NFL Wild-Card round open thread

If the Steelers aren’t a long-term success in the NFL-you tell me who is.

Dreadnought on January 8, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Look, all I correctly reported was their actual record. I didn’t make any personal judgment, except to agree with you that they had a nice run 30 years ago before enduring a quarter of a century drought.

There is no team. That is my answer.

That’s because there is no “long term success” as a team possible in the NFL any more, simply due to the physical factor. The Steelers run in the 1970s was the exception rather than the rule, and was long before today’s much longer NFL schedule.

You can have what is considered “long term success” for a team, but it’s only counted when you actually win a Super Bowl or 2 in a short span. See the New Orleans saints between 1987 and 1997; they had the 3rd best winning record in the NFL and yet never got beyond the second round.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Sorry-I’m not buying. The organization has been exceptionally well run, and I think you’d have to look long and hard to find a genuine NFL expert/historian who would say that the Steelers haven’t been a long-term success in the NFL since 1970.

Dreadnought on January 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

As I correctly noted, the Steelers went 26 years between Super Bowl titles. They also went 15 years between AFC Championships. In the 1980s, they only won their division twice, and in the 1990s another team won their division 6 out of the 10 years.

I never said they were not well-run, you assumed that I said that. But as I said, “long term success” isn’t always a measure of “greatness”. I already gave the best example, the 1986-1996 New Orleans Saints. who had one of the 3 best W-L records in the NFL for 10 years, but never won a playoff game in all those “success” years. The reason they never won a playoff game had nothing to do with them being a “well-run team”; many of those years they had winning records but could not make the playoffs solely because they were stuck in the NFC West with the dominant team of that era, the 49ers.

Using another measure, between 1970 and 2010, the “best” regular season team was the New England Patriots. In those 40 years, they led the NFL in average winning margin per game (19.7 points per game average winning margin in 2007). But that same list would also include the Rams in second place (17.8 points per game in 1999 and 14.1 points per game in 2001). The Steelers appear twice on that list (1974 and 1975).

There is no such thing as a “dynasty” any more. At the team level, all you’ve had is a handful of teams win back-to-back Super Bowls, with the Steelers doing it twice, back in the 1970s. But only 1 team has won back to back Super Bowls since Dallas did it in 1994.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

What path did the Steelers take to get to 12-4? Where did it leave them?

What path did the Broncos take to get to 8-8? Where did it leave them?

The Broncos 8-8 record was “worth more”, by far – than the Steelers 12-4 Record. The Steelers 12-4 record was overrated, as they were. They are the Notre Dame of the NFL right now.

To help your grieving – I suggest a vapor-steam treatment and a poultice…….I know this must have been 9or “Ben”) a terribly bitter pill for you to swallow….it will be better…by next season.

williamg on January 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Limbaugh said at the top of his show this afternoon that Pittsburgh had an absurdly easy strength of schedule this year. I didn’t follow them that closely, but in examining that angle their 12 wins only included 3 wins against teams that would end up in the playoffs. 2 or those 3 wins were against the Bungles, and the other was against New England. They lost twice to the playoff-bound Ravens, and also once each to SF and Houston. So while they only lost to “playoff caliber” teams, many of their wins were against crappy teams like Indy and St. Louis and Cleveland, who they beat for 2 of those 12 wins.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM