2005 Steelers... (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

1) No team in the history of the NFL had ever won 3 road playoff games prior to winning the Super Bowl.

That's because good teams usually aren't six seeds.

A better way to say it is all-time great teams aren't six seeds.

And the refs gave them the win against Seattle.

And how many games have the refs given the Patriots over the years? How about the '01 Super Bowl over the Rams? Or the '03 title game over the Colts?

And I don't think I have to remind you about Bettis's fumble on the goal line trying to get a score they didn't need.

The Colts had all three timeouts, so the Steelers could not just kneel on the ball. They had to try and score. Are you really this clueless?

The Bengals were deflated after losing their QB on the first pass play,

So deflated that they took 10-0 and 17-7 leads, right?

 

[fred_1_15301]

1) No team in the history of the NFL had ever won 3 road playoff games prior to winning the Super Bowl.

That's because good teams usually aren't six seeds.

A better way to say it is all-time great teams aren't six seeds.

And the refs gave them the win against Seattle. 

And how many games have the refs given the Patriots over the years? How about the '01 Super Bowl over the Rams? Or the '03 title game over the Colts?

  And I don't think I have to remind you about Bettis's fumble on the goal line trying to get a score they didn't need. 

The Colts had all three timeouts, so the Steelers could not just kneel on the ball. They had to try and score. Are you really this clueless?

The Bengals were deflated after losing their QB on the first pass play, 

So deflated that they took 10-0 and 17-7 leads, right?

Well said GhostRider and that is exactly why I accused BostonFred of jealousy.......

 

[Steelers4Life]

LOL, as a Steelers fan, it makes no difference to me how good they were compared to other Super Bowl teams. Who really cares? LOTS of teams, as has been discussed earlier, have received breaks from calls along the way or injured stars on the other team. They were the best team in the NFL THIS year, and that's enough to get a ring. Many other Super Bowl teams wouldn't have won a Super Bowl if they had played in a different year.. that's the nature of the game.

Were they an 11-5 wild card team? Sure, but who cares? No matter the record or the seeding, everyone knew that heading into the playoffs with a healthy Roethlisberger, this wasn't a "normal" 11-5 wild card team. The '05 Steelers were far superior to the '04 Steelers at the end of the year because Roethlisberger was playing at such a high level... that carried over into the playoffs.

Were they in some ways fortunate that Palmer's knee was injured? The Bengals were clearly a better team with Palmer, but in their first matchup, Palmer lit up the Steelers' secondary for TWO straight drives to start the game only to finish with 227 yards on 36 attempts, with no TDs and 2 INTs. I know, those who think the Steelers would've lost don't want to hear that. It was the Bengals' defense, not their offense, that cost them that game.

Sure, Bettis shouldn't have fumbled against the Colts. Of course, it should never have come to that if Polamalu's INT had been called correctly. Either way, they OVERCAME BAD OFFICIATING and won the game on the road.

They manhandled the Broncos. Plain and simple.

The Super Bowl has been beaten to death now. Some questionable calls on the pass interference and holding? Sure, but by the book, they WERE correct calls. People's opinions won't change no matter how much evidence to the contrary they see or hear, but in the end, it doesn't matter. The Steelers won the game, and all of the Seahawks' mistakes and poor play has been washed away by the perception that the Steelers were handed the game.

 

[bostonfred]

A better way to say it is all-time great teams aren't six seeds.

I can agree with that. The 2005 Steelers were not an all time great team. No shame in that.

And how many games have the refs given the Patriots over the years? How about the '01 Super Bowl over the Rams? Or the '03 title game over the Colts?

That a good question for another thead. This thread is about the Steelers. Try to keep up.

  And I don't think I have to remind you about Bettis's fumble on the goal line trying to get a score they didn't need. 

The Colts had all three timeouts, so the Steelers could not just kneel on the ball. They had to try and score. Are you really this clueless?

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I'm aware they had to score soon. But it was first down. Bettis fumbled while he was trying to get in the end zone. As a veteran, his #1 goal should have been to not fumble on first and goal from the 2. In fact, a good case could be made that they didn't want to score on first down, but that's a topic for another thread.

So deflated that they took 10-0 and 17-7 leads, right?

Yes. They rallied briefly under Kitna, but in the end, they couldn't win that game without Palmer - or at least a quarterback who had taken snaps with the first team all week - and they knew it.

 

[bostonfred]

Well said GhostRider and that is exactly why I accused BostonFred of jealousy.......

That's not a good reason to accuse someone of jealousy. A good reason to accuse someone of jealousy is if there is something they want and didn't get. Would I like the Patriots to have won another Superbowl? Sure. But I said throughout the season that I was rooting for the Steelers to get there if the Pats couldn't. And I'm certainly not unhappy that the Patriots have only won three of the last five Superbowls.

 

[bostonfred]

LOL, as a Steelers fan, it makes no difference to me how good they were compared to other Super Bowl teams. Who really cares? LOTS of teams, as has been discussed earlier, have received breaks from calls along the way or injured stars on the other team. They were the best team in the NFL THIS year, and that's enough to get a ring. Many other Super Bowl teams wouldn't have won a Super Bowl if they had played in a different year.. that's the nature of the game.

The Steelers won it all. Congratulations, as I've said on more than one occasion. So what if you weren't the best Superbowl team of all time? I'd rather be a fan of the worst Superbowl winner than of a team that didn't win one.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Their 11.612 PWT for the 2005 season would rank them 16/21 of all SB winners since 1985.

1985 CHI 14.054

1999 STL 13.807

1996 GNB 13.803

1991 WAS 13.790

2000 BAL 13.453

2002 TAM 12.698

1989 SFO 12.633

1994 SFO 12.481

1992 DAL 12.392

2004 NWE 12.383

1997 DEN 12.236

1993 DAL 12.170

1998 DEN 12.138

1990 NYG 11.991

1986 NYG 11.920

2005 PIT 11.612

1995 DAL 11.547

2003 NWE 11.377

2001 NWE 10.817

1988 SFO 10.103

1987 WAS 9.941

So they didn't dominate their way through the season the way some other teams of the past have done, but they were a legit contender.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I'd be interested to see how the Steelers postseason point differential compares with previous Super Bowl winners. They defeated what many considered to be the four best teams in the NFL by an average of nearly 11.5 points per game. Again, three of those four games were on the road.

Nobody is saying this team should be mentioned with the '85 Bears but clearly they weren't just lucky.

 

[Irish]

1) No team in the history of the NFL had ever won 3 road playoff games prior to winning the Super Bowl.

That's because good teams usually aren't six seeds.

2) Consider the teams they defeated in the playoffs and their record at the time :

at Cincinnati (11-5)

at Indy (14-2)

at Denver (14-3)

vs. Seattle (15-3)

That's 4 wins, three on the road againt teams that combined to go 54-13 (.806) prior to losing to the Steelers. No other team in NFL history can match that postseason run.

They beat Cinci when they took out the quarterback at the start of the game. That wasn't an 11-5 team they beat. EVERYONE beats Indy in the playoffs. It's just a matter of who gets there first. And the refs gave them the win against Seattle. But otherwise, that's a pretty impressive run.

3) The Steelers are a combined 31-7 over the past 2 seasons, tops in the NFL(postseason incluced).

Top 5 Records 2004-2005

Pittsburgh 31-7

Indy 27-8

NE 28-9

Denver 24-11

Seattle 24-12

That's a nice way of saying, remember last year when they had a good team? I think most people would agree that the 2004 Steelers were better than the 2005 version, except Roethlisberger's playoff run.

4) The Steelers are a different team with Roethlisberger at the helm. They were 13-3 in games he started this year and are 27-4 in games he's started the past two seasons, 3-3 in games he hasn't. If Roethlisberger had been healthy they'd have likely gone 13-3 this year, winning at home vs. Jax (Maddox started) and at Balt (Maddox started). The Steelers loss at Indy came on Roethlisberger's first game back after injury. The result was much different when he returned to Indy in January.

Are you bragging about beating Manning in the playoffs? And forgetting that the Steelers tried to give the game away? Polamalu intercepted that ball. But he shouldn't have lost control of it, either. And I don't think I have to remind you about Bettis's fumble on the goal line trying to get a score they didn't need.

5) In their playoff run the Steelers went up against the 1st (Sea), 2nd (Indy), 4th (Cincy) and 7th (Den) highest scoring offenses in the NFL. Those four teams averaged 26.7 points per game in 64 regular season games. In four postseason games against the Steelers D, none of these teams broke 20 points. They averaged 15.5 points, 11 below their season average.

That's strange. I would have sworn I saw Seattle score another touchdown.

6) The Steelers Offense went up against the 2nd (Indy), 4th (Den), 7th (Sea) and 22nd (Cin) best defenses in terms of fewest points allowed. Those four teams allowed an average of 17.6 points per game in 64 regular season games but in four games against the Steelers averaged 26. 8 points allowed, more than 9 points over their average.

The Bengals were deflated after losing their QB on the first pass play, the Colts almost won the game on defense, the Broncos had been beaten up the previous week, and let's not talk about the officiating.

7) The Steelers could easily have won all four of their postseason games by more than 10 points. If Polamalu's dropped INT is ruled a catch the Steelers maintain their 11 point lead and probably add to it. If Bettis scores from the 1 instead of fumbling the Steelers go up 10. The Steelers won their other three playoff games by 14, 17 and 11...pretty impressive.

If Bettis scored from the 1 instead of fumbling it? Do you think the Steelers are the only team that would have benefitted from an actual turnover getting turned into a score? What about the Patriots/Broncos game with the phantom pass interference in the end zone? Or a sure TD for the Seahawks allegedly being out of bounds? This is not a good game for a Steelers fan to play.

8) Finally, the Steelers made this tremendous run in a year where the AFC was clearly the dominant conference...proven by the fact that they as the AFCs #6 seed were favored in the Super Bowl against the #1 seed from the NFC.

The AFC being the dominant conference in a weak NFL doesn't mean that the Steelers were a top all-time team. The Broncos were led by Plummer, who has never had an interceptionless playoff game. Cinci lost their QB in a playoff game. The Colts were led by a Manning. The Patriots were hurt. The Jaguars weren't a playoff team by week 18. The Redskins got in because the Eagles screwed up the Owens situation. The Panthers were between running backs. The Bucs were overrated. The Bears had no quarterback. The Giants had another Manning. And the Seahawks got jobbed by the refs. Every team had issues. The Steelers were fortunate to survive the season healthier than the rest of them, and catch some lucky bounces along the way.

The Patriots were hurt There's no crying in football. Steelers were by far the best team this yr in the NFL and proved it on the field. I don't care what anyone else thinks shoulda woulda happened.

 

[bostonfred]

Steelers were by far the best team this yr in the NFL and proved it on the field.

I don't think anybody's questioning that. The original poster asked if the Steelers are the weakest champs in the last 20 years. A Steelers fan claimed that the NFL was just as tough this year as any other year. That's just not true. The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL. You don't need to be so touchy about this. The Steelers won the Superbowl. Who cares if people think you're one of the top 19 or so Superbowl teams of the last 20 years?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd rather be a fan of the worst Superbowl winner than of a team that didn't win one.

I have good news...

 

[bostonfred]

I'd rather be a fan of the worst Superbowl winner than of a team that didn't win one. 

I have good news...

See, Chase understands. He's never seen his team win a Superbowl. That's got to be tough for him, especially after all the mess he talked when the Jets got Ty Law. So Steelers fans, think of it this way: You wouldn't want to be Chase, would you?

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL. 

That could be the least intelligent post I've ever read on this board. The cumulative record of the 6 AFC teams in the playoffs was 71-25 (.740 win pct.), that has got to be the best in recent history. Only the two-time defending champion Patriots dragged that down with a 10-6 record. Teams like KC and SD at 10-6 and 9-7 didn't even get into the playoffs. The NFC Super Bowl rep, Seattle, was 15-3 just as good as the Eagles the year before. The road to the Super Bowl was never more difficult for an AFC team.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL.

That could be the least intelligent post I've ever read on this board.

Bostonfred almost always contributes with high quality posts and doesn't post fishing trips. But I'm a bit surprised by this one too. Winning @Indy and @Denver were hard games, and Seattle was a better SB team than some past SB losers (2000 Giants, 2003 Panthers). People forget that the 'Hawks didn't lose a meaningful game for over 4 months.Had the Colts won the SB, they'd (rightly) be considerd among the greatest teams of all time. I fail to see how any team was well set up to walk through a weak NFL.

 

[bostonfred]

The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL. 

That could be the least intelligent post I've ever read on this board. The cumulative record of the 6 AFC teams in the playoffs was 71-25 (.740 win pct.), that has got to be the best in recent history. Only the two-time defending champion Patriots dragged that down with a 10-6 record. Teams like KC and SD at 10-6 and 9-7 didn't even get into the playoffs. The NFC Super Bowl rep, Seattle, was 15-3 just as good as the Eagles the year before. The road to the Super Bowl was never more difficult for an AFC team.

Actually, a year there there are nine teams in the AFC with winning seasons can only mean one thing: Cleveland Browns 6 10 0 232 301

Baltimore Ravens 6 10 0 265 299

Buffalo Bills 5 11 0 271 367

Tennessee Titans 4 12 0 299 421

New York Jets 4 12 0 240 355

Oakland Raiders 4 12 0 290 383

Houston Texans 2 14 0 260 431

That's seven teams with 10 or more losses that these so called great AFC teams beat up on, and four with 12 or more.

In 2004, there were four ten loss teams, only two with twelve, and none with more than 12 losses.

In 2003, there were eight ten loss teams, but only two twelve loss teams and none with more than 12.

In 2002, there were only three teams with ten losses, and only two with twelve or more.

In 2001, there were only five, and only one with twelve or more.

In 2000, there were only five, but three with twelve or more.

This year, there were more weak teams than ever in the AFC, and the Steelers got to play them. The Titans, Texans, Ravens, Packers, Browns, Browns and Lions went 33-79, and provided the Steelers with 7 of their 11 regular season wins.

So as much as there were some good teams in the AFC, it was hardly a dominant field that the Steelers beat en route to the playoffs.

The Steelers then went into the playoffs and faced a Bengals team where they took out the quarterback on the first passing play.

They dodged the Patriots, who had beaten the Steelers earlier in the season and who many Steelers fans said they didn't want to face, and watched the Broncos and Patriots play a physical game in Denver while they celebrated Manning's annual return to Chokesville.

The Broncos game was tough, although they had a far more physical opponent the previous week than the Steelers, who faced the Colts, and when they met, the Steelers hit them hard (as they always do). Playing a physical game against the Broncos coming off a bye week is a lot different than playing a physical game against the Broncos the week after they play another physical team.

And the Seahawks were a good team, but they were hardly dominant. They just played in an even weaker NFC.

The other teams they could have faced were an injured Jaguars team, a dinged up Patriots team that was just starting to peak when they got knocked down by the Broncos, a Chargers team that fizzled at the end, or maybe a Chiefs team that was relying on Larry Johnson to cover up the 30th passing D in the NFL and the 20th run D in terms of yards per carry (but 7th in terms of yards allowed). This was not a very strong playoff field.

I'm not trying to discredit the Steelers. You have to play the schedule they put in front of you, and the Steelers did that. But I stand behind the comment that this was a good year for any team to try to take a shot at the Superbowl because the field wasn't particularly strong, and most of the playoff teams cooled off or got injured towards the end.

 

[Chase Stuart]

They dodged the Patriots, who had beaten the Steelers earlier in the season and who many Steelers fans said they didn't want to face, and watched the Broncos and Patriots play a physical game in Denver while they celebrated Manning's annual return to Chokesville.

The Colts beat the Steelers earlier in the season as well.But I'm curious to hear about Manning's annual return to Chokesville. The way I see it, Manning has been 2-0 in the playoffs in recent history, throwing for 9 TDs and 0 INTs. So beating Indy in Indy isn't impressive anymore? The Colts had won 17 of the previous 19 home games, including two playoff wins, prior to that Steelers loss.

 

[Jous]

You can't just not say that a playoff win over Indy or another team that has had a history of losing in the playoffs shouldn't be considered extremely impressive......Indy was an absolutely MONSTROUS team in 2005, nearly perfect all-around. Had they won it all, they would be remembered as AT LEAST a Top 10 all-time team.

Hell, if you're going to say that Pittsburgh had a relatively easy NFL to walk through, then that must mean that the 2004 Pats had the easiest playoff run of all time. They played a "choking" Indy team, then a "choking" Pittsburgh team, and then a "choking" Eagles squad. Easiest playoff run ever!

 

[bostonfred]

They dodged the Patriots, who had beaten the Steelers earlier in the season and who many Steelers fans said they didn't want to face, and watched the Broncos and Patriots play a physical game in Denver while they celebrated Manning's annual return to Chokesville. 

The Colts beat the Steelers earlier in the season as well.But I'm curious to hear about Manning's annual return to Chokesville. The way I see it, Manning has been 2-0 in the playoffs in recent history, throwing for 9 TDs and 0 INTs. So beating Indy in Indy isn't impressive anymore? The Colts had won 17 of the previous 19 home games, including two playoff wins, prior to that Steelers loss.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 2-0 in the playoffs. Do you mean at home? He's now 2-2 at home, as opposed to 1-4 on the road. I don't know if I'd call it impressive, but if you want I'll concede that beating Manning's Colts at home is harder than beating them on the road.But look at this specific game. He lost the game three times. He threw the game ending interception, but it got reviewed. He went 4 and out when they were running the two minute drill, and took three sacks. Then he took shots at the end zone instead of moving them into field goal range. Maybe he's had some good games at home in the past, but this was not one of them.

 

[DropKick]

SB XL was a horrible game to watch as an unbiased fan. Neither team came with their A-game. And the officiating was controversial. I believe Pittsburgh was a very beatable team that day.

Maybe the Steelers aren't the best team in the league. Maybe they're not even the best team in their division. Nevertheless, they won the Superbowl. Emphasis on "they won".

So they lost some games last year. That happens when you lose your QB. Some teams would have folded under the same adversity. They got a "6" seed for their regular season and they overcame that too. They beat the #1, #2 and #3 seeds in the AFC - all on the road.

They are the AFC champion. They are the SB Champion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

They dodged the Patriots, who had beaten the Steelers earlier in the season and who many Steelers fans said they didn't want to face, and watched the Broncos and Patriots play a physical game in Denver while they celebrated Manning's annual return to Chokesville.

The Colts beat the Steelers earlier in the season as well.But I'm curious to hear about Manning's annual return to Chokesville. The way I see it, Manning has been 2-0 in the playoffs in recent history, throwing for 9 TDs and 0 INTs. So beating Indy in Indy isn't impressive anymore? The Colts had won 17 of the previous 19 home games, including two playoff wins, prior to that Steelers loss.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 2-0 in the playoffs. Do you mean at home? He's now 2-2 at home, as opposed to 1-4 on the road. I don't know if I'd call it impressive, but if you want I'll concede that beating Manning's Colts at home is harder than beating them on the road.But look at this specific game. He lost the game three times. He threw the game ending interception, but it got reviewed. He went 4 and out when they were running the two minute drill, and took three sacks. Then he took shots at the end zone instead of moving them into field goal range. Maybe he's had some good games at home in the past, but this was not one of them.

Yes, I meant 2-0 at home in the playoffs. The Steelers defense had a lot to do with why the Colts lost that specific game.

 

[Franknbeans]

They definitely deserve to be counted near or at the bottom of the list since they wouldn't have won the Super Bowl without the 12th man they had on the field throughout the game wearing stripes. All of the other teams on the list won a fairly officiated game.

 

[nygiants56]

GB the year they beat the Patriots..remember, if not for two kick returns for td's by Desmond Howard.....

still can't believe they let him score twice..

 

[TheLaw]

The Bengals were deflated after losing their QB on the first pass play, the Colts almost won the game on defense, the Broncos had been beaten up the previous week, and let's not talk about the officiating. 

Yea, the Bengals were so deflated that they led by 11 at one point in the game.

 

[jetpack]

The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL. 

That could be the least intelligent post I've ever read on this board. The cumulative record of the 6 AFC teams in the playoffs was 71-25 (.740 win pct.), that has got to be the best in recent history. Only the two-time defending champion Patriots dragged that down with a 10-6 record. Teams like KC and SD at 10-6 and 9-7 didn't even get into the playoffs. The NFC Super Bowl rep, Seattle, was 15-3 just as good as the Eagles the year before. The road to the Super Bowl was never more difficult for an AFC team.

Actually, a year there there are nine teams in the AFC with winning seasons can only mean one thing: Cleveland Browns 6 10 0 232 301

Baltimore Ravens 6 10 0 265 299

Buffalo Bills 5 11 0 271 367

Tennessee Titans 4 12 0 299 421

New York Jets 4 12 0 240 355

Oakland Raiders 4 12 0 290 383

Houston Texans 2 14 0 260 431

That's seven teams with 10 or more losses that these so called great AFC teams beat up on, and four with 12 or more.

In 2004, there were four ten loss teams, only two with twelve, and none with more than 12 losses.

In 2003, there were eight ten loss teams, but only two twelve loss teams and none with more than 12.

In 2002, there were only three teams with ten losses, and only two with twelve or more.

In 2001, there were only five, and only one with twelve or more.

In 2000, there were only five, but three with twelve or more.

