PDA

View Full Version : Two More Wins and 04-10 Steelers Officially a Dynasty


mesaSteeler
01-22-2011, 03:14 PM
Two More Wins and ’04-’10 Steelers Officially a Dynasty
Posted on January 22, 2011 by ted
Steelers Lounge
http://www.steelerslounge.com/2011/01/wins-0410-steelers-officially-dynasty-comparable-0107-patriots/

In modern-era NFL history, any team with three Super Bowl wins within a decade gets classified as a dynasty. The Packers of the 60s (who get credit for the first two Super Bowl wins and three NFL titles in the five years before that), the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers of the 80s, the Cowboys of the 90s, and the Patriots of the 2000s are all recognized as such.

With a victory over the New York Jets in the AFC Championship game tomorrow, and another Super Bowl title in two weeks, the 2004-’10 Steelers would also become a dynasty, ranking behind the ’01-’07 Patriots statistically, but still more worthy of the dynasty tag.

Within that seven-year stretch, Pittsburgh would have on its resume:

– 3 Super Bowl titles
– 4 Appearances in AFC Championship game
– 5 Appearances in the AFC playoffs
– 0 Losing seasons
– A 15-1 regular season that did not include a Super Bowl title

Memo to ESPN’s Tom Jackson: The Patriots dynasty of the 2000s is over. New England has not won a playoff game since 2007 and has not won a Super Bowl since 2004. In fact, only seven current Patriots (QB Tom Brady, RB Kevin Faulk, DLs Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren, and OL Dan Koppen, Matt Light and Stephen Neal) have continuously been with the franchise since their last Super Bowl title.

This means that even if New England wins the Lombardi trophy in 2011 season, it would be with a new group of players and that does not count toward their 2000s dynasty. (Much like the 1994 Super Bowl champion 49ers did not count toward that franchise’s 1980s dynasty.)

In contrast, the Steelers had 13 players on their opening-day 22-man starting lineup this season, who have continuously been with the Steelers since the current group won its first Super Bowl title in the 2005 season (QB Ben Roethlisberger, WR Hines Ward, TE Heath Miller, OL Trai Essex, Chris Kemoeatu, and Max Starks, DLs Casey Hampton, Brett Keisel, and Aaron Smith, LBs James Harrison and James Farrior, and DBs Troy Polamalu and Ike Taylor).

Now, let’s compare this current, soon-to-be Steelers dynasty to the ’01-’07 Patriots, who are the only other franchise deemed a dynasty in the post-free-agency era. The ’01-’07 Patriots had on its resume:

– 3 Super Bowl titles ***
– 4 Appearances in the Super Bowl ***
– 6 Appearances in the AFC playoffs *****
– 0 Losing seasons
– A 16-0 regular season that did not include a Super Bowl title

While not by much, it is clear that the ’01-’07 Patriots tallied a better statistical resume than the ’04-’10 Steelers, even if Pittsburgh wins its seventh franchise Lombardi trophy this year. But why are all those asterisks above?

Because if this was college football, none of those New England titles would remain in the record books; they were earned through cheating. Remember Spygate? It is a huge advantage when you illegally film another team’s walk-through practices. Anyone who argues this did not provide a huge advantage for the Patriots knows little about football.

I never will forget Hines Ward saying, after New England upset the Steelers in the 2001 AFC Championship game, that it was like the Patriots knew every play Pittsburgh was going to run before the ball was snapped.

Most people, including myself, assumed that was because New England coach Bill Belichick was a genius. But really it was because he was a successful cheater. Tonya Harding, Ben Johnson, SMU football and Belichick are all of similar character (or complete lackthereof).

The only reasons Belichick did not receive near the public scorn is because the NFL tried to push his transgressions under the table for fear of losing public trust (and especially those of gamblers) in the fairness of its product, and because the media were too busy blowing Tom Brady and Belichick during the 2007 undefeated regular season, when the Spygate details first emerged. (and because Kraft bought that piece of crap Goodell. - mesa)

In reality, the 2010 Steelers should be vying for its fifth Super Bowl tile in 10 seasons, making it arguably the greatest dynasty in NFL history, and comparable to the more talented Steelers of the 70s.

Like the Patriots, Pittsburgh would have likely upset the Rams, too, in the Super Bowl after the 2001 season and would have rolled the Eagles in the Super Bowl after the Steelers’ 15-1 season in 2004. But Pittsburgh was literally cheated out of AFC Championship game titles both of those seasons.

Regardless, two more wins this season and the ’04-’10 Steelers are a dynasty. While slightly trailing the ’01-’07 Patriots in accomplishments, most real football insiders will place this Steelers group ahead of a franchise that still has zero legitimate titles to its credit.

