behind The Steel Curtain, Jarret Bailey thinks that the Steelers need to "take their medicine" and start a rebuild, but how long would that take?

That was also written in January, so would his opinion change now? Will Will Howard be the savior?

Will he get killed behind that offensive line?

I'm going to wait until they have a losing season before I ring the "re-build" bell.

(05-07-2025, 02:52 PM)Stewy Wrote: I'm going to wait until they have a losing season before I ring the "re-build" bell.

Somehow they always seem to put together at least a 9-8 (9-7 before 17 games) but they haven't won a playoff game since the 2016(?) season and and it just seems like the Steeler way isn't working much anymore because players will need to start seeing success before they choose Pit over other teams.

I wasn't even going to say rebuild because, like I said, every time I said that, they always seemed to come through, but then I started seeing "experts" say it and the writing seems like it's on the wall.

(05-07-2025, 03:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Somehow they always seem to put together at least a 9-8 (9-7 before 17 games) but they haven't won a playoff game since the 2016(?) season and and it just seems like the Steeler way isn't working much anymore because players will need to start seeing success before they choose Pit over other teams.

I wasn't even going to say rebuild because, like I said, every time I said that, they always seemed to come through, but then I started seeing "experts" say it and the writing seems like it's on the wall.

They were 9-8 only once in 2022.
They were 10-7 the last two years.
Before 17 games they were 9-7 in 2009.

Why provide false information leave that for the politicians and media on the P&R forum.

(05-08-2025, 10:10 AM)BengalYankee Wrote:
They were 9-8 only once in 2022.
They were 10-7 the last two years.
Before 17 games they were 9-7 in 2009.

Why provide false information leave that for the politicians and media on the P&R forum.

I can’t believe I’m coming to Brad’s defense on this but … do you understand how the expression “at least” works? 

(05-08-2025, 12:48 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: I can’t believe I’m coming to Brad’s defense on this but … do you understand how the expression “at least” works? 

I was confused by his post 

Can't believe I'm typing this, but thanks for defending me!

(05-08-2025, 12:48 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: I can’t believe I’m coming to Brad’s defense on this but … do you understand how the expression “at least” works? 

Do you understand the expression "they always seem to put together" works?


Read slowly "they always ..."


They were 9-8 only once in 2022.


They were 9-7 in 2009.



Now go back to school.


Hoping they go 1-16 this year.

(05-08-2025, 01:15 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:
Do you understand the expression "they always seem to put together" works?


Read slowly "they always ..."


They were 9-8 only once in 2022.


They were 9-7 in 2009.



Now go back to school.


Hoping they go 1-16 this year.

So … in your mind “they always” trumps “at least”?  Have you tried interpreting the two phrases in conjunction with each other (which he obviously intended)? 

Let me break it down for you: 

“They always” - you have already demonstrated you know what that means.  Congrats!  
“Put together at least 9-8 or 9-7” - this means that they achieve the stated record or better.  And, just in case you need extra help understanding the “or better” part, it means that 10-7 counts as an example of “at least 9-8”.  So does 12-4, 11-5, and 13-3, all of which they’ve achieved in the last 20 years.  

Sooo … when you put the two phrases together, “always putting together at least” means achieving what comes after that, plus any record better than that.  And seeing as how they’ve gone 9-8 (or 9-7) or better in 10 of the last 11 (and 16 of the last 20) seasons, with each of the exceptions just barely missing the mark at 8-8, I’d say that “they always put together at least 9-8 or 9-7” is a fair (if not perfect) way of expressing the idea he was trying to get across.

See you in school.       

(Yesterday, 10:48 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: So … in your mind “they always” trumps “at least”?  Have you tried interpreting the two phrases in conjunction with each other (which he obviously intended)? 

Let me break it down for you: 

“They always” - you have already demonstrated you know what that means.  Congrats!  
“Put together at least 9-8 or 9-7” - this means that they achieve the stated record or better.  And, just in case you need extra help understanding the “or better” part, it means that 10-7 counts as an example of “at least 9-8”.  So does 12-4, 11-5, and 13-3, all of which they’ve achieved in the last 20 years.  

Sooo … when you put the two phrases together, “always putting together at least” means achieving what comes after that, plus any record better than that.  And seeing as how they’ve gone 9-8 (or 9-7) or better in 10 of the last 11 (and 16 of the last 20) seasons, with each of the exceptions just barely missing the mark at 8-8, I’d say that “they always put together at least 9-8 or 9-7” is a fair (if not perfect) way of expressing the idea he was trying to get across.

See you in school.       

I am not going to play with you going down a rabbit hole.

1. "They always" means just that They always. 


