PDA

View Full Version : Warner hesitates to call Steelers a Dynasty...yet...


Steelcitygal87
02-06-2009, 01:13 PM
http://www.comcast.net/articles/sports-nfl/20090206/Pro.Bowl-Dynasty/


KAPOLEI, Hawaii (AP) The Super Bowl champions have no problem using the word ``dynasty'' when referring to their storied franchise and record six titles.

``We've got a new saying, 'Welcome to Sixburgh,''' Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Farrior said following Pro Bowl practice Thursday.

Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner, on the other hand, isn't as fast to use the D-word when referring to the Steelers, even though he acknowledges their excellence.

``I think dynasty is such a hard word in this day and age because when you think of dynasty, you think of dominance over everybody else,'' Warner said. ``Maybe dynasty in games won or titles won, but I think there's just great parity around this league.''

As an example of the balance in the NFL today, Warner pointed to the start of the playoffs where he said no one had any idea who would be in the Super Bowl.

And many, if not everyone outside of Arizona, counted the Cardinals out.

``Yeah, they separated themselves and won the games and won the championship, but I look at dynasty different now,'' Warner said. ``I don't know if there are any dynasties, or I think it's hard to come by.

``I think if they're going to be one, they're going to have to dominate a little bit more over the next couple years. But you can't take anything away from what they've done over the course of the last few and how well they played.''

The Steelers have won two of the last four Super Bowls. Before that, they appeared in just one in a span of 25 years, losing to the Dallas Cowboys in 1996.

They also have a long list of players in the Hall of Fame.

Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald has no qualms about the word. He says the Steelers ``definitely'' qualify as one.

``When you think of dynasty, you think of Troy Aikmans, Emmitt Smiths, Michael Irvins,'' Fitzgerald said. ``You look at Pittsburgh the same way. They got the Hines Wards, Ben Roethlisbergers, Troy Polamalus. Guys like that have been there and really embody what that city represents - that toughness and never-say-die attitude and that was proven again last Sunday.''

Farrior said the Steelers' thrilling victory over the Cardinals that claimed Pittsburgh's sixth Lombardi Trophy, ``definitely put a mark in the NFL.'' They had been tied with Dallas and San Francisco at five titles.

But both of those teams haven't appeared in the Super Bowl since the mid-1990s. So are they considered dynasties?

The philosophical Polamalu, a member of the Steelers' last two championship teams, said he's thought about what the latest victory means, but won't fully understand until later on.

``When the season does end, you're able to put into perspective the legacy of the Pittsburgh Steelers as a whole, not in terms of a dynasty in the last few years,'' he said. ``When you can put it in that perspective, it's pretty amazing, when you separate yourself in having six and everybody else having five.''

Polamalu added that the ``personality of the teams has never really changed throughout the existence of the Steelers.''

To Farrior, all he's focused on right now is not about whether others consider the Steelers a dynasty, but that he's in Hawaii, celebrating with two of his teammates, and enjoying the warm Hawaiian sunshine.

``We embrace it all together. That's what Steelers football is all about,'' he said. ``We love being part of the history that's going on.''

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
02-06-2009, 01:19 PM
I want to see how our D perfroms next year.... If we can win another trophy next year then I will say its a dynasty......

But looking at the fact that we won it all with the toughest schedule in the league.... Man i cant wait till next year.... (we have the 29th ranked schedule)

Morgan
02-06-2009, 01:24 PM
One more in the next 3 years with a large selection of players from 05 and 08 and it's a dynasty on par with the 90s Cowboys and the early 00's Patriots. 2 more in the next 3 years and it's a rival to the 70s Steelers and 80's 49ers.

RoethlisBURGHer
02-06-2009, 01:26 PM
Dynasty? No.

Right now, the term dynasty is defined as winning three Super Bowl titles in a relativley short amount of time.

Right now, and I hate typing this, the 2000's dynasty is the New England Patriots. Even with thier cheating, they still get the title because they won those Super Bowls.

Now if we win the next two Super Bowls, we overtake them. If we win just XLIV, I would say we become 1b. because they won thier three in a span of four years, we won ours in a span of six.

But I think we can still overtake them, especially if we win XLIV because we can say we didn't lose a Super Bowl...and four in the decade would definatly put us over them.

tony hipchest
02-06-2009, 01:36 PM
the steelers are the 1st and original sb era dynasty so unless you have 4 you dont have a true "dynasty" as initially defined.

patriots and cowboys are as much as a dynasty as the 90's bills are.

and patfans can suck it.

stlrz fan
02-06-2009, 01:41 PM
One year at a time.

westcoastransplant
02-06-2009, 01:41 PM
You can leave the dynasty talk for the history books. We were a dynasty in the 70's. Right now, 2 Super Bowls in 4 years and a chance at being competitive every single season is good enough for me. If we win next season, then maybe the dynasty talk can add a little water.

