espy says patriots greatest team of all time... BS

Its about the here and now!!! Not the yesteryear people. The AFC EAST sucks big time no one to contend with the Pats for the title so they steamroll through the division every year!!

 

Not like our division is that much better lol

 

I think you mean they steamroll through the conference every year.

 

This is how I am looking at it. Contrary to popular belief, there is more to this than others are giving it credit for. James C Wexell explains it better:

 

11 super Bowls, six victories ( in 18 years) at least one appearance in the Super Bowl every decade since 1980 (almost 40 years). Name one other team that's done that.

 

browns ravens bengals. Why don't we steamroll through that crap bag division????

 

Sometimes the truth hurts. If you are the Steelers, you can either let it motivate the Patriots or motivate you to do better.

Over these 9 Super Bowls, the Pats beat the Steelers 3 times to get there. What’s worse are the othe 6 seasons when the Steelers didn’t make it far enough to stop them. It’s time to get better.

 

Well said my friend, well said.

 

This is like arguing over Gretzky vs Lemieux. Over a career, Gretzky, at the peak of their career, Lemieux.

 

Gretzky blows Lemieux away at their respective peaks and over their careers. Time to duck & hide now for me.

 

The Pats are a better TEAM. Let’s face it. The Steelers have more talent but that doesn’t equal Championships. They play this game for SB and nothing else. In this day and age the Pats dominate.

The Steelers FO wasted the last 6-7 years of talent that has came through Especially Ben.

Belichik takes average players, wins SB’s and makes them SB MVPs. Tomlin has been kept for way to long with how he manages players on and off the field. IMHO Tomlin and Colbert should have been let go this year.

 

Steelers are 15-2-1 in the AFC North the past 3 seasons. Much better than their out of division and playoffs record.

 

I don't think he knows the definition of the word.

Dynasty- a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.

 

Truth does hurt... A superior coach can win with less talent. Hell, Noll ran out of talent muffing some draft picks and such but his team's fought hard and played with heart, meaning regardless of missing talent they were well coached. Had he bagged Marino, I can't even imagine. We all know that consistently, a good QB is needed when it matters most. Sure some can ride on the team's talent minus a QB but it's not the norm year in and year out. Dearth hoodie without Brady probably could've grinded out a couple as well but not posted what they've done. I hate the Pats but damn... They've had a pretty dominant run for almost 20 years and that's unreal. If our team had a different culture we'd be right there with a couple 3 more in Ben's career as well.

Both teams have drafted consistently low, both teams field stud QB's, both teams have had a ton of success in all honesty but only one of the two keeps ass holes under a thumb and commands their roster to do ALL of what it takes to keep grinding forward and bring home the hardware. Pains me to say it but it's a fact.

 

Pittsburgh having the best record since the AFL-NFL Merger does not count?! For that matter, Pittsburgh has never had a losing decade. By the account of the definition you have stated, that does constitute as a dynasty. Correction, Pittsburgh has a perpetual one. Regarding the whole "Family" aspect of that definition, Pittsburgh is the only team with not just 100+ wins but the only team with either one or more Super Bowl wins/appearances. Whomever is a close second.... is not a close second.



New England on the other hand? The 70s, 80s and 90s would like to have a word with them. For that matter, I already made a thread about this roughly two years ago. What we are witnessing with New England is only temporary. Better yet, Belichick and Brady are essentially inflating New England's history all together.



To sum all the aforementioned up, there is a reason why teams like San Francisco and Dallas (up until recently anyway) have failed to achieve sustained success. For that matter, teams like New Orleans and more than likely Philly are usually the one and done cliches; having success is one aspect. Containing and maintaining that?! That is something different all together.




That is why Pittsburgh is really the only team in the NFL that can claim the term "dynasty". The success of the 70s Steelers did not really vanish. If that was the eptimoe of the Steelers success, Pittsburgh should have not won two more Super Bowls after the fact; not obtaining a losing decade no less. Yes, what Brady and Belichick have done, controversial or otherwise, is nothing short of incredible. However, Pittsburgh has sustained success with numerous faces over a much longer period of time. Pittsburgh did not rely on Chuck Noll's success to add to their Super Bowl collection. New England clearly does. For that matter, prior to Bill Belichick, outside of the "Big Tuna", who else?!



In conclusion?! Regarding New England?! Get back to me as soon as the Belichick/Brady era is over. Let me know what a decade without both is like. Should they sustain success within that time, I will concede. If not? They are little different than the 49ers of the 80s to early 90s; heavy dominance albeit quite the proverbial flash in a pan.

 

Holy Cow!!!!!



You are not kidding!! Here is the worst part. I live in Canada. Imagine how THOSE arguments go.

 

Wexell's 2 examples of a dynasty were the 60's<--5 titles in 7 years Packers and the 70's<--4 titles in 6 years Steelers.
I was responding to that, not who was or wasn't a dynasty.
Everything doesn't need a history lesson, I have google too.

 

This is a very deadly and cataclysmic mindset to have. To understand the present, we must understand our past. Otherwise, we are doomed for our future.

 

That wasn't what I was referring to and has nothing to do with this exchange.
Wexell's comment doesn't make sense, that's all.

 

Yes, this is what I was trying to say earlier I guess.

The definition of 'team' being used here is basically: the HC and the QB. So if you want to say the HC and the QB are the best in terms of winning etc., then that's a fair claim. But claiming best 'team' implies a lot more.

 

Depends as someone stated which set of rules the defense was playing by. It also depends on if the 70’s Steelers were allowed to use their Steroids.

 

Lol like Steelers were the only team on roids then...

Heck I bet a lot are on gear today

 

pretty sure thats better than the pats record in the afc east the last 3 years.

so, both play in crap divisions that they dominate, yet one constantly has playoff success. why? I would say that the steelers and patriots both beat the weak teams in their divisions, but the patriots also beat the tougher teams outside thier divisions while the steelers dont.

any idea what the two teams records out of the division is the last 3 years? I dont, but i bet the patriots have a much better record.

when you look at it that way, the whole :"the afc east sucks so patriots get a pass" argument is either false, or should apply to the steelers as well.

EDIT: found this with a quick google search: The Patriots are 71-19 since 2003 in the AFC East. That’s a .788 winning percentage. Outside the division, they are 118-32 (.786).

so, they beat up everyone equally. beating up the afc east wont help you if you lose outside that division

 

yup the argument is stupid. Patriots beat the big boys and turn on the heat in the playoffs, we dont.