Steelboy84
01-22-2011, 03:21 PM
"Memo to ESPN’s Tom Jackson: The Patriots dynasty of the 2000s is over. New England has not won a playoff game since 2007 and has not won a Super Bowl since 2004. In fact, only seven current Patriots (QB Tom Brady, RB Kevin Faulk, DLs Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren, and OL Dan Koppen, Matt Light and Stephen Neal) have continuously been with the franchise since their last Super Bowl title."


lmao

lionslicer
01-22-2011, 03:32 PM
I don't see 04-10 a dynasty at all. Just 2005 and 2008 had way different coaching staffs and starters. There was only like 1 offensive linemen on the roster in 2008 that was on the team in 2005.
Plus they were inconsistant with the losing seasons after the superbowls.

But thats just me.

ETL
01-22-2011, 04:12 PM
Also Larry foote and McFadden would also have 3 rings if we win. Randel el would have 2.

OX1947
01-22-2011, 04:26 PM
Neither the Pats or Steelers are a Dynasty. Even if Pittsburgh wins it this year. If the Steelers win this year AND next year, then maybe yes. List of Dynasties in the NFL:

1980's Niners
1970's Steelers
1960's Packers

Those teams dominated a decade. Packers won 5 titles in the 60's, no one else won more then one.
Steelers won 4, no one else won more then 2. Niners won 4 and no one else won more then 2.

Dallas of the 90s, like the Pats had a 4 year run and won 3, but before and after that, they havent won anything. To me, going to the playoffs and losing in the super bowl doesnt mean dick. Its championships or nothing. Otherwise you can call the Colts during the Manning Era a dynasty, which is hogwash in reality...

Riddle_Of_Steel
01-22-2011, 04:33 PM
I have to go with mesa on this one. One can even make an argument NOW, that the Steelers are a dynasty, the third ring would simply be meeting a certain specific minimum requirement, while we have blown away all the other criteria and requirements (a back to back SB win would be nice too, but we don't have it).

If you look at the Steelers' whole body of work this decade, #1 defense in 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008, made playoffs every year except 2003, 2006, 2009, won the division 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010, won the conference in 2005, 2008, 2010(?), historically good defense in 2008, superbowl victories in 2005, 2008, 2010(?), near perfect season in 2004 with 15-1.

THAT, is a dominant, elite team that is worthy of being called a dynasty, especially if we win #7 this year. Keep in mind, this isn't the 1970's, 1980's, or even the 1990's anymore. This is the modern day salary-cap era, which is specifically designed to discourage/break repeat champions and dynasties. The only team that managed back-to-back championships this decade, this era, had to cheat to do it.

YOU CANNOT JUDGE TODAY'S DYNASTIES BY THE SAME CRITERIA AS YESTERYEAR'S.

Riddle_Of_Steel
01-22-2011, 04:34 PM
Neither the Pats or Steelers are a Dynasty. Even if Pittsburgh wins it this year. If the Steelers win this year AND next year, then maybe yes. List of Dynasties in the NFL:

1980's Niners
1970's Steelers
1960's Packers

Those teams dominated a decade. Packers won 5 titles in the 60's, no one else won more then one.
Steelers won 4, no one else won more then 2. Niners won 4 and no one else won more then 2.

Dallas of the 90s, like the Pats had a 4 year run and won 3, but before and after that, they havent won anything. To me, going to the playoffs and losing in the super bowl doesnt mean dick. Its championships or nothing. Otherwise you can call the Colts during the Manning Era a dynasty, which is hogwash in reality...

The Colts only have one SB victory this decade....apples and oranges. The Steelers HAVE dominated this decade.

lionslicer
01-22-2011, 04:48 PM
It depends on what you call a dynasty. Does it have to last 10 years? Does winning a superbowl really matter? There's that baseball team that won the division title like 15 straight seasons and they are considered a dynasty. The superbowl isn't the only championship, but people get caught up in it.

The Bills have 4 afc championship trophies, and they pretty much dominated the 90's with only 2 seasons not making it to the playoffs.
Cowboys dominated the NFC for 20 straight seasons. Does that mean squat because they only won 2 superbowls in that time? They got 5 NFC championships during that period, and countless division titles.

If you think superbowls really count to being a dynasty, then a Team would have to go there every year duing the decade and win more than 50% of them, like the Browns did from 46 to 55. They went to the NFL champship game every year within the 10 year time span and won 7 times, thats really the only true dynasty if you talk about the league championship each year.

I say dominating over a long period of time could be considered a Dynasty. The Steelers have been in the AFC championship 5 times in the 2000's, Won like 5 division titles, but also had 4 seasons not making it to the playoffs if you count 2000. Thats not total dominance over an era. Thats some dominance, but nothing compared to the Bills who won 4 AFC championships or the Cowboys who won 3 superbowls and only missed the playoffs 2 seasons in the 90's