PDA

View Full Version : Trib-Review Ranks Steelers SB Winners - 78 Team #1


Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 08:23 AM
Which was the best of the Steelers’ Super Bowl teams?

For at least one more week, the Steelers remain the only team to produce six Super Bowl winners — the 49ers could tie them next week — but it is their 1978 squad that stands above the others.

That 1978 team, which started the season with a seven-game winning streak, finished 14-2 and seemingly had a future Hall of Famer at every other position, was voted as the super team of those six Steelers Super Bowl winners by a panel of national and local journalists assembled by the Tribune-Review.

The ’78 Steelers, who rebounded from the worst season of the Super Bowl run (a 9-5 record in 1977) to win the first of successive NFL titles, received nine of the 15 first-place votes. Only the ’75 Steelers, who also beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl, received more than one first-place vote; they earned four.

The 1979 and ’74 teams received the other two first-place votes.

http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/3358755-74/team-bowl-super#axzz2J1vkK1AK

IMO the 1975 team was superior because the defense was at its peak, Franco was younger, and the passing game was there when necessary (Swann had 11 TDs) - main argument for the 78 team was it rolled through the playoffs while the 75 team was not playing its best in the post-season (although the D had 7 sacks and 3 INTs in the Super Bowl)

steelfury02
01-27-2013, 08:46 AM
i have to agree with the article and I always feel that for them to go on another 2 consecutive title run after already being accomplished speaks volumes to the character of that team - that was the start of Bradshaw rounding into form

I'd have to put the SB teams in this order

6. XL
5. IX
4. XLIII
3. XIV
2. X
1. XIII

pete74
01-27-2013, 10:11 AM
It's funny how much I love the Steelers I still have not seen a single game from the Bradshaw era. It was before my time but iI always wanted to watch those games

steelfury02
01-27-2013, 10:44 AM
what's odd for me anyways, is that I go back and watch those 70s SB runs, and Bradshaw, especially in the XIII and XIV runs remind me, extremely remind me, of Tom Brady and the dangerous down field connection he had with Moss. If you gave Brady a duo of talents like Swann and Stallworth - we would be talking 6 SB rings for Brady- he would have had the downfield threats who weren't afraid to catch in traffic. Imagine Stallworth, Swann, Welker Gronk, Hernandez all at their peak - that thought is scary.

SteelerEmpire
01-27-2013, 11:14 AM
I notice the old school Steelers' team philosophy was 'try' to win every game during the regular season, and then 'try' to win every game in the post season (aka what 'Dynasties' have always done). Not contemporary Steelers teams, it's; "don't even begin to play hard until the middle of the season, barely make the playoffs, and then play the best you can in the playoffs. Unfortunately, this current group of Steelers does not even possess the ability to perform the later strategy anymore.

mikegrimey
01-27-2013, 12:39 PM
I notice the old school Steelers' team philosophy was 'try' to win every game during the regular season, and then 'try' to win every game in the post season (aka what 'Dynasties' have always done). Not contemporary Steelers teams, it's; "don't even begin to play hard until the middle of the season, barely make the playoffs, and then play the best you can in the playoffs. Unfortunately, this current group of Steelers does not even possess the ability to perform the later strategy anymore.

The worst we've started under Tomlin "halfway" through. Season is 5-3, 4 of his 5 years we've been 6-2, you think we're winning those games by virtue of forfeit?

I seriously doubt the team has a strategy to not win every game

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 01:24 PM
The worst we've started under Tomlin "halfway" through. Season is 5-3, 4 of his 5 years we've been 6-2, you think we're winning those games by virtue of forfeit?

I seriously doubt the team has a strategy to not win every game

But the current team has a history of playing down to the level of its competition and losing to inferior teams

On the other hand, the former Sports Illustrated NFL writer Paul Zimmerman (aka Dr. Z) noted how the 1970s Steelers handled inferior competition:

You want to know what is meant by "a dynasty?" Try this statistic, which I think I must have mentioned triple-figure times: During the period of the Steelers' playoff run of the '70s, 1972 through '79, their record against teams that eventually finished the season below .500 was -- get ready -- 50-1. They simply did not lose to the bad teams. They were bullies, tough guys. A dynasty.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/2003/02/21/drz_mailbag/

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 01:28 PM
It's funny how much I love the Steelers I still have not seen a single game from the Bradshaw era. It was before my time but iI always wanted to watch those games

Here is the full broadcast of Super Bowl XIII:drink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4N-FlDmqJg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4N-FlDmqJg

