ADVERTISEMENT

50th Anniversary of the Immaculate Reception…

...but I’m with you on the 75th anniversary uniforms. That was a great throwback uniform.
Nothing against the block numbers, but that 75th Anniversary uni was a great throwback, partially because it's actually significantly different from the current unis, while still traditional, you look at pictures from the
60s and they're wearing those. Some people want to say they don't like those because the team sucked when they wore them,you could also argue the team won the Super Bowl a year when they wore them, 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725
Another good throwback would be this one...

original.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725
Nothing against the block numbers, but that 75th Anniversary uni was a great throwback, partially because it's actually significantly different from the current unis, while still traditional, you look at pictures from the
60s and they're wearing those. Some people want to say they don't like those because the team sucked when they wore them,you could also argue the team won the Super Bowl a year when they wore them, 2008.
I can agree with that perspective. Ideally, I would like them to wear the block numbers full time simply because I find that more aesthetically pleasing. However, I hope they take advantage of the NFL’s relaxed helmet stance and bring back the yellow shells soon enough as a throwback. I’d rather have those than the color rush, though that might not be a popular opinion.

I almost said that it coincided with a great era of Steelers football. When I think of those uniforms, this is the first thing that comes to mind:
James+HARRISON+plaque+un+joueur+des+Cleveland+Browns+(1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt79
Andy Russell looked good in any Steeler's uniform!
He tells the story about how Chuck Noll said that "Most of you will be gone soon" when he first met the team, then when they won the Super Bowl, he was one of 7 that was still there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Parkview57
The ball definitely wasn't trapped as replays show him catching it shin high unless it short-hopped several inches, off-frame which would've A: been more likely to have been seen and B: would've been indicated by the time it would've taken to short hop. It was a clean catch. The ball hitting Fuqua will never be known. Obviously, it could've very lightly grazed his jersey before or after contact with Tatum but no way of judging that exists and it really doesn't matter as there is no way that call would've ever been made and it never was called that way, even at the time. That wasn't the spirit of the rule and nobody but the Raiders and their degenerate fans ever gave a thought about the rule in that way.

Even the clip of Villapiano is a bit of a stretch as he clearly had no shot at making the play. (Although it was a clip as it defined at the time)

Also, the Steelers get ripped over the 78' AFC Champ game vs the Oilers over Renfroe's no-TD call. He clearly didn't catch the ball cleanly. The camera view shows him cradling the ball with one hand as he tries to touch both feet in and he turns back to the camera as he gets the second foot down, carrying the ball like a loaf of bread in the other arm. He was clearly bobbling the ball after he lift his first foot. No catch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happjack
Even the clip of Villapiano is a bit of a stretch as he clearly had no shot at making the play. (Although it was a clip as it defined at the time)

Also, the Steelers get ripped over the 78' AFC Champ game vs the Oilers over Renfroe's no-TD call. He clearly didn't catch the ball cleanly. The camera view shows him cradling the ball with one hand as he tries to touch both feet in and he turns back to the camera as he gets the second foot down, carrying the ball like a loaf of bread in the other arm. He was clearly bobbling the ball after he lift his first foot. No catch.

I love the interview with the Raider players, Madden and Al Davis. It was a fairly old clip (Maybe occurred 10 years after the immaculate reception?), but they were all still bitter about it.
 
What is funny, is at least the first two Super Bowls, Roy Gerela and Bobby Walden (K and P) sucked. They were mediocre at best. Bahr and Colquitt were much better in the second two Super Bowls.
Walden and Gerela were both very good those 1st 2 years, borderline probowl. Swann was a record setting return man in his rookie year and Blount, Edward's and Pearson also were all above average as was the coverage units. Then they both got old and held on too long. Colquitt was good but injury prone. Bahr just flat sucked and likely cost the Steelers a shot at #5 in 80' by blowing a couple games.
 
Walden and Gerela were both very good those 1st 2 years, borderline probowl. Swann was a record setting return man in his rookie year and Blount, Edward's and Pearson also were all above average as was the coverage units. Then they both got old and held on too long. Colquitt was good but injury prone. Bahr just flat sucked and likely cost the Steelers a shot at #5 in 80' by blowing a couple games.


Just to show how kicking has changed over the years, in 74 Gerela made the pro bowl while making only 69% of his kicks with a long of 45 yards. He was 4-8 on field goals 40 yards or longer. In 75 he made 81% of his field goals, but with a long of 42 yards. And that 42 yarder was the only field goal he made all season of 40 yards or longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittmeister
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT