Least-surprising Steelers home playoff loss...

[74_75_78_79_]

...besides the '72 AFCC, that is. Including that very game that undefeated Miami should have been home for, there are nine times in Steelers history in which they lost a playoff game at home starting with Eagles shutting them out at Forbes in '47, 21-0; and most recently at Heinz in 2014 losing to Ravens, 30-17. Which of these defeats, again not including '72, should be found least surprising?

[L.C. Greenwood]

The 1992 playoff loss to Buffalo comes to mind. Bill Cowher's first year, and the team really improved, but you had the feeling the Steelers weren't quite ready to take that next step. Buffalo had the talent and experience, plus had unbelievable momentum following the comeback win versus Houston.

[74_75_78_79_]

The 1992 playoff loss to Buffalo comes to mind. Bill Cowher's first year, and the team really improved, but you had the feeling the Steelers weren't quite ready to take that next step. Buffalo had the talent and experience, plus had unbelievable momentum following the comeback win versus Houston.

Think first of that one as well. But how about 12 years later? I wasn't feeling so good as that '04/Big Ben's debut campaign rode on after those colossal back-to-back wins over Pats then Philly. They seemed to be coasting while the defending-Champs were playing like just that - and while eating humble pie ("Steelers are the best team") which worried me. Beating a Buffalo team with our reserves on the road in the finale that had to win to get in gave me slightly better hope. And when we barely squeaked by the Jets (really should have lost that one), instead of (correctly) seeing that as a bad omen, I saw it as Steelers now "being a team of destiny". Much deep-inside denial and wanting a 'Pennsylvania Super Bowl' fueled such optimism and I wrongly went into the AFCC game feeling psyched. Should have known better. In hindsight, with clear head, not a surprise at all Pats beating the 'Burgh convincingly.

The '98 AFCC vs Denver I didn't feel too good going into; and considering how not-so-great the Steelers played after the players returned in '82 (more on that when the PR thread for that season gets posted), losing to SD not too shocking either.

[Todd Pence]

I would have to say the 1947 one.

[JuggernautJ]

I would have to say the 1947 one.

Why?

Though both tied atop the Eastern Division with an 8-4 record but the Steelers finished 7th in offense and defense (out of 10 teams) while Philly was 2nd and 5th.
The Eagles featured All-Pros Al Wistert and Steve Van Buren. The Steelers...?

Edit: Because I'm an idiot and interpolated the question.
All the facts I listed would indeed make it unsurprising that the Steels lost that game.

[7DnBrnc53]

The 1992 playoff loss to Buffalo comes to mind. Bill Cowher's first year, and the team really improved, but you had the feeling the Steelers weren't quite ready to take that next step. Buffalo had the talent and experience, plus had unbelievable momentum following the comeback win versus Houston.

That outcome wasn't too awful surprising. However, at the same time, it was still disappointing. The Steelers could have played better. Buffalo wasn't as good as people think. They got there because the Oilers collapsed, not because they earned it.

[Todd Pence]

Also I read somewhere that Jock Sutherland ran the Steelers through extra hard practices in the days leading up to the game in retaliation for some players complaining that they weren't being paid enough.

[CSKreager]

I sometimes wonder what would have become of the 1992 Steelers if the BIlls don't pull off the comeback, they instead play Houston for a third time (whom they beat twice that year).

Is the third time a charm? Could they have beaten Miami? And certainly they couldn't have fared any worse against Dallas on Super Sunday at the Rose Bowl than Buffalo? They definitely wouldn't have had 9 turnovers!

OR...

another alternative universe. What if Buffalo gets the top seed (either winning the Houston week 17 finale or not losing back-to-back weeks to the Jets/Colts), Houston plays Miami in the WC game instead, Steelers are a 2 seed, and instead host #3 seed San Diego?

[74_75_78_79_]

I sometimes wonder what would have become of the 1992 Steelers if the BIlls don't pull off the comeback, they instead play Houston for a third time (whom they beat twice that year).

Is the third time a charm? Could they have beaten Miami? And certainly they couldn't have fared any worse against Dallas on Super Sunday at the Rose Bowl than Buffalo? They definitely wouldn't have had 9 turnovers!

OR...

another alternative universe. What if Buffalo gets the top seed (either winning the Houston week 17 finale or not losing back-to-back weeks to the Jets/Colts), Houston plays Miami in the WC game instead, Steelers are a 2 seed, and instead host #3 seed San Diego?

If Oilers hold on at Rich, I'm sure enough it would have been Oilers then going to Miami as Steelers host SD. Yes, Eagles played at Dallas in the divisionals that very year but isn't that because 6th-seed Washington also won in the 1st-round so they go to top-seed SF?

[7DnBrnc53]

If Oilers hold on at Rich, I'm sure enough it would have been Oilers then going to Miami as Steelers host SD.

By 1992, teams in the same division could play each other in the divisional playoffs. Houston was going to go to the one-seeded Steelers, and three-seed SD went to two-seed Miami.