Fire Arians
01-27-2013, 01:39 PM
those past teams were great but i think the 2005 would give any of them a fight.

our offense was pretty nasty to deal with, having BR/hines/bettis, and with troy p / harrison in their prime on defense. who knows maybe they'd even be able to beat the 78/79 teams

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 03:08 PM
those past teams were great but i think the 2005 would give any of them a fight.

our offense was pretty nasty to deal with, having BR/hines/bettis, and with troy p / harrison in their prime on defense. who knows maybe they'd even be able to beat the 78/79 teams

IMO the 70s teams would have trouble without being able to bump and run receivers but still would have shut down Bettis and Parker

OTOH I can only imagine what Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth would have done under the current rules

Because we know the passing game was so good once the rules loosened up that 70s team still is superior to the second generation of multiple SB Steelers teams

stb_steeler
01-27-2013, 03:21 PM
It's funny how much I love the Steelers I still have not seen a single game from the Bradshaw era. It was before my time but iI always wanted to watch those games

You must be a youngin Pete?.....You could always get the SB DVD's :wink02:
I can still remember watching The 70's Steelers but i was 7-8 years old during their first SB.

mikegrimey
01-27-2013, 05:19 PM
But the current team has a history of playing down to the level of its competition and losing to inferior teams

On the other hand, the former Sports Illustrated NFL writer Paul Zimmerman (aka Dr. Z) noted how the 1970s Steelers handled inferior competition:

You want to know what is meant by "a dynasty?" Try this statistic, which I think I must have mentioned triple-figure times: During the period of the Steelers' playoff run of the '70s, 1972 through '79, their record against teams that eventually finished the season below .500 was -- get ready -- 50-1. They simply did not lose to the bad teams. They were bullies, tough guys. A dynasty.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/2003/02/21/drz_mailbag/

I understand that, u can fault the game plans and execution, but that doesn't mean we're not trying to win. The idea that we don't "play hard" until halfway through the season, but still manage to pile up wins doesn't make sense to me

steeltheone
01-28-2013, 08:34 AM
those past teams were great but i think the 2005 would give any of them a fight.

our offense was pretty nasty to deal with, having BR/hines/bettis, and with troy p / harrison in their prime on defense. who knows maybe they'd even be able to beat the 78/79 teams

Cowhers mid 1990's teams were better than the 2005 team.

Unfortunately they ran into a dynasty in Dallas and a primed Hall of Famer in Elway!

harrison'samonster
01-28-2013, 09:02 AM
Cowhers mid 1990's teams were better than the 2005 team.

Unfortunately they ran into a dynasty in Dallas and a primed Hall of Famer in Elway!

I was even a little new to football to really know what I was watching in those early 90's teams and even the 95 SB team. Looking over the boxscore of that loss though it looks like we were evenly matched w/ that Cowboys team.

As far as our top SB winner I thought that 05 team was a better all around team than the 08 team.

BKAnthem
01-28-2013, 10:08 AM
Here is the full broadcast of Super Bowl XIII:drink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4N-FlDmqJg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4N-FlDmqJg

Watching this reminded me of how shitty a CB Ron Johnson was.....i still have Nightmares of Ozzie Newsome Abusing him in a Browns game back then....Newsome actually caught a Bomb over him once...a freakin TE

SteelerEmpire
01-28-2013, 10:15 AM
But the current team has a history of playing down to the level of its competition and losing to inferior teams

On the other hand, the former Sports Illustrated NFL writer Paul Zimmerman (aka Dr. Z) noted how the 1970s Steelers handled inferior competition:

You want to know what is meant by "a dynasty?" Try this statistic, which I think I must have mentioned triple-figure times: During the period of the Steelers' playoff run of the '70s, 1972 through '79, their record against teams that eventually finished the season below .500 was -- get ready -- 50-1. They simply did not lose to the bad teams. They were bullies, tough guys. A dynasty.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/2003/02/21/drz_mailbag/

Yes. Thats exactly what I mean. Thanks for posting.

VaDave
01-28-2013, 10:37 AM
IMO the 70s teams would have trouble without being able to bump and run receivers but still would have shut down Bettis and Parker

OTOH I can only imagine what Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth would have done under the current rules

Because we know the passing game was so good once the rules loosened up that 70s team still is superior to the second generation of multiple SB Steelers teams

It's hard to compare teams 30 years apart. Some how I don't think a 220lb like Jim Clack would be real effective landing a trap block on 350lb Casey Hampton....

Truth be told, different game/different era/different player build. As much fun as it is to imagine, in reality, there is no comparison. Our current team would beat them to smithereenes.....not saying the 70's crew wouldn't make a respectable showing, but eventually the size and power of today's better equiped, better trained, much larger, and faster players, would win in a rout.

VaDave
01-28-2013, 10:41 AM
Watching this reminded me of how shitty a CB Ron Johnson was.....i still have Nightmares of Ozzie Newsome Abusing him in a Browns game back then....Newsome actually caught a Bomb over him once...a freakin TE

Check out Johnson in SuperBowl 14. He played a dang fine game. For a little guy he played as big as he could. Also keep in mind, JT Thomas was back with the squad, and Johnson beat him out every year until JT hung 'em up.

steeltheone
01-28-2013, 11:24 AM
I was even a little new to football to really know what I was watching in those early 90's teams and even the 95 SB team. Looking over the boxscore of that loss though it looks like we were evenly matched w/ that Cowboys team.

As far as our top SB winner I thought that 05 team was a better all around team than the 08 team.

I agree!

Atlanta Dan
01-28-2013, 11:33 AM
It's hard to compare teams 30 years apart. Some how I don't think a 220lb like Jim Clack would be real effective landing a trap block on 350lb Casey Hampton....

Truth be told, different game/different era/different player build. As much fun as it is to imagine, in reality, there is no comparison. Our current team would beat them to smithereenes.....not saying the 70's crew wouldn't make a respectable showing, but eventually the size and power of today's better equiped, better trained, much larger, and faster players, would win in a rout.

Agreed you can only compare teamns to others in the era in which they played but humans have not evolved much in 40 years - with weight training and whatever "supplements" today's NFL players are using I am assuming the 70s players would bulk up to comparable weights and be physicaly comparable to toady's players - it is not as if the game in the 70s was slow white folks only

harrison'samonster
01-28-2013, 11:41 AM
Agreed you can only compare teamns to others in the era in which they played but humans have not evolved much in 40 years - with weight training and whatever "supplements" today's NFL players are using I am assuming the 70s players would bulk up to comparable weights and be physicaly comparable to toady's players - it is not as if the game in the 70s was slow white folks only

Very good point. Also add the round-the-year training that today's players get and I don't doubt that the players of the past would be able to compete with the players of today.

Fire Arians
01-28-2013, 11:56 AM
Very good point. Also add the round-the-year training that today's players get and I don't doubt that the players of the past would be able to compete with the players of today.

I wonder how huge dick butkus would have been with today's supplements lol. wasn't be like 270 lbs playing way back when? dude was a monster, looked like a gorilla playing against midgets

austinfrench76
01-28-2013, 08:39 PM
I agree. That team was unreal!

SteelerEmpire
01-28-2013, 11:12 PM
It's hard to compare teams 30 years apart. Some how I don't think a 220lb like Jim Clack would be real effective landing a trap block on 350lb Casey Hampton....

Truth be told, different game/different era/different player build. As much fun as it is to imagine, in reality, there is no comparison. Our current team would beat them to smithereenes.....not saying the 70's crew wouldn't make a respectable showing, but eventually the size and power of today's better equiped, better trained, much larger, and faster players, would win in a rout.

I think if you 1) put say the 78' team against the 2005 team for 10 games and 2) implemented the old rules for 5 games, and the new rules for 5 games, the 78' teams wins 6 or 7. They just seemed too have the one primary advantage to win games: " heart". The 70's team was "kill or be killed" for "every" game. I just don't see that in these newer guys at that 70's level. But I think there would be some close games.

VaDave
01-31-2013, 10:30 AM
Just for the record, Jim Clack had trouble maintaining weight at 220 lbs, consuming in mega amounts of food calories daily AND anobolic steroids. (ref "About Three Bricks Shy of a Load").

Steroids are more effective than today's supplements ( like deer antlers) at adding muscle mass, and they were not outlawed. Steroids also had a side benefit, roid rage.

I met Joe Greene in the National Record Mart at 5th and Liberty back in 1976, and thought he was the biggest person I'd ever seen, @ 6'4" & 270lbs.... Some of the guys today, are closing in on a 100lbs more and 4 inches taller. I don't think better food and training would have added another 50-70lbs and 4 inches to Greene's frame for him to play in today's game., certainly not at DT.

One other point, I'm not so sure that with these players playing at the weight they do, is conducive to maintaining proper joint and muscle health. They have built themselves up to the point where they are violating the laws of physics exceeding their engineering capacity, which is why we see all of these muscle pulls, tears and ligament issues.

harrison'samonster
01-31-2013, 10:36 AM
Just for the record, Jim Clack had trouble maintaining weight at 220 lbs, consuming in mega amounts of food calories daily AND anobolic steroids. (ref "About Three Bricks Shy of a Load").

Steroids are more effective than today's supplements ( like deer antlers) at adding muscle mass, and they were not outlawed. Steroids also had a side benefit, roid rage.



a lot of good points but I have to disagree, it's not just the food and steroids that bulk ppl up but also the training methods. Fact is we'll never know and it's fun to debate the question.

steelfury02
01-31-2013, 11:41 AM
Just for the record, Jim Clack had trouble maintaining weight at 220 lbs, consuming in mega amounts of food calories daily AND anobolic steroids. (ref "About Three Bricks Shy of a Load").

Steroids are more effective than today's supplements ( like deer antlers) at adding muscle mass, and they were not outlawed. Steroids also had a side benefit, roid rage.

I met Joe Greene in the National Record Mart at 5th and Liberty back in 1976, and thought he was the biggest person I'd ever seen, @ 6'4" & 270lbs.... Some of the guys today, are closing in on a 100lbs more and 4 inches taller. I don't think better food and training would have added another 50-70lbs and 4 inches to Greene's frame for him to play in today's game., certainly not at DT.

One other point, I'm not so sure that with these players playing at the weight they do, is conducive to maintaining proper joint and muscle health. They have built themselves up to the point where they are violating the laws of physics exceeding their engineering capacity, which is why we see all of these muscle pulls, tears and ligament issues.

you make a fantastic point - I actually think due to the emergence of the passing game, we are going to see speedier, athletic, leaner guys on the defensive side of the ball - def a transition at what we're looking for on the D-line. Being taller with long arms is being sought over bulk and power. Now - that said, the taller guys are taller, and the faster guys are faster, and the hits are at higher speeds IMO - so yea, while we will see different body types now than in the past 10-20 seasons, there will be more damage just because of evolution, also - because the league is mandating less "football-ready" conditioning - aka if you aren't practicing taking a pounding as much before the season starts, you are seeing teams not being conditioned for it until later in the season.

maddog78
01-31-2013, 11:53 AM
It's funny how much I love the Steelers I still have not seen a single game from the Bradshaw era. It was before my time but iI always wanted to watch those games

I downloaded the entire 1978 AFC Championship against Houston from youtube, but unfortunately I don't see it on youtube anymore.

That's probably why I downloaded it. I also have all four of the first Super Bowls on DVD, of varying quality.

VaDave
01-31-2013, 09:10 PM
a lot of good points but I have to disagree, it's not just the food and steroids that bulk ppl up but also the training methods. Fact is we'll never know and it's fun to debate the question.

No doubt training regimins have improved over the last 40 years, but back in the 70s there was more of an emphasis on speed ( what there was of it) and power over size. You're right, it is fun to think about it.

VaDave
01-31-2013, 09:12 PM
you make a fantastic point - I actually think due to the emergence of the passing game, we are going to see speedier, athletic, leaner guys on the defensive side of the ball - def a transition at what we're looking for on the D-line. Being taller with long arms is being sought over bulk and power. Now - that said, the taller guys are taller, and the faster guys are faster, and the hits are at higher speeds IMO - so yea, while we will see different body types now than in the past 10-20 seasons, there will be more damage just because of evolution, also - because the league is mandating less "football-ready" conditioning - aka if you aren't practicing taking a pounding as much before the season starts, you are seeing teams not being conditioned for it until later in the season.

Did anybody tell Ngata????? LOL!!!

maddog78
02-01-2013, 09:05 AM
Cowhers mid 1990's teams were better than the 2005 team.


No, no they really weren't. Obviously the QB was better in 2005. 2005 would have been a 13-3 team had Ben not taken a cheap shot on his knee.

White_Steel_Wolfe
02-03-2013, 12:26 AM
2005 team better than the 2008 team?


:rofl:

Steeldude
02-03-2013, 05:17 AM
It's funny how much I love the Steelers I still have not seen a single game from the Bradshaw era. It was before my time but iI always wanted to watch those games

Football was so much better in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't because the Steelers were winning in the 70s. Football was football back then. Players played because they loved the game. It was more of a team attitude back then. The NFL gets worse as each decade passes. There may come a time when I stop watching football.

I no longer watch the NBA. I will never watch another NBA game until they start calling the game by the rules.