2. They were 9-8 only once in 2022.



3. They were 9-7 in 2009.


4. That's it, any other quips is plain reta****.


5. 10-7 does not count as 9-8. 


You can whine all you f'n want. I don't care about your stupid Shit House Stealers. 
I wish they go winless for all I fuc**** care. 
I wish they fired Tomlin last year.


All I care is about facts and I will put up my Legal, Engineering/Computer Science. MBA degrees and a host of IT Certifications with anything you have achieved.


P.S. I teach in the Legal and IT world, so I will see you in school.   

(Yesterday, 12:36 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: I am not going to play with you going down a rabbit hole.

1. "They always" means just that They always. 


2. They were 9-8 only once in 2022.



3. They were 9-7 in 2009.


4. That's it, any other quips is plain reta****.


5. 10-7 does not count as 9-8. 


You can whine all you f'n want. I don't care about your stupid Shit House Stealers. 
I wish they go winless for all I fuc**** care. 
I wish they fired Tomlin last year.


All I care is about facts and I will put up my Legal, Engineering/Computer Science. MBA degrees and a host of IT Certifications with anything you have achieved.


P.S. I teach in the Legal and IT world, so I will see you in school.   

Going down a rabbit hole?  The concept of “at least” is a pretty simple one.  Unless you’re trolling me about not comprehending that, I feel sorry for your students.  

By a strict definition of “always”, you’re technically right, but not because of the examples you’re offering.  They finished 8-8 four times in the last twenty years which means that, no, they did not always finish at least 9-8 or 9-7.  But the times they finished better than that absolutely count as “at least”, and I’m not sure why you’re not getting that.  

(Yesterday, 01:17 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Going down a rabbit hole?  The concept of “at least” is a pretty simple one.  Unless you’re trolling me about not comprehending that, I feel sorry for your students.  

By a strict definition of “always”, you’re technically right, but not because of the examples you’re offering.  They finished 8-8 four times in the last twenty years which means that, no, they did not always finish at least 9-8 or 9-7.  But the times they finished better than that absolutely count as “at least”, and I’m not sure why you’re not getting that.  

I don't think you are in the league of any my students and would not be able to sit in any of the classes that I teach.   

(Yesterday, 02:37 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: I don't think you are in the league of any my students and would not be able to sit in any of the classes that I teach.   

At least I know what “at least” means … 

(Yesterday, 03:49 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: At least I know what “at least” means … 

Do you understand the expression "they always seem to put together" works?



Read slowly "they always ..."


They were 9-8 only once in 2022.


They were 9-7 in 2009.

Wonder when/if they pull the kirk cousins trigger and just leave Rodgers out in the cold

(Yesterday, 04:14 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:

Do you understand the expression "they always seem to put together" works?



Read slowly "they always ..."


They were 9-8 only once in 2022.


They were 9-7 in 2009.

Ask any of your students and they will tell you that “at least 9-8” means:

9-8
10-7
11-6
12-5
13-4
14-3
15-2
16-1
Or even
17-0

And “at least 9-7” means:
9-7
10-6
11-5
12-4
13-3
14-2
15-1
Or even
16-0

Seriously, are you one of those people who struggled with the concept of ‘greater than or equal to’ in math class?

(05-07-2025, 02:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Everyone always criticized me on the old board whenever I'd say that the Steelers were in trouble or that they'd be in a rebuild or that they're struggling, but it looks like the time has finally come.

It was always that the Steelers just reloaded and never were in a rebuild mode, but now even experts are using the "rebuild" term.

They traded Pickens for basically nothing, meaning that their receiving room has pretty much a bunch of nobodies, and Pat at TE.

Do they think Will Howard will be the next Tom Brady-style late round pick to take them to the promised land?

In writing for Behind The Steel Curtain, Jarret Bailey thinks that the Steelers need to "take their medicine" and start a rebuild, but how long would that take?

That was also written in January, so would his opinion change now? Will Will Howard be the savior?

Will he get killed behind that offensive line?

They traded for DK Metcalf so their WR room isn’t quite all nobodies.

Hopefully along with their D it’s enough to keep them around the 9-8 mark (and take some games off rivals other than ourselves) rather than put them in a prime position to draft an actual QB.

They’ve stocked up on picks for 2026 though with a third for Pickens and 4 comp picks (that Dan Moore contract was crazy) so it could be a quick turnaround.

(Yesterday, 04:20 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Wonder when/if they pull the kirk cousins trigger and just leave Rodgers out in the cold

I was trying to decide which would be better for us and I couldn’t decide.

Obviously Rodgers has the better history and he won’t cost as much, but is he washed up?

Does Cousins have anything left