IndyColtsSBXLI
02-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Pats are a Dynasty, the Steelers of this decade are not, win another SB then yeah

tony hipchest
02-06-2009, 01:53 PM
Pats are a Dynasty, the Steelers of this decade are not, win another SB then yeahthey havent won 4. that would be like calling the john elway broncos a dynasty.

i know it sucks for them, but the steelers set the bar high.

IndyColtsSBXLI
02-06-2009, 01:55 PM
they havent won 4. that would be like calling the john elway broncos a dynasty.

i know it sucks for them, but the steelers set the bar high.

3 SBs = dynasty

stlrtruck
02-06-2009, 02:06 PM
3 SBs = dynasty

By whose standards? Yours? If you want to clear the path for the cheatriots* go right ahead but I can tell you now, there's no room for that train to pass through Steelers country - especially considering the looming circumstances and situation upon which those games were won.

In a lot of fan's minds, not just Steelers fans, those titles will be tainted until full disclosure is had from all parties about what was involved. All Goodell did was sweep the dirt under the rug, you may not be able to see the dirt, but it's still there!

As for the Steelers being a Dynasty, not yet, they've got some big shoes to fill and it's from other team's that set the precedent - the patriots* certainly aren't the standard!

steelreserve
02-06-2009, 02:11 PM
Pats are a Dynasty, the Steelers of this decade are not, win another SB then yeah

I think you can have a dynasty with two Super Bowl wins if you don't have a gay quarterback.

Or one that lost more often than he won, like Elway.

7SteelGal43
02-06-2009, 02:14 PM
:jerkit:

X-Terminator
02-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Sorry boys and girls, but the Steelers are not a dynasty yet. In between the 2 SB wins was an 8-8 non-playoff season and a first-round playoff exit. Not exactly "dynasty-esque." To me, to be considered a dynasty, a team has to be there year in and year out, making the playoffs and knocking on the door of the SB. Now if the Steelers win the SB next season, then I'd consider them a dynasty...barely. That 8-8 season would still stick in my craw a bit, though.

Pi Kapp Steeler
02-06-2009, 02:33 PM
3 SBs = dynasty

3 SBs*

Fixed it for ya. :thumbsup:

Jackal
02-06-2009, 03:21 PM
3 SBs*

Fixed it for ya. :thumbsup:



Ha! :chuckle:

Does anyone know how the Cheatriots are looking with free agency looming? They can't afford to keep this line-up together forever.

IndyColtsSBXLI
02-06-2009, 03:57 PM
I hate the Pats as next as the next man, but c'mon they earned them SBs

Jackal
02-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Yeah, their MVP, Memorex, put up record numbers those 3 years.:blah::blah:

OX1947
02-06-2009, 04:21 PM
There's no such thing as dynasties anymore. Especially in the NFL. Way too much turnover in sports these day to call a team a dynasty. Even the Niners in the 80's wasn't really a dynasty. The Cowboys in the 90's may have been but free agency and drugs ruined that and you cant really call a team a dyansty when they have only one more super bowl then the next team in that 10 year span. I believe the last true dynasty was the Steelers of the 70's. Almost 95% of their roster was the same for a a 10 year period. Team of the 2000's is more like the title that is correct. And if the Steelers win next year, they will have to share that with the Pats.

roethlisbergerUK
02-06-2009, 04:23 PM
Let the Steeler football do the talking,Let everyone say this or say that about us or what we are or are,nt,We know what the team have done and what their capable of so let,s hope it happens and silence em all....

T&B fan
02-06-2009, 04:28 PM
I hate the Pats as next as the next man, but c'mon they earned them SBs

no ,no they cheated thats not earned thats stolen ... all the wins from them yrs should be removed from the books and a * should be in place of there name for the SB ...

Dino 6 Rings
02-06-2009, 04:33 PM
3 SBs = dynasty

Really? So the Redskins are a "dynasty"?

Dino 6 Rings
02-06-2009, 04:38 PM
I think 4 is true Dynasty.

We got 4 in 6 years. 9ers got 4 in 8 years.

Redskins got 3 in 9 years

Raiders got 3 in 7 years.

