PDA

View Full Version : Are the 2005-2010 Steelers a dynasty?


steelerchad
11-05-2010, 09:18 AM
If we win it all this year.
You could really make the argument either way. It would give them 3 SB's in 6 years, which in today's NFL would qualify. But looking at the 3 years they didn't win it all they were very mediocre with 2 playoff misses and 1 wildcard game loss.
To date, there have only been 4 in the Super Bowl era and I think I would include us as the 5th if we win it this year. It's more about the championships, as who really cares if you made it to the conference finals or not. The Steelers would be the only team with 2 seperate runs.

74-79 Steelers 4 in 6 years
81-89 49ers 4 in 9 years
92-95 Cowboys 3 in 4 years
01-04 Pats 3 in 4 years (Puke- If not for 01 and 04 Championship games the 2000's Steelers would already be a dynasty)

smheart78
11-05-2010, 10:23 AM
The Pats should have an asterisk next to their titles, no question. Not just because it prevented us from winning the SBs in '01 and '04, but many other teams feel the same way.

toughsticks87
11-05-2010, 11:31 AM
The Pats should have an asterisk next to their titles, no question. Not just because it prevented us from winning the SBs in '01 and '04, but many other teams feel the same way.

I don't understand how a team gets caught cheating during their own dynasty, yet no one talks about it even today. They should have at least stripped Belicheat of his rings.

lionslicer
11-05-2010, 12:11 PM
I don't understand how a team gets caught cheating during their own dynasty, yet no one talks about it even today. They should have at least stripped Belicheat of his rings.

I could write a book on why Patriots are still a dynasty and why cheating didn't completely help them win, but no one will read it because they still hate the Patriots lol. Just know that Technically Bellichick wasn't cheating until 2007 when the league changed the rule, but he kept doing what he was doing which lead to him getting caught, though he put up a case that there was no official rule against what he was doing pre 2007, he was right, NFL was dumbfounded and had to let him go.


Steelers 2005-2010 if they win a superbowl this year and don't miss the playoffs next year. I see the Steelers from 2005-2008 an effective dynasty as it is, but a win this year would seal it.

Also dynasties are teams that dominate the league, the don't have to win the superbowl.

1984-1990 Giants
1990's Bills
Raiders of the 70's and early 80's
And many others..

Though you didn't mention the Browns that won 10 straight championships and the Packers that I think won 6 or 7 championships including 2 superbowls in a span of 9 or 10 years.

Atlanta Dan
11-05-2010, 12:12 PM
Steelers actually remind me of the Joe Gibbs Redskins, which played during the era of not only the Walsh-Montana 49ers, as well as the Parcells-Real LT Giants

Redskins always hung around and would win it all when no really dominant team asserted itself and won 3 Lombardis over a decade - Giants played murderous D which was enough to win 2 rings in 5 years. Both excellent teams but not dynasties - 49ers were teh 80s dynasty

To me a dynasty is dominant in not just the playoffs but regular season over a period of time and needs to win back to back championships (Lombardi Packers - Noll Steelers - Walsh 49ers - Johnson Cowboys - Belichick Pats)

Three rings in 6 years would be impressive but the 2006 and 2009 crashes hurt the argument

OX1947
11-05-2010, 02:34 PM
Dynasty gets thrown around a little too much these days. A Dynasty is the same team dominating for an extended period of time. In the NFL, its not really possible anymore.

Merchant
11-05-2010, 02:43 PM
I say... no

TRH
11-05-2010, 02:51 PM
No. We were too inconsistent through this time. There were periods when we played ridiculously bad for extended periods.
That said, i don't know how much, or if at all, the Pats cheating actually helped them win, but i wouldn't call them a dynasty either.
The last team i would call a "dynasty" would probably be the 49ers of the late 80's, early 90's....

Riddle_Of_Steel
11-05-2010, 04:09 PM
I could write a book on why Patriots are still a dynasty and why cheating didn't completely help them win, but no one will read it because they still hate the Patriots lol. Just know that Technically Bellichick wasn't cheating until 2007 when the league changed the rule, but he kept doing what he was doing which lead to him getting caught, though he put up a case that there was no official rule against what he was doing pre 2007, he was right, NFL was dumbfounded and had to let him go.

Sorry, lionslicer, but I beg to differ, strongly.

The Pats actually got busted for the exact same thing in 2005. The Green Bay coaching staff caught a Patriots assistant on their sideline taping them from a location that was strictly prohibited by the rules (the whole Spygate scandal was not that he was filming, but the location they were filming from) during a game, and complained to the commissioner, who of course did nothing except to issue a league-wide memo re-iterating the clearly worded rules about taping opponents' sidelines (we can't single out BB now, can we?).

What the Patriots did was against the rules in 2001, just as it was against the rules in 2007, and still against the rules today.

lionslicer
11-05-2010, 04:09 PM
The 49ers dynasty should really be from 81 to 98. They made 16 playoff appearances in 18 seasons. Only had 1 season below .500 Only 1 season with less than 10 wins. 11 seasons with over 10 wins.

They totally dominated the NFL. They should have won more superbowls, but because of the quarterback controversy between Young and Montana, they had a couple games Montana could have won in the playoffs to take them to the superbowl, but they kept Young in there who lost the game. And vice-versa.

Riddle_Of_Steel
11-05-2010, 04:16 PM
Are the 2005-2010 Steelers a dynasty?

Even if they don't win the SB this year, I think you can make a strong case for the Steelers being a dynasty, even now. If they do win this year, it is a sure thing.

I will admit though, I have no idea though what the official definition of a dynasty is, or if an official definition even exists.

Look at it this way-- this is the salary cap era. Teams are not supposed to be able to repeat, the rules (especially since about 1997) are specifically made to try and prevent that and prevent dynasties. The only team this decade that was able to win back-to-back Superbowls, was the Pats, and we already know they cheated to some degree or another, so they should not be used as a metric as to how successful a team can be during the salary-cap era. Besides the Pats, only one team has managed multiple Superbowls in a short period of time this decade-- the Steelers. While we have had the off year following each victory, the Steelers have been consistently dominant in most phasesof the game, and have one of the best win percentages the last few decades.

The days of a dynasty being 4 or 5 Superbowl wins with some back to back ones, are LONG GONE. If your team manages to win one Superbowl this decade, you are doing good. If your team wins more than one in a short time span of 3 or 4 years, they should be in a serious discussion about dynasties. if they manage that, plus an overall dominant performance over the long run, they should be considered a dynasty.

lionslicer
11-05-2010, 04:20 PM
Sorry, lionslicer, but I beg to differ, strongly.

The Pats actually got busted for the exact same thing in 2005. The Green Bay coaching staff caught a Patriots assistant on their sideline taping them from a location that was strictly prohibited by the rules (the whole Spygate scandal was not that he was filming, but the location they were filming from) during a game, and complained to the commissioner, who of course did nothing except to issue a league-wide memo re-iterating the clearly worded rules about taping opponents' sidelines (we can't single out BB now, can we?).

What the Patriots did was against the rules in 2001, just as it was against the rules in 2007, and still against the rules today.

I believe the rule says you may tape anywhere and anything on the field as long as you don't use the tapes during the game. As in you can't tape a team one week, and when you face them, pull a TV on the sideline and watch the tape during the game.

Now that wasn't what the rule ment, but the rule is very vague.

Here's the thing people don't get. The guys on the sideline filming teams were wearing patriot gear and were givin permission to stand on the sideline by the home team. It wasn't like they snuck in, or jumped on the field from the stands, the teams knew what was happening and allowed it because they too also did this. The Commish knew that the rule was very vague and sent the memo out, all the coaches stopped except Billichick which is why he was caught and fined. But he wasn't stripped of his rings, because if he was, you'd have to strip Parcells of his... And Jimmy Johnsons of his... It would totally discredit a lot of great teams in history... And Parcells would probably kill Goodell if he did that.

TRH
11-05-2010, 04:46 PM
The 49ers dynasty should really be from 81 to 98. They made 16 playoff appearances in 18 seasons. Only had 1 season below .500 Only 1 season with less than 10 wins. 11 seasons with over 10 wins.

They totally dominated the NFL. They should have won more superbowls, but because of the quarterback controversy between Young and Montana, they had a couple games Montana could have won in the playoffs to take them to the superbowl, but they kept Young in there who lost the game. And vice-versa.



Agreed.
The recent Patriots, who are not a dynasty and far from one, are not even close to this. That said, neither are the 05-10 Steelers yet.

steelerchad
11-05-2010, 07:26 PM
The 49ers dynasty should really be from 81 to 98. They made 16 playoff appearances in 18 seasons. Only had 1 season below .500 Only 1 season with less than 10 wins. 11 seasons with over 10 wins.

They totally dominated the NFL. They should have won more superbowls, but because of the quarterback controversy between Young and Montana, they had a couple games Montana could have won in the playoffs to take them to the superbowl, but they kept Young in there who lost the game. And vice-versa.

Don't agree. They only won 1 SB after 89 and that was with a different QB 6 years after there previous one. So from 89-98 they won 1 SB. You can't count that time as their dynasty as the Cowboys were winning 3 Superbowls right in the middle of it.

ZoneBlitzer
11-05-2010, 08:29 PM
No. Too spread out and inconsistent play.

MikeHaullace
11-06-2010, 12:33 AM
A simple, matter-of-fact no.