Steelers "lack of suckitude" in my lifetime is unparalleled (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

OK, we all know the Steelers were a laughingstock for much of their history. However, this all happened before I was born. Since 1972, the Steelers have reeled off what I can only describe as an incredible run of not sucking. Forget about the 6 Lombardis for a minute, or all the AFCC appearances, division titles, etc. I just want to focus on their run of just about always being competitive. Sure, using 1972 is cherry-picking for stat purposes, but it was both the year I was born and the year this remarkable run began (coincidence, I think not ! )

Since that year (38 seasons), look at the numbers :

Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)

Three straight losing seasons : Zero.

Losing seasons total : 7

Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4

Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)

Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.

Is there another franchise that can claim any of these consistency stats in the last ~40 years?

 

[Proud Communist]

I don't think so...to me, the Steelers are the model NFL franchise in the Super Bowl era. Consistently good, sometimes great. It never seems to take them many years to bounce up off the ground when they do struggle.

 

[CentralPA]

Probably the most well ran franchise in the NFL. The Rooney's have done a good job, they are handling some adversity with the Roethlisberger situation and I think this year will be a tough one for them to have a winning season but so far it's been the Steelers who I would consider the best ran franchise since the beginning of the Super Bowl era.

 

[FUBAR]

If we're going to use arbitrary years, the Red Wings from 1983-present have been pretty decent. 1983 is important because it's the beginning of the Yzerman era.

Seasons not making playoffs: 2

Losing seasons: 5

Division titles: 15

Years straight winning division: 2, 3, 8

Years straight finishing 1st or 2nd in the division: 18

Years straight making playoffs: 19

Conference Championships: 6

Stanley Cups: 4

If we venture into the college ranks, I'll take my Jayhawks.

Losing seasons since 1898: 12

Losing seasons since 1972: 3

Losing seasons since 1983: zero

Years straight making the tournament: 26 (except 1988 when on probation)

For the record, that's 12 losing seasons in 112 years, for roughly a 90% success rate in their history vs. the Steelers recent success rate of around 82%.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think the continuity of having 3 HC's helped a lot with that.

 

[Godsbrother]

On the other side of the coin we have the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once a great franchise it has set new records of suckitude. I would happily take 5 years of crappy football to see the Buccos win another World Series.

 

[Godsbrother]

I think the continuity of having 3 HC's helped a lot with that.

The main person responsible for the Steelers success has been Dan Rooney.

 

[DoubleG]

Yankees?

 

[Mello]

In the last 40 years to present, probably not. Though the Steelers seemed to suck pretty often in the 80s. I'd rate the Cowboys' run of 20 straight winning seasons with 5 Super Bowl appearances and 2 wins or their run from 66 to 96 with 8 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins higher. I'm biased though.

 

[FUBAR]

I think the continuity of having 3 HC's helped a lot with that.

The main person responsible for the Steelers success has been Dan Rooney.

basically the anti-Ford, Davis, Snyder, Jones... If anyone can tell us their secret to picking coaches, I'd love to hear it. They have been very lucky, Tomlin is one of those gems very few teams would have had the fortitude to hire. A lot of teams have been dominant in 10 year periods, currently the Patriots and Colts are in that group, but in the NFL the Steelers are the standard to strive for. A few owners seem to have the right mindset to come close to their success, Bob Kraft is one, I'd like to put Jim Irsay in that group but I'd like to see what they do without Peyton.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think the continuity of having 3 HC's helped a lot with that.

The main person responsible for the Steelers success has been Dan Rooney.

basically the anti-Ford, Davis, Snyder, Jones... If anyone can tell us their secret to picking coaches, I'd love to hear it. They have been very lucky, Tomlin is one of those gems very few teams would have had the fortitude to hire. A lot of teams have been dominant in 10 year periods, currently the Patriots and Colts are in that group, but in the NFL the Steelers are the standard to strive for. A few owners seem to have the right mindset to come close to their success, Bob Kraft is one, I'd like to put Jim Irsay in that group but I'd like to see what they do without Peyton.

I think having roughly(obviously coordinators change) the same systems and players within those systems constantly developing towards the same one year in and year out speaks to the issues of constant turnover and the what have you done for me lately attitude of society. Stick by your guy(coach) and let it develop with time.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I would happily take 5 years of crappy football to see the Buccos win another World Series.

Get out of here with that garbage. I'd ship the Pirates out of Pittsburgh tomorrow for another Steelers Lombardi.

 

[Proud Communist]

I think the continuity of having 3 HC's helped a lot with that.

Yes..but that means picking the right coach in the first place and having the patience to experience the growing pains.

 

[Proud Communist]

In the last 40 years to present, probably not. Though the Steelers seemed to suck pretty often in the 80s. I'd rate the Cowboys' run of 20 straight winning seasons with 5 Super Bowl appearances and 2 wins or their run from 66 to 96 with 8 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins higher. I'm biased though.

The Steelers didn't make a Super Bowl in the 1980's, but then again neither did the Cowboys. And the Steelers never went 1-15.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If we're going to use arbitrary years, the Red Wings from 1983-present have been pretty decent. 1983 is important because it's the beginning of the Yzerman era.Seasons not making playoffs: 2Losing seasons: 5Division titles: 15Years straight winning division: 2, 3, 8Years straight finishing 1st or 2nd in the division: 18Years straight making playoffs: 19Conference Championships: 6Stanley Cups: 4If we venture into the college ranks, I'll take my Jayhawks.Losing seasons since 1898: 12Losing seasons since 1972: 3Losing seasons since 1983: zeroYears straight making the tournament: 26 (except 1988 when on probation)For the record, that's 12 losing seasons in 112 years, for roughly a 90% success rate in their history vs. the Steelers recent success rate of around 82%.

Yankees?

NFL teams. Should have specified that.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

In the last 40 years to present, probably not. Though the Steelers seemed to suck pretty often in the 80s. I'd rate the Cowboys' run of 20 straight winning seasons with 5 Super Bowl appearances and 2 wins or their run from 66 to 96 with 8 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins higher. I'm biased though.

The Steelers didn't make a Super Bowl in the 1980's, but then again neither did the Cowboys. And the Steelers never went 1-15.

IIRC, the Cowboys also had a streak of 5 straight losing seasons somewhere in there. Automatically disqualifies them from this discussion.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Steelers :

Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)

Three straight losing seasons : Zero.

Losing seasons total : 7

Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4

Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)

Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.

Cowboys :

Back to back losing seasons : 1986-1990 (5 straight) , 2000-2002 (3 straight)

Three straight losing seasons : see above.

Losing seasons total : 10

Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 7

Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 5

Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2

They may be closest, but they don't touch Pittsburgh over the time frame of 1972-2009.

 

[Mello]

In the last 40 years to present, probably not. Though the Steelers seemed to suck pretty often in the 80s. I'd rate the Cowboys' run of 20 straight winning seasons with 5 Super Bowl appearances and 2 wins or their run from 66 to 96 with 8 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins higher. I'm biased though.

The Steelers didn't make a Super Bowl in the 1980's, but then again neither did the Cowboys. And the Steelers never went 1-15.

I'll admit I was going off of memory. They were better during the 80s than I thought. Nothing worse than one 5-11 season. Pretty impressive.

 

[Godsbrother]

I would happily take 5 years of crappy football to see the Buccos win another World Series.

Get out of here with that garbage. I'd ship the Pirates out of Pittsburgh tomorrow for another Steelers Lombardi.

Sorry ACP. When I was growing up the Pirates were the #1 team in Pittsburgh and it wasn't close. The Steelers were lovable losers and the only player I really liked was Roy Jefferson. I remember being very pissed at Chuck Noll when he traded him away in 1970.I love the Steelers as much as anyone but it breaks my heart to see the Pirates in such an awful state. I would love to see them win a World Series.

