Which team was better? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

These four teams were stuck in my mind today. This isn't a , I'm actually very curious to know how you'd rank the teams. I think that any of them could be ranked first, and a decent argument could be made to put any of them last, as well.

I'm more curious about the intra-team comparisons, but no reason not to discuss some inter-team comparisons as well.

 

[Jous]

You have to have the 2005 Steelers as the best IMO. They beat the 2005 Colts on the road, and the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts. The 2004 Steelers were great but Roethlisberger as a rookie was a huge disadvantage come playoff time, so I dunno where they'd be in the 4.

 

[Jous]

Wow... I'm having a very tough time understanding how the 2005 Steelers are getting the most votes for worst of the 4, while the 2006 Colts get the most for best of the four.

2005 Colts > 2006 Colts. 2005 Steelers > 2005 Colts. What else needs to be understood?

 

[Chase Stuart]

You have to have the 2005 Steelers as the best IMO. They beat the 2005 Colts on the road, and the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts. The 2004 Steelers were great but Roethlisberger as a rookie was a huge disadvantage come playoff time, so I dunno where they'd be in the 4.

If you think the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts, then I think one could reasonably argue the 2005 Steelers weren't even as good as the 2004 Steelers.

 

[trader jake]

The 2004 Steelers are being vastly overrated in these polls for one reason - they were starting a rookie QB.

That team would get beat by the other three listed and lost on the playoffs that year because of the poor performance of a rookie Roethlisberger.

 

[Jous]

You have to have the 2005 Steelers as the best IMO. They beat the 2005 Colts on the road, and the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts. The 2004 Steelers were great but Roethlisberger as a rookie was a huge disadvantage come playoff time, so I dunno where they'd be in the 4.

If you think the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts, then I think one could reasonably argue the 2005 Steelers weren't even as good as the 2004 Steelers.

Not really... The 2004 Steelers had a better record by 3 games, but the 2005 team had a better offense, and the defense was nearly as statistically good. Roethlisberger was also more experienced and not a rookie.The 2005 Colts beat the 2006 Colts in every statistical category except for offensive yards gained, but they sat out their starters the last few games so that affected those numbers. Their rushing defense in the regular season was incredibly terrible... almost impossibly terrible.

 

[fred_1_15301]

You have to have the 2005 Steelers as the best IMO. They beat the 2005 Colts on the road, and the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts. The 2004 Steelers were great but Roethlisberger as a rookie was a huge disadvantage come playoff time, so I dunno where they'd be in the 4.

If you think the 2006 Colts weren't even as good as the 2005 Colts, then I think one could reasonably argue the 2005 Steelers weren't even as good as the 2004 Steelers.

Not really... The 2004 Steelers had a better record by 3 games, but the 2005 team had a better offense, and the defense was nearly as statistically good. Roethlisberger was also more experienced and not a rookie.The 2005 Colts beat the 2006 Colts in every statistical category except for offensive yards gained, but they sat out their starters the last few games so that affected those numbers. Their rushing defense in the regular season was incredibly terrible... almost impossibly terrible.

I'm a Steeler fan but I think the 2005 Colts were easily the best team of the group. Both the 2005 Steelers and 2006 Colts got hot at the right time. The 2005 Colts were simply dominant for most of the year. They just came out flat in the playoffs.

 

[streamkeeper]

Willie Parker is the difference between the 2004 & 2006 Steelers.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Painting with an even broader brush:

2004 Steelers = 2005 Colts = 2006 Chargers

2005 Steelers = 2006 Colts = 2007 Chargers?

 

[Woz]

Good poll. I thought the two non-super bowl winning teams were better than the winning teams. Also thought the two Colts' teams were better than the Steelers.

 

[east2west]

voted, but I'm a bit biased

 

[3C's]

Painting with an even broader brush:2004 Steelers = 2005 Colts = 2006 Chargers2005 Steelers = 2006 Colts = 2007 Chargers?

You just might be right.

 

[BassNBrew]

2006 Colts (16-4) [ 30 ] [61.22%] 2005 Colts (14-3) [ 19 ] [38.78%]

Short memories around here.

 

[PatsWillWin]

2006 Colts (16-4) [ 30 ]   [61.22%] 2005 Colts (14-3) [ 19 ]   [38.78%]

Short memories around here.

Shocked to see these numbers.

 

[cantrell]

1. 2005 Colts

2. 2004 Steelers

3. 2006 Colts

4. 2005 Steelers

 

[Chase Stuart]

I actually think all four teams are fascinating, and could make strong arguments for any of them being number one.

 

[The Jerk]

Chase,

Chalk me up as Mr. Obvious, but it's all about timing. The 2004 Steelers and 2005 Colts peaked too soon. I'd choose both of those teams in midseason as superior to the following season Super Bowl champions. However, the Super Bowl is played in February, not November...

Specific to the 2005 Steelers, while their calling card will always be as the first (for now only) 6th seed to win a Super Bowl, and under the current system, no team can have a harder path (defeating the AFC #1, #2 and #3 on the road and the NFC #1 in SB XL), remember they tied for the division title. Two losses happened with Tommy Maddox starting in place of Ben, and two others came while Ben was getting healthy (Indy and Cinc). A healthy Ben makes that team likely 13-3 at worst. All I'm saying is that once Ben returned to 100% health, the Steelers were more of a #3 or #2 seed, not a #6.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Painting with an even broader brush:2004 Steelers = 2005 Colts = 2006 Chargers2005 Steelers = 2006 Colts = 2007 Chargers?

Not with Schottenheimer coming back to San Diego. Of the four, I would say the '05 Steelers were the best. They were the most well-rounded team, and had a more impressive playoff run than the '06 Colts.

 

[The Jerk]

Painting with an even broader brush:2004 Steelers = 2005 Colts = 2006 Chargers2005 Steelers = 2006 Colts = 2007 Chargers?

Not with Schottenheimer coming back to San Diego. Of the four, I would say the '05 Steelers were the best. They were the most well-rounded team, and had a more impressive playoff run than the '06 Colts.

I don't know...Cowher and Dungy had nearly all of the same things said about them -- can't win in the playoffs -- and remember they were all on the same staff in KC. I've heard it said that things happen in threes...

 

[PhD]

I actually think all four teams are fascinating, and could make strong arguments for any of them being number one.

I think it depends on when in the season you are looking at them I think both the 2004 Steelers and the 2005 Colts were stronger teams than they would be the following year, but they peaked too soon and looked unexpectedly worse in the playoffs. Meanwhile the 2005 Steelers and the 2006 Colts looked surprisingly better than expected in the playoffs as they peaked at the right times and just plowed their way into the superbowl. (interestingly - the Steelers' unexpected play was found with a more intense offense in the playoffs, while the Colts found a more intense defense).

 

[Jous]

Interesting about the Chargers. They certainly have very similiar ingrediants as the other 2 as they head into next season (and like the 2005 Steelers, will have another year of starters' experience for their QB). Who knows?

 

[djcolts]

I think I'd rank them like this:

1. 2005 Steelers

2. 2005 Colts

3. 2006 Colts

4. 2004 Steelers

I have the 2004 Steelers last because they remind me of a better version of the 1999 Colts - a team that sort of got on a run with a young QB, then when the playoffs came around they really didn't quite know what to do. They did win a playoff game, but they were very fortunate to win the game in the divisional round against a team they should have outclassed.

I have the 2006 Colts as next, because they were very fortunate to be 12-4 based on their stats, but at the same time you have to give credit to them for pulling it together in the playoffs.

The 2005 Colts were better than the 2006 Colts in every way except at facing adversity - and that is where the 2005 Colts failed (and the 2006 Colts shined). But, I still have to say the 2005 Colts would beat the 2006 Colts at least 6 times out of 10.

The 2005 Steelers beat the 2005 Colts when it mattered most, so they are #1 out of the 4.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The 2004 Steelers are being vastly overrated in these polls for one reason - they were starting a rookie QB.That team would get beat by the other three listed and lost on the playoffs that year because of the poor performance of a rookie Roethlisberger.

I think personally that it's 2005 Steelers > 2005 Colts > 2006 Colts > 2004 Steelers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm having a tough time getting my head around this:

2006 Colts (16-4) [ 48 ] ** [49.48%]

2005 Colts (14-3) [ 49 ] ** [50.52%]

2005 Steelers (15-5) [ 53 ] ** [54.64%]

2004 Steelers (16-2) [ 44 ] ** [45.36%]

The 2006 Colts lost one more game than the 2005 Colts; the 2005 Steelers lost three more games than the 2004 Steelers. That's a very significant difference, yet the SB Colts are considered even to the great regular season Colts time, while the SB Steelers are much better than a 15-1 Steelers team? That seems really out of whack, especially since the 2005 Steelers are leading by a healthy margin the "worst of the four" poll.

I'm shuked as to why that '05 Steelers are the worst team, yet they're better than the '04 Steelers. I'm equally shuked that people are saying "Roethlisberger is a rookie" therefore the 04 Steelers aren't very good. What short memories we have.