Dino 6 Rings
02-06-2009, 04:38 PM
cowboys and pats both pulled off the 3 in 4 years deal.

HometownGal
02-06-2009, 04:44 PM
I can't disagree with Warner here - I do not believe the Steelers have earned that "dynasty" title just yet and quite honestly, the "dynasty" headline is just a paper title. The Steelers have won 2 out of the last 4, were the first to get to 6, will be the first to get to 7 and have a core group of guys that, imho, will be competitive for seasons to come.

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn about the dynasty title - I'd much rather see the Rooneys having to buy another trophy case to display their next set of Lombardis. :tt03:

JoeLion
02-06-2009, 04:47 PM
I agree, win a 3rd in the next 2 years and you cna definetly use the D word when referring to the Steelers for this decade. Nothing would be better then to knock NE Pats off of that throne!

T&B fan
02-06-2009, 05:06 PM
if I am right no one has won 3 in a row ?? 3 in 4 yrs is prity good ( pats cheated so no wins for them ) so that leves us and cowboys as the only true dynastys... 4 in 6 is tuff to do 2 in a row and 2 yrs off then 2 more wins make us a Dynasty then .now not yet

steelerdave1969
02-06-2009, 05:33 PM
The Orginization Known As The Pittsburgh Steelers Is A Dynasty By Far Better Than Any In The NFL. Just look at the last 40 years from the time that Chuck Knoll took over and two other coaches than himself have been named Steelers head coach.

Enough Said:hatsoff:

steelerdave1969
02-06-2009, 05:36 PM
I agree, win a 3rd in the next 2 years and you cna definetly use the D word when referring to the Steelers for this decade. Nothing would be better then to knock NE Pats off of that throne!

When the Patriots match what the Steelers, Cowboys and even the Niners with the 5 or more super bowls as a franchise then you can mention them in this conversation, until then leave them where they lay...

Muppet13
02-06-2009, 05:37 PM
He's just jealous.

Preacher
02-06-2009, 05:58 PM
the steelers are the 1st and original sb era dynasty so unless you have 4 you dont have a true "dynasty" as initially defined.

patriots and cowboys are as much as a dynasty as the 90's bills are.

and patfans can suck it.

You are dead on right.

4 in 6-- I will even say 4-7.

However, I am wondering if switching coaches negates that first one, especially when there is two years between them.

Preacher
02-06-2009, 06:02 PM
if I am right no one has won 3 in a row ?? 3 in 4 yrs is prity good ( pats cheated so no wins for them ) so that leves us and cowboys as the only true dynastys... 4 in 6 is tuff to do 2 in a row and 2 yrs off then 2 more wins make us a Dynasty then .now not yet


I gotta give it to the 49ers too.. 4 in 9 years isn't bad.

So I guess I will say 4 in 9 is dynasty material.

I believe there are only 2 dynasties in the NFL.

The Steelers of the 70's and the 49'ers of the 80's. Now, hopefully, the Steelers of the 00's.

crosby87penguins
02-06-2009, 06:24 PM
Keep in mind... last 4 years:
Steelers Super bowl record: 2-0
Gaytriots Super bowl record: 0-1

(i'm not calling anyone a dynasty, though I think the title would be fitting if New England would've won the big game last year, but that didn't happen)

btw Preacher (if you read this): when did they announce the Super bowl XLIV logo? Reminds me of broncos colors, like the SB theme this year reminded me of seahawks colors...

4n2t0
02-06-2009, 07:16 PM
Free agency, along with other factors, have changed the face of football. In my opinion the 49ers (early free agency), Cowboys, and Patriots can all claim free agency era dynasties.

4 in 6 is where the bar stops (currently), but it shouldn't be the only bar!

jjpro11
02-06-2009, 10:42 PM
anyone who doesnt consider the 49ers of the 80s a dynasty is a tad bit off their rocker. the cowboys of the 90s were the team of the decade, and could definitely be called a dynasty. to the person that mentioned the switch from cowher to tomlin, the cowboys had a coaching change as well from jimmy johnson to barry switzer during their 3 super bowls.

as far as us right now, no way. 2 super bowls in 4 years is a hell of an accomplishment. but in no way is it a dynasty. its a shame we couldnt knock off those F'ing pats in 01 or 04.. but then again, im not sure if we would have won super bowl XL if we had won it the year prior and bettis retired already. so who knows? the pats, steelers, colts, and eagles can certainly stake their claims as the class of the 2000s though. those teams were definitely the most consistent teams of the decade.