 

[Mello]

Steelers :Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)Three straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.Cowboys :Back to back losing seasons : 1986-1990 (5 straight) , 2000-2002 (3 straight)Three straight losing seasons : see above.Losing seasons total : 10Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 7Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 5Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2They may be closest, but they don't touch Pittsburgh over the time frame of 1972-2009.

Through present I can't argue. That 5 year stretch in the late 80s and the early 2000s take them down a notch.

 

[FUBAR]

Thought San Fran might be close and if we're looking at 80s and 90s, they are. They were an average team in the 70s and had a rough patch in the 00s, but that sixteen double digit win seasons streak is downright impressive. Missed the playoffs once in that stretch at 10-6.

 

[CowboyFan]

Steelers :Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)Three straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.Cowboys :Back to back losing seasons : 1986-1990 (5 straight) , 2000-2002 (3 straight)Three straight losing seasons : see above.Losing seasons total : 10Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 7Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 5Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2They may be closest, but they don't touch Pittsburgh over the time frame of 1972-2009.

Wiki makes it easy:

The Cowboys are the only NFL team to record 20 consecutive winning seasons (1966–1985) which they only missed the playoffs twice (1974 and 1984), an NFL record that remains unbroken and unchallenged. It remains one of the longest winning streaks in all of professional sports. According to profootballreference.com, as of the end of the 2009 season the Cowboys have the highest winning percentage of any active NFL franchise (.580).

So if you want straight winning seasons or best record ever, the Cowboys are "unparalleled"

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Starting in 1970 (post merger) is a bit more fair. You have to add another pair of back to back losing seasons. But

In the NFL's "modern era" (since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970) the Steelers have posted the best record in the league. The franchise has won the most total games, won the most divisional titles, earned the best winning percentage (including every expansion team), earned the most All-Pro nominations and has the most Super Bowl wins (six) since the modern game started in 1970. It is 2nd overall in playoff wins and tied with the Miami Dolphins for most regular-season wins.

From wiki

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

In the last 40 years to present, probably not. Though the Steelers seemed to suck pretty often in the 80s. I'd rate the Cowboys' run of 20 straight winning seasons with 5 Super Bowl appearances and 2 wins or their run from 66 to 96 with 8 Super Bowl appearances and 5 wins higher. I'm biased though.

The Steelers didn't make a Super Bowl in the 1980's, but then again neither did the Cowboys. And the Steelers never went 1-15.

I'll admit I was going off of memory. They were better during the 80s than I thought. Nothing worse than one 5-11 season. Pretty impressive.

The 80's were clearly a down time for the Steelers, but that is really only in comparison to their success in 70's and 90's. 4 playoff seasons and a championship game appearance really is pretty good.

 

[MarshallRob]

Here's the numbers for the Miami Dolphins from 1970 through 2003:

Back to back losing seasons : Zero

Three straight losing seasons : Zero.

Losing seasons total : 2

Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 2

Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : Zero

Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.

Clearly the key figure for this "lack of suckitude" was Don Shula who took over as head coach in 1970. When Shula stepped down after 1995, Jimmy Johnson continued the non-losing ways for four more years and added enough talent to allow Dave Wannstedt to post winning records in Wannstedt's first four seasons as head coach, but the subsequent bad draft picks and disastrous trades engineered by Wannstedt and Rick Spielman (and then Saban and Cameron and Mueller) left the team so devoid of talent that since 2003 they've posted losing records of a type and frequency not seen by the franchise since the pre-Shula expansion days.

2004-2009

Back to back losing seasons : Once (2006-2007)

Three straight losing seasons : Zero.

Losing seasons total : 4

Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 3

Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 2

Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Steelers :Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)Three straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.Cowboys :Back to back losing seasons : 1986-1990 (5 straight) , 2000-2002 (3 straight)Three straight losing seasons : see above.Losing seasons total : 10Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 7Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 5Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2They may be closest, but they don't touch Pittsburgh over the time frame of 1972-2009.

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

 

[SSOG]

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

I saw Ghost Rider was the most recent poster and knew he beat me to the punch. In terms of success it's hard to argue with the Steelers' 6 rings, but in terms of "not sucking", the Denver Broncos are hands down the top dog. Which I know is going to surprise a lot of people.First off, bump the cutoff from 1972 to 1973 (because Denver's run of consistency started a year later than Pittsburgh's). Then, alter the definitions of "bad", "horrible", and "atrocious" to apply to 14-game seasons, too. Once you do that, the data looks like this:Losing seasons: 6Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 3Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 0*Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 0*Technically Denver was only 2.5 wins under .500 in 1982 (they went 2-7, while .500 would be 4-4-1), but realistically speaking that should probably fall under the "horrible season" category. Denver still kicks Pittsburgh's butt in "not sucking", though.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Steelers :Back to back losing seasons : Twice (1985-86 and 1998-99)Three straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : One (1988)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.Cowboys :Back to back losing seasons : 1986-1990 (5 straight) , 2000-2002 (3 straight)Three straight losing seasons : see above.Losing seasons total : 10Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 7Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 5Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2They may be closest, but they don't touch Pittsburgh over the time frame of 1972-2009.

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

That is pretty remarkable. Broncos were one team I thought of, but I didn't think they were as consistent as they are. I'd venture to say that's as good or better than the Steelers' consistency record.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think the Vikings have had a somewhat similar run too -- they've been a slightly above average team almost every year for the past 30-40 years.

 

[SSOG]

I think the Vikings have had a somewhat similar run too -- they've been a slightly above average team almost every year for the past 30-40 years.

That's another good one.Back-to-Backs: twiceLosing seasons: 7Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 5Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 2Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 1 (3-13 season... ouch).They've got a comparable number of losing seasons to the Broncos and Steelers, but when they did have a bad season, it was generally much worse (6-10 or worse 5 times). On the other hand, a point in their favor is that you can actually stretch their "not sucking" stretch back to 1968 without picking up any extra losing seasons.

 

[Sweet Love]

Here's the numbers for the Miami Dolphins from 1970 through 2003:Back to back losing seasons : ZeroThree straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 2 Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 2Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : ZeroAtrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : Zero.Clearly the key figure for this "lack of suckitude" was Don Shula who took over as head coach in 1970. When Shula stepped down after 1995, Jimmy Johnson continued the non-losing ways for four more years and added enough talent to allow Dave Wannstedt to post winning records in Wannstedt's first four seasons as head coach, but the subsequent bad draft picks and disastrous trades engineered by Wannstedt and Rick Spielman (and then Saban and Cameron and Mueller) left the team so devoid of talent that since 2003 they've posted losing records of a type and frequency not seen by the franchise since the pre-Shula expansion days. 2004-2009Back to back losing seasons : Once (2006-2007)Three straight losing seasons : Zero.Losing seasons total : 4 Bad seasons (6 wins or less) : 3Horrible seasons (5 wins or less ) : 2Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less) : 2.

Yes, these last few years have been kind to Jets fans, although I feel since JJ left, the Jets in general have has their way with the Dolphins.

 

[Rovers]

Based on how the Steelers look going into this season, I think it is a good time for Steeler fans to reflect on history and come to grips with the fact that they haven't had to put up with suckitude very often.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think the Vikings have had a somewhat similar run too -- they've been a slightly above average team almost every year for the past 30-40 years.

That's another good one.Back-to-Backs: twice

Losing seasons: 7

Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 5

Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 2

Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 1 (3-13 season... ouch).

They've got a comparable number of losing seasons to the Broncos and Steelers, but when they did have a bad season, it was generally much worse (6-10 or worse 5 times). On the other hand, a point in their favor is that you can actually stretch their "not sucking" stretch back to 1968 without picking up any extra losing seasons.

Yeah, I was giving them a bit of a bump in my head because their run started a little earlier. But I guess it's arbitrary wherever draw the line.

 

[CapnJB]

And don't forget the 2009 Steelers were the last team to not make the playoffs after winning a Superbowl since the 2006 Steelers.

I don't get this thread. Are you looking for high fives?

 

[LTF]

Based on how the Steelers look going into this season, I think it is a good time for Steeler fans to reflect on history and come to grips with the fact that they haven't had to put up with suckitude very often.

When healthy, they've got the best defense in the NFL. They'll be in the thick of things in the AFC for sure IMO.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

On the other side of the coin we have the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once a great franchise it has set new records of suckitude. I would happily take 5 years of crappy football to see the Buccos win another World Series.

I would probably take this too.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Would love to see how the Steeler Nation coped with a decade of 4-12.

Judging from the aforementioned Pirates... just sayin'.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Judging from the aforementioned Pirates... just sayin'.

The Pirates don't even try to compete. Seriously.

 

[kevinray]

Would love to see how the Steeler Nation coped with a decade of 4-12.Judging from the aforementioned Pirates... just sayin'.

Probably similarly to the way any fan base deals with bad streaks. It takes a little while to lose faith but it happens. They couldn't give Penguins tickets away all that long ago. I'm a big believer that if the Browns ever string together a few great seasons that their fans will be everywhere.

 

[Adebisi]

And don't forget the 2009 Steelers were the last team to not make the playoffs after winning a Superbowl since the 2006 Steelers.

I don't get this thread. Are you looking for high fives?

It's somewhat surprising to me that Evilgrin started this thread.

 

[baconisgood]

I'd still rather root for a losing team than for a rapeist-berger.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think the Vikings have had a somewhat similar run too -- they've been a slightly above average team almost every year for the past 30-40 years.

That's another good one.Back-to-Backs: twiceLosing seasons: 7Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 5Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 2Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 1 (3-13 season... ouch).They've got a comparable number of losing seasons to the Broncos and Steelers, but when they did have a bad season, it was generally much worse (6-10 or worse 5 times). On the other hand, a point in their favor is that you can actually stretch their "not sucking" stretch back to 1968 without picking up any extra losing seasons.

The Vikings have sucked since Bud Grant Left. That is independant of their record.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Based on how the Steelers look going into this season, I think it is a good time for Steeler fans to reflect on history and come to grips with the fact that they haven't had to put up with suckitude very often.

They won't this year either. Overlook them at your own peril.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

And don't forget the 2009 Steelers were the last team to not make the playoffs after winning a Superbowl since the 2006 Steelers.

I don't get this thread. Are you looking for high fives?

It's somewhat surprising to me that Evilgrin started this thread.

Just reflecting and wondering if there were other teams with similar runs. Rather than look up every team, I thought I'd ask the question and let the homers chime in. They have, and there are other teams.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'd still rather root for a losing team than for a rapeist-berger.

ZING !!!!!!!!!

 

[LTF]

I'd still rather root for a losing team than for a rapeist-berger.

Oh I get it!! You took his last name which is "Roethlisberger" and switched in "rapeist" (which you didn't even spell right) for the first half of his last name. Oh how deliciously witty!!!!

 

[shredhead]

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

I saw Ghost Rider was the most recent poster and knew he beat me to the punch. In terms of success it's hard to argue with the Steelers' 6 rings, but in terms of "not sucking", the Denver Broncos are hands down the top dog. Which I know is going to surprise a lot of people.First off, bump the cutoff from 1972 to 1973 (because Denver's run of consistency started a year later than Pittsburgh's). Then, alter the definitions of "bad", "horrible", and "atrocious" to apply to 14-game seasons, too. Once you do that, the data looks like this:Losing seasons: 6Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 3Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 0*Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 0*Technically Denver was only 2.5 wins under .500 in 1982 (they went 2-7, while .500 would be 4-4-1), but realistically speaking that should probably fall under the "horrible season" category. Denver still kicks Pittsburgh's butt in "not sucking", though.

Great, so my favorite team doesn't suck, whoopity fricken doo. I'd rather sprinkle a few great seasons with a few crappy ones than the last dcade of mediocrity we've had in the post Elway era.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

I saw Ghost Rider was the most recent poster and knew he beat me to the punch. In terms of success it's hard to argue with the Steelers' 6 rings, but in terms of "not sucking", the Denver Broncos are hands down the top dog. Which I know is going to surprise a lot of people.First off, bump the cutoff from 1972 to 1973 (because Denver's run of consistency started a year later than Pittsburgh's). Then, alter the definitions of "bad", "horrible", and "atrocious" to apply to 14-game seasons, too. Once you do that, the data looks like this:Losing seasons: 6Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 3Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 0*Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 0*Technically Denver was only 2.5 wins under .500 in 1982 (they went 2-7, while .500 would be 4-4-1), but realistically speaking that should probably fall under the "horrible season" category. Denver still kicks Pittsburgh's butt in "not sucking", though.

Great, so my favorite team doesn't suck, whoopity fricken doo. I'd rather sprinkle a few great seasons with a few crappy ones than the last dcade of mediocrity we've had in the post Elway era.

There's something to be said for not having an extended period of being bad. Your team is hardly ever out of the mix for a playoff spot and you rarely go into a season feeling like you have no shot.

 

[shredhead]

Great, so my favorite team doesn't suck, whoopity fricken doo. I'd rather sprinkle a few great seasons with a few crappy ones than the last dcade of mediocrity we've had in the post Elway era.

There's something to be said for not having an extended period of being bad. Your team is hardly ever out of the mix for a playoff spot and you rarely go into a season feeling like you have no shot.

I suppose so, and I do see your point. This was just the frustration of the past 10 or 11 years of hovering around .500 showing through. I guess there was the lone bright spot of the 13-3 season and AFC championship appearance (vs Pittsburgh).

 

[unckeyherb]

Broncos: Back to back losing seasons: 0Three straight losing seasons: 0Losing seasons total: 7Bad seasons (6 wins or less): 4Horrible seasons (5 wins or less): 3 (although one was a 5-9 season, which is the modern day equivalent of 6-10)Atrocious seasons (4 wins or less): 1 (2-7 in the 1982 strike-shortened season)Pretty close, although the Steelers obviously have a huge edge in Super Bowl wins (6-2). Regardless, consistency is always a good thing.

I saw Ghost Rider was the most recent poster and knew he beat me to the punch. In terms of success it's hard to argue with the Steelers' 6 rings, but in terms of "not sucking", the Denver Broncos are hands down the top dog. Which I know is going to surprise a lot of people.First off, bump the cutoff from 1972 to 1973 (because Denver's run of consistency started a year later than Pittsburgh's). Then, alter the definitions of "bad", "horrible", and "atrocious" to apply to 14-game seasons, too. Once you do that, the data looks like this:Losing seasons: 6Bad seasons (2+ wins shy of .500): 3Horrible seasons (3+ wins shy of .500): 0*Atrocious seasons (4+ wins shy of .500): 0*Technically Denver was only 2.5 wins under .500 in 1982 (they went 2-7, while .500 would be 4-4-1), but realistically speaking that should probably fall under the "horrible season" category. Denver still kicks Pittsburgh's butt in "not sucking", though.

Great, so my favorite team doesn't suck, whoopity fricken doo. I'd rather sprinkle a few great seasons with a few crappy ones than the last dcade of mediocrity we've had in the post Elway era.

There's something to be said for not having an extended period of being bad. Your team is hardly ever out of the mix for a playoff spot and you rarely go into a season feeling like you have no shot.

No kidding. Try telling that to some of my Eagles-Fan brethren, or at least the dorks that call into sports radio (I know, I shouldn't listen.)They say they would literally much rather have nine years of crap as long as one year brought a ring.