This year, there were more weak teams than ever in the AFC, and the Steelers got to play them. The Titans, Texans, Ravens, Packers, Browns, Browns and Lions went 33-79, and provided the Steelers with 7 of their 11 regular season wins.

So as much as there were some good teams in the AFC, it was hardly a dominant field that the Steelers beat en route to the playoffs.

The Steelers then went into the playoffs and faced a Bengals team where they took out the quarterback on the first passing play.

They dodged the Patriots, who had beaten the Steelers earlier in the season and who many Steelers fans said they didn't want to face, and watched the Broncos and Patriots play a physical game in Denver while they celebrated Manning's annual return to Chokesville.

The Broncos game was tough, although they had a far more physical opponent the previous week than the Steelers, who faced the Colts, and when they met, the Steelers hit them hard (as they always do). Playing a physical game against the Broncos coming off a bye week is a lot different than playing a physical game against the Broncos the week after they play another physical team.

And the Seahawks were a good team, but they were hardly dominant. They just played in an even weaker NFC.

The other teams they could have faced were an injured Jaguars team, a dinged up Patriots team that was just starting to peak when they got knocked down by the Broncos, a Chargers team that fizzled at the end, or maybe a Chiefs team that was relying on Larry Johnson to cover up the 30th passing D in the NFL and the 20th run D in terms of yards per carry (but 7th in terms of yards allowed). This was not a very strong playoff field.

I'm not trying to discredit the Steelers. You have to play the schedule they put in front of you, and the Steelers did that. But I stand behind the comment that this was a good year for any team to try to take a shot at the Superbowl because the field wasn't particularly strong, and most of the playoff teams cooled off or got injured towards the end.

You could also infer the opposite, that the teams at top this year were stronger because they won more of the games they should have (as strong teams are supposed to do). This would push both groups away from the median. Weaker teams would lose more games (i.e. more teams with >9 loses) while stronger teams win more games. This would be in contrast to other years when the teams at the top aren't as strong and thus lose more of their games against weaker competiton. This would push both groups towards the median. Weaker teams would win more games than they should, stronger teams wouldn't be as strong and thus lose more games than they should. You would have to look at the Wins data for the playoff teams from other years and correlate it with the weakest teams (>9 loses in your data) to determine which interpretation is closer to the mark.

 

[bryhamm]

Well said GhostRider and that is exactly why I accused BostonFred of jealousy.......

That's not a good reason to accuse someone of jealousy. A good reason to accuse someone of jealousy is if there is something they want and didn't get. Would I like the Patriots to have won another Superbowl? Sure. But I said throughout the season that I was rooting for the Steelers to get there if the Pats couldn't. And I'm certainly not unhappy that the Patriots have only won three of the last five Superbowls.

So, since the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl, I am assuming that you are saying that you didn't want them to win it this year, right?

 

[bryhamm]

The jealousy and homerism in your posts are so blatant it's actually comical......

I'll buy homerism, but what do I have to be jealous of? In fact, I almost feel bad for Steelers fans. Pats fans went through the same kinds of things in 2001. Fortunately, it turns out that they were undeniably one of the all time great teams. The Steelers may turn out to be the same. I've said before I have a lot of respect for Roethlisberger, and I think he could turn out to be a very good quarterback when all is said and done. And I was happy to see Bettis win one. I'm just saying I can understand why people might question it.

Oh, make no mistake about it .... there is LOTS of deniablility.

 

[Hobbes]

...but I've got some time to kill so I'll bite. Don't confuse the sloppiness of the Super Bowl with the Steelers being a weak Super Bowl winner.

Consider the teams they defeated in the playoffs and their record at the time :

at Cincinnati (11-5)

at Indy (14-2)

at Denver (14-3)

vs. Seattle (15-3)

That's 4 wins, three on the road againt teams that combined to go 54-13 (.806) prior to losing to the Steelers. No other team in NFL history can match that postseason run.

This is really all that needs to be said. The 2005 title run was impressive because they had to beat the absolute best competition to do it. No other team has had as difficult a slate to get it done, so that alone puts them out of conversation as one of the worst teams to win it all.

Any #6 seed is going to have to beat all of the best teams to win it all. I'm not discounting what they did in the playoffs, as it was a very impressive run, but there is also a reason that they were the #6 seed and not the #1 seed going into the playoffs...there were 5 teams that played better during the regular season than they did. Had Pittsburgh played as well in the regular season as they did in the playoffs then we would probably not be having this conversation right now.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

  ...but I've got some time to kill so I'll bite.  Don't confuse the sloppiness of the Super Bowl with the Steelers being a weak Super Bowl winner.

Consider the teams they defeated in the playoffs and their record at the time :

at Cincinnati  (11-5)

at Indy (14-2)

at Denver (14-3)

vs. Seattle (15-3)

That's 4 wins, three on the road againt teams that combined to go 54-13 (.806) prior to losing to the Steelers.  No other team in NFL history can match that postseason run.

This is really all that needs to be said. The 2005 title run was impressive because they had to beat the absolute best competition to do it. No other team has had as difficult a slate to get it done, so that alone puts them out of conversation as one of the worst teams to win it all.

Any #6 seed is going to have to beat all of the best teams to win it all. I'm not discounting what they did in the playoffs, as it was a very impressive run, but there is also a reason that they were the #6 seed and not the #1 seed going into the playoffs...there were 5 teams that played better during the regular season than they did. Had Pittsburgh played as well in the regular season as they did in the playoffs then we would probably not be having this conversation right now.

Actually the Steelers had the same record as the #3 seed Cincy (11-5) and a better record than the #4 seed New England (10-6).

 

[Hobbes]

I'd be interested to see how the Steelers postseason point differential compares with previous Super Bowl winners. They defeated what many considered to be the four best teams in the NFL by an average of nearly 11.5 points per game. Again, three of those four games were on the road.

Nobody is saying this team should be mentioned with the '85 Bears but clearly they weren't just lucky.

Here's how my team stacked up...2002 Bucs over 3 games 106-37 total score for a differential of 23 points per game (and two of those 3 games were against #1 seeds on the road)

 

[EdgeCator]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

 

[bryhamm]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Future sig material

 

[Sea Bass]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Future sig material

So is your avatar!

 

[jetpack]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

 

[Pat Patriot]

OK, so for teams that won the superbowl in the last 20 yrs, and missed their starting QB due to injury (I'm not talking about mid year QB controversies like the 87 Skins with shroeder and williams, or the 200 Ravens with banks and dillhole, etc):

2002 Brad Johnson did not start in three games (this may be due to QB controversy with Shaun King and Rob Johnson -- I don't remember and don't want to exclude it without being sure)

1998 Elway did not start in three games.

1992 Aikman missed two games.

1990 Phil Simms missed two games

Joe Montana missed

2 games in 1988

3 games in 1989

That is it. No Superbowl-winning team in this window we're looking at, prior to the Steelers, ever lost their starting QB for as many games during the regular season that the 05 Steelers did. So if you're going to knock them for their regular season record, just keep that in mind.

You have 1 glaring omission from your list:2001 Patriots

They played 14 games without their starting QB and still won the SB.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The Steelers were not the weakest SB winner of the past 20 years. That distinction would probably go to the 2001 Patriots.

However, the distinction the Steelers should own is having played the WORST game of any SB winner in history.

 

[jetpack]

The Steelers were not the weakest SB winner of the past 20 years. That distinction would probably go to the 2001 Patriots.

However, the distinction the Steelers should own is having played the WORST game of any SB winner in history.

Not quite accurate enough. In the second half the Steelers played a very strong, typical Steeler game. The Steeler offense certainly should be ranked right up there for the worst 1st quarter of any SB winner in history, though. I can agree to that.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 2001 Patriots were handed the divisional playoff win, they shouldn't have even BEEN in the SuperBowl. Not to mention that while they were playing the Rams, there was a strong case of referee favoritism for the Pats. Look it up, there's tons of websites with video clips of blatant personal fouls and holding by the Pats that they were never flagged on.

The 2003 Patriots very likely should NOT have gotten past Indy in the AFCCG. They committed at least 5 huge pass interferences at crucial times, and were never flagged. The league even admitted that were were "several pass interference flags that should have been thrown" later on, if you remember.

I like the way you think

Crackhead is probably a better username for you because you are on something.The Patriots beat the crap out of the Rams and deserved their victory. The Rams should be blaming Mike Martz for their loss for being stubborn and not running the ball. The refs did not help the Pats in that game. In fact, the refs (correctly I might add) reversed a long defensive TD by the Pats that would have salted the game away.

The comments about the 2003 AFCCG are just asinine. The Pats DOMINATED the Colts in that game. The Colts had about 50 yards of offense at the half. I believe the Pats were up 18-0. Did the refs cause Manning to throw 4 interceptions that day? There was NO WAY the Colts were winning that game. Manning was horrible.

You and Jous obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[The Reverend]

Steelers were by far the best team this yr in the NFL and proved it on the field. 

I don't think anybody's questioning that. The original poster asked if the Steelers are the weakest champs in the last 20 years. A Steelers fan claimed that the NFL was just as tough this year as any other year. That's just not true. The Steelers - or whoever won this year - were well set up to walk through a pretty weak NFL. You don't need to be so touchy about this. The Steelers won the Superbowl. Who cares if people think you're one of the top 19 or so Superbowl teams of the last 20 years?

I was fishing myself with this one. In this modern era of free-agent, salary cap football, the NFL's quality variance year-to-year is pretty small. Saying that the NFL last year was among the worst in 20 years (or just in the modern FA-SC area) in 2005 means that in 2004 and 2003 the NFL's caliber was also weak, and nearly as much so as 2005's. Nothing really changed year-to-year to offset the balance that dramatically. No one's retirement, death, or stockpiling on one team caused 2005 to be worse than 2004 or 2003 because one team had all the good players. The recent rule changes (like the chuck rule enforcement) affected all teams equally, so this is a non-factor in the equation as it cancels out on both sides.

That said, 2006 and 2007 could possibly be noticably better or worse under the new CBA as some lesser managed teams will benefit at the expense of others. The Steelers will not be one of them, and should again make the playoffs.

I'd be open to hear discussion on how one could quantitatively measure the quality of an entire NFL year-to-year and back test it. If you could do this, then you could normalize all teams season's and rather definitively declare who was better--and by what margin. You could measure the NFL's quality year-over-year. Knowing what variables are in the equation would allow the NFL to keep improving the quality of the NFL.

I'm not saying it's impossible to quantify the NFL's quality year-over-year, because I think it is doable. It's just extremely difficult, kinda like Chaos Theory. The person who could do this would make millions. The NFL would buy it if they haven't already done it....

 

[Texasmouth]

Below is a list of the last 20 teams who won the Super Bowl before Pittsburgh. By my estimation, the '05 Steelers were better than maybe two of those teams, and I have bolded the two teams. Am I being fair? Do you dispute this assertion?

Super Bowl 36 - Patriots

Super Bowl 30 - Cowboys

No way the 05 Steelers beat either of these teams.

 

[EdgeCator]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

The one number that the Steelers did have in their favor was the score, and that's what I'm talking about uncanny luck.

Look, they nearly missed the #*@%'n playoffs! Then they had a string of good fortune. Face it: weak'n'lucky.

And yes, I do win my league much. You?

 

[Sea Bass]

I don't believe that the 2005-6 Steelers are in any way a weak championship team, unless you are only looking at the Super Bowl itself. I am a Seahawk fan who waited a long time to see the Hawks play for the championship. I hate to admit it but that was one of the fugliest games (preseason included) that I have ever seen. Both teams, the refs, and even the entertainment flat out stunk!

 

[Godsbrother]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

Yards don't mean squat -- the only stat that MATTERS is the final score:The Steelers beat the AFC #3 seeded team by 14 points ON THE ROAD

The Steelers beat the AFC #1 seeded team by 3 points ON THE ROAD (would have been at least 10 pts if not for fluke fumble)

The Steelers beat the AFC #2 seeded team by 17 points ON THE ROAD where the Broncos had not lost all year.

The Steelers beat the NFC #1 seeded team by 11 points.

If not for a fluke fumble in the Indy game they would have beaten every playoff opponent by double-digits!

Weak, my a**!

 

[Prime]

I still want to hear how this team is better then my 95 Cowboys? You know, the same team with Emmitt, Troy, Irvin, Haley, Deion, and company. Soem peopel consider the 95 better then the 92/93 teams.

 

[Jous]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

The one number that the Steelers did have in their favor was the score, and that's what I'm talking about uncanny luck.

Look, they nearly missed the #*@%'n playoffs! Then they had a string of good fortune. Face it: weak'n'lucky.

And yes, I do win my league much. You?

Here's your problem. You're looking at the 2005 Steelers' late season playoff push as the fluke, and that they weren't even that good of a team.Here's the reality....they WERE fantastic team, in fact, their 3 game losing streak was the fluke, NOT their 4 game win streak at the end of the regular season.

They dominated in the playoffs, and I fail to see how the SB win was luck simply because they were outgained. Games and results like that happen every single week in the NFL.....teams can gain a lot of yards and do it almost every drive between the 20's, but if they can't punch it in the endzone, then it means nothing. The Seahawks couldn't punch it in the endzone because they committed penalties, AND they missed 2 field goals, making the yards they gained on those drives worthless. Not to mention that a decent bit of those 396 yards came on their final drive, when the game was decided by then anyway.

And to dispel the notion that the Steelers were a statistically "weak" team in 2005....just look at the stats. Their defense was dominant, allowing the 3rd fewest points in the league, and had a very solid pass D that allowed the fewest TD passes all year. Their run D, while it ranked 3rd, was THE BEST RUN DEFENSE IN THE LEAGUE.....because they allowed the fewest YPC, at 3.4. That's the true measure of a run defense, not yards.

 

[Jous]

And yeah....I don't know where the 2005 Steelers rank, and while they certainly weren't al all-time great team, they were definetly better than the 2001 Patriots. The 01 Pats were possibly the weakest champ the league has EVER had in the SuperBowl era.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

Yards don't mean squat -- the only stat that MATTERS is the final score:The Steelers beat the AFC #3 seeded team by 14 points ON THE ROAD

The Steelers beat the AFC #1 seeded team by 3 points ON THE ROAD (would have been at least 10 pts if not for fluke fumble)

The Steelers beat the AFC #2 seeded team by 17 points ON THE ROAD where the Broncos had not lost all year.

The Steelers beat the NFC #1 seeded team by 11 points.

If not for a fluke fumble in the Indy game they would have beaten every playoff opponent by double-digits!

Weak, my a**!

Once again GodsBrother, you make waaaay too much sense for the throngs of Steeler-haters out there...Listen, if it makes you dimwits feel better to think the Steelers are the worst championship team in the modern age of mankind, then have at it.

All I know is, the Steelers will go down in history as completing the most impossible playoff run and NO TEAM WILL EVER DUPLICATE IT!

EVER!

 

[EdgeCator]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

Yards don't mean squat -- the only stat that MATTERS is the final score:The Steelers beat the AFC #3 seeded team by 14 points ON THE ROAD

The Steelers beat the AFC #1 seeded team by 3 points ON THE ROAD (would have been at least 10 pts if not for fluke fumble)

The Steelers beat the AFC #2 seeded team by 17 points ON THE ROAD where the Broncos had not lost all year.

The Steelers beat the NFC #1 seeded team by 11 points.

If not for a fluke fumble in the Indy game they would have beaten every playoff opponent by double-digits!

Weak, my a**!

You want to talk about flukes? If Carson Palmer doesn't go down, Steelers lose. If Vanderjagt doesn't miss a field goal he always makes, Steelers lose. If the Broncos don't suck so bad, Steelers lose. If Bill Leavy and crew don't repeatedly change the momentum of the Super Bowl with their terrible towels, Steelers lose.

Their whole post season was an amazing run of luck. It's like winning the lottery. Yeah, you're the winner! But did you earn it, or did you get lucky?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

bitter much?

 

[Jous]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

Yards don't mean squat -- the only stat that MATTERS is the final score:The Steelers beat the AFC #3 seeded team by 14 points ON THE ROAD

The Steelers beat the AFC #1 seeded team by 3 points ON THE ROAD (would have been at least 10 pts if not for fluke fumble)

The Steelers beat the AFC #2 seeded team by 17 points ON THE ROAD where the Broncos had not lost all year.

The Steelers beat the NFC #1 seeded team by 11 points.

If not for a fluke fumble in the Indy game they would have beaten every playoff opponent by double-digits!

Weak, my a**!

You want to talk about flukes? If Carson Palmer doesn't go down, Steelers lose. If Vanderjagt doesn't miss a field goal he always makes, Steelers lose. If the Broncos don't suck so bad, Steelers lose. If Bill Leavy and crew don't repeatedly change the momentum of the Super Bowl with their terrible towels, Steelers lose.

Their whole post season was an amazing run of luck. It's like winning the lottery. Yeah, you're the winner! But did you earn it, or did you get lucky?

Wow. Well at least we know that your opinions in this thread can't be taken seriously anymore.....that last post of yours was an absolute joke. It's clear that you're not just an objective NFL fan, you just flat out hate the Steelers.But to answer your ridiculous comments....I'd like to know why you think that it's automatic that Pittsburgh loses if Palmer stays in. You do realize that in the Carson Palmer era prior to that game, Pittsburgh was 3-1 versus the Bengals, right? You do realize that Pittsburgh previously in the year stomped the Bengals at their stadium, right?

As for Indy, you claim that we were "lucky" that Vanderjagt missed that field goal, and that had he made it they win. That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! Indy was the lucky team, not Pittsburgh. They were lucky that their 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 forced fumble on Bettis even occurred, after being tremendously outplayed all game.

The funniest part has to be about Denver sucking, and saying that we were lucky that Denver "sucked so bad." This is where it's obvious that you jst hate Pittsburgh, because you refuse to even acknowledge that Pittsburgh played a fantastic football game, and instead just say that Denver sucked. Genius.

As for the SuperBowl, this has been over many, many times....but just go bakc and look at the questionable calls. Except for the blown call on Hasslebeck's tackle, ZERO of the calls were bad. Some were close, but NONE were terrible calls.

When I imagine EdgeCator, all I get is an image of some kid, crying his eyes out in his computer chair, wearing his Bengals jersey.....typing furiously on the keyboard saying to himself "The Steelers didn't win....no....this can't be happening.."

 

[EdgeCator]

2005 Steelers...weak...overrated...undeserving...the only thing they had going for them was some uncanny luck. 2006 Steelers won't make the playoffs.

Nice analysis backed with data. Win your league much?

2005 Steelers regular season rankings (NFL.com):Total Offense: 16

Total Defense: 4

2005/06 Steelers post season rankings:

Total Offense: 3

Total Defense: 8 (out of 12)!

By comparison, the Super Bowl losing Seahawks ranked #1 in total offense and #3 in total defense in the post season.

The Steelers were outgained in the Super Bowl 396 yards to 339, and that included the 75 yard run and the 43 yard trick play. Total plays, Seahawks 77 to Steelers 56 .

Yards don't mean squat -- the only stat that MATTERS is the final score:The Steelers beat the AFC #3 seeded team by 14 points ON THE ROAD

The Steelers beat the AFC #1 seeded team by 3 points ON THE ROAD (would have been at least 10 pts if not for fluke fumble)

The Steelers beat the AFC #2 seeded team by 17 points ON THE ROAD where the Broncos had not lost all year.

The Steelers beat the NFC #1 seeded team by 11 points.

If not for a fluke fumble in the Indy game they would have beaten every playoff opponent by double-digits!

Weak, my a**!

You want to talk about flukes? If Carson Palmer doesn't go down, Steelers lose. If Vanderjagt doesn't miss a field goal he always makes, Steelers lose. If the Broncos don't suck so bad, Steelers lose. If Bill Leavy and crew don't repeatedly change the momentum of the Super Bowl with their terrible towels, Steelers lose.

Their whole post season was an amazing run of luck. It's like winning the lottery. Yeah, you're the winner! But did you earn it, or did you get lucky?

Wow. Well at least we know that your opinions in this thread can't be taken seriously anymore.....that last post of yours was an absolute joke. It's clear that you're not just an objective NFL fan, you just flat out hate the Steelers.But to answer your ridiculous comments....I'd like to know why you think that it's automatic that Pittsburgh loses if Palmer stays in. You do realize that in the Carson Palmer era prior to that game, Pittsburgh was 3-1 versus the Bengals, right? You do realize that Pittsburgh previously in the year stomped the Bengals at their stadium, right?

As for Indy, you claim that we were "lucky" that Vanderjagt missed that field goal, and that had he made it they win. That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! Indy was the lucky team, not Pittsburgh. They were lucky that their 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 forced fumble on Bettis even occurred, after being tremendously outplayed all game.

The funniest part has to be about Denver sucking, and saying that we were lucky that Denver "sucked so bad." This is where it's obvious that you jst hate Pittsburgh, because you refuse to even acknowledge that Pittsburgh played a fantastic football game, and instead just say that Denver sucked. Genius.

As for the SuperBowl, this has been over many, many times....but just go bakc and look at the questionable calls. Except for the blown call on Hasslebeck's tackle, ZERO of the calls were bad. Some were close, but NONE were terrible calls.

When I imagine EdgeCator, all I get is an image of some kid, crying his eyes out in his computer chair, wearing his Bengals jersey.....typing furiously on the keyboard saying to himself "The Steelers didn't win....no....this can't be happening.."

Dude, you really didn't have to go to all that trouble. You had me at "...can't be taken seriously anymore."