Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Yeah they won 2 Super Bowls and appeared in a 3rd but they didn't beat New England to get to any of them. Were they lesser than the teams that did beat New England in the postseason during the same time? The 2005 Broncos? The 2006 Colts? The 2009 Ravens? The 2010 Jets? The 2012 Ravens? The 2013, 2015 Broncos? The 2007, 2011 Giants?

Thirteen winning seasons, eleven playoff berths, winning 2 out of 3 Super Bowls with just one losing year (2003) ought to make the Steelers, FWIW, the '2nd-best' team so far this century. Should never be mistaken for a 'dynasty' though. And watering it down further is, yes, 'avoiding' NE (or at least Tom Brady) en route to each SB. This is whether you feel Steelers would have won anyway as I feel would have happened in '05 had it been Pit@NE AFCC, or if you feel the Pats would have won as I clearly feel the case for 2010. As for 2008 it wasn't just Brady who Steelers didn't have to face, but all four teams who beat them during the regular season that also made the playoffs (Phi, NYG, Indy & Tenn). A Title is a Title (and maybe they beat any of those four in a post-season rematch anyway) but it's still, admittedly for me, worth mentioning.

What also hurts is that each SB won was followed-up with a non-playoff year (8-8 in '06, 9-7 in '09). As many times that the Giants didn't make the playoffs under Coughlin/Eli, at least they did beat the Pats in their two SB-wins; and follow-up the first of those two with a top-seed 12-4 finish along with beating Champ-to-be Steelers at the 'Burgh. This is why I don't necessarily disrespect the '07 Giants as very many may their 2011 installment (plus, 10-6 much more palatable for a SB-Champ than...9-7). Yes, not a dynasty but a real nice run these 21st Century Steelers have had thus far. Still have yet to beat Brady at Foxboro though.

I think the Steelers of the last 25 years have been a team that has generally (most seasons) always been in the thick of the playoff hunt, who was strong enough to win their division in most seasons (I can't think of too many times where the Steelers were faced with a late season game they needed to win in order to win the Central/North Division and they didn't come away with a W), they have been well-coached and have had more than sufficient talent, and some seasons the breaks fell their way and they won the Super Bowl. However, there was one team they always had a problem with and that was the Belichick Patriots. The Steelers were 3-6 against New England since 2001 in the regular season and 0-3 in the postseason, all three losses being AFC Championship games. In general, the Steelers have been a pretty consistently good team over the years, but not quite at the level of New England.

This is whether you feel Steelers would have won anyway as I feel would have happened in '05 had it been Pit@NE AFCC, or if you feel the Pats would have won as I clearly feel the case for 2010.

I think that NE would have won both times at home, not just in 2010 (then, they beat Seattle in 05 for their third straight, but they lose to GB in 2010 at Jerry World).

But, what I will remember about this time period (when dealing with Pitt and NE) is the Steelers running the same defensive schemes against NE that never work. They did it again last night, and they got lit up. Heck, even Houston was smart enough to know that you have to come at Brady. They had Clowney lined up over the center. The Steelers always rush around the end and let him step up. I don't understand why they can't correct that.

I view the 'era' as three distinct parts.

The majority of the Cowher era was like the 1970's Rams...some great talent, a nice pipeline of draft picks, but the ever-changing QB position kind of held them back. I guess their performance against the Cowboys in the SB was kind of like the Rams in SB XIV, too. Two playoff failures that stand out to me are an early 90's home loss to a wild-card Bills team...the Steelers were loaded with talent and I think lost 24-3 and where never in the game...and the AFC Championship loss to a mediocre Chargers team. That was very-70's Rams-like.

The end of the Cowher era and the start of the Tomlin era featured the best Steeler teams that were well-rounded. Getting Roethlisberger put them over the top in some sense, and this is when they won their Super Bowls.

The recent Tomlin era the Steelers have not had the great players on defense. They will always be competitive with Roethlisberger, but they are not an elite team. This year, the Steelers weren't even going to make the postseason until a late-season close win over the Ravens. The Patriots were 14-2 and had the best defense in the NFL.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Thirteen winning seasons, eleven playoff berths, winning 2 out of 3 Super Bowls with just one losing year (2003) ought to make the Steelers, FWIW, the '2nd-best' team so far this century. Should never be mistaken for a 'dynasty' though. And watering it down further is, yes, 'avoiding' NE (or at least Tom Brady) en route to each SB. This is whether you feel Steelers would have won anyway as I feel would have happened in '05 had it been Pit@NE AFCC, or if you feel the Pats would have won as I clearly feel the case for 2010. As for 2008 it wasn't just Brady who Steelers didn't have to face, but all four teams who beat them during the regular season that also made the playoffs (Phi, NYG, Indy & Tenn). A Title is a Title (and maybe they beat any of those four in a post-season rematch anyway) but it's still, admittedly for me, worth mentioning.

What also hurts is that each SB won was followed-up with a non-playoff year (8-8 in '06, 9-7 in '09). As many times that the Giants didn't make the playoffs under Coughlin/Eli, at least they did beat the Pats in their two SB-wins; and follow-up the first of those two with a top-seed 12-4 finish along with beating Champ-to-be Steelers at the 'Burgh. This is why I don't necessarily disrespect the '07 Giants as very many may their 2011 installment (plus, 10-6 much more palatable for a SB-Champ than...9-7). Yes, not a dynasty but a real nice run these 21st Century Steelers have had thus far. Still have yet to beat Brady at Foxboro though.

I have no doubt the 2008 Steelers would have beaten Brady at Foxboro, had the playoff game been at that location. The Steelers absolutely destroyed New England during the regular season that year. And in the 2005 postseason, the Patriots lost at Denver, so I'd have to give the Steelers at least a 50-50 chance in a hypothetical playoff rematch. I definitely think the 2010 Steelers would have beaten New England in the playoffs. It's easy for fans to forget the two convincing wins over Brady and the Pats, in 2004 and 2011, because it just doesn't fit the narrative.

Steelers easily have the offense to win another SB, losing Bell so early last night was tough. The defense has some young talent, but the decision not to play more press coverage was alarming. When you let the Chris Hogan's of the world run free, bad things will happen. Pittsburgh didn't need to play a perfect game to beat the Pats, but delivered one of their worst games last night. The window is still wide open for another SB appearance.

In terms of your question, I think history will accurately record the sustainability we've seen since 1972. The next big hurdle will be navigating Ben's replacement, but Mike Tomlin is an outstanding coach. I just can't get too upset about three head coaches since 1969, four different decades with different QBs in conference games, major representation in Canton, and teams on the short list of greatest ever. It's a good problem to have.

The Patriots were 14-2 and had the best defense in the NFL.

They were best in scoring, but that was a function of playing a lot of bad offenses and smoke and mirrors. Also, as the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:They were best in scoring, but that was a function of playing a lot of bad offenses and smoke and mirrors. Also, as the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense.

They looked pretty good against the Steelers on defense. Antonio Brown didn't do anything. The Patriots scored more points in 2015 and gave up 65 more points, so I think the improvements the Pats have made on defense in 2016 are tangible.

I don't know about Tomlin, I certainly wouldn't call him a great coach, somewhere between good and very good. He doesn't scheme them up - as accurately identified by a prior poster, they know Brady/Belichick destroy their scheme yet did nothing about it. I do think there's something to what Terry Bradshaw said, he's really a motivator, but even that feels a little thin. He seems to think by inserting the word "football" into every sentence it sounds more authoritative. The phrase "that was a great football team we played out there today" means the same thing with or without the word "football" inserted but the soundbite is better with it in. I think Cowher would have managed crappie like the Antonio Brown situation better. But he's won one and been to two, so it's really going to take them falling off a cliff for him to be forced out. Oh, and his clock management is pretty terrible, though I like his penchant to go for 2.

NWebster wrote:I don't know about Tomlin, I certainly wouldn't call him a great coach, somewhere between good and very good. He doesn't scheme them up - as accurately identified by a prior poster, they know Brady/Belichick destroy their scheme yet did nothing about it. I do think there's something to what Terry Bradshaw said, he's really a motivator, but even that feels a little thin. He seems to think by inserting the word "football" into every sentence it sounds more authoritative. The phrase "that was a great football team we played out there today" means the same thing with or without the word "football" inserted but the soundbite is better with it in. I think Cowher would have managed crappie like the Antonio Brown situation better. But he's won one and been to two, so it's really going to take them falling off a cliff for him to be forced out. Oh, and his clock management is pretty terrible, though I like his penchant to go for 2.

Agree about Tomlin needing to change the scheme against New England, but even the elite coaches made mistakes. Don Shula didn't develop a defense to help Dan Marino, Tom Landry let the game pass him by, and Lombardi's Packers were headed for major decline by his exit. Tomlin was a defensive coordinator in his mid 30s, so I have no doubt about his football I.Q. Another SB win, and I don't know how you keep him out of Canton, given the overall record. Tom Flores' Raiders went downhill quickly after 1984.