05 Steelers among "the worst"

I saw this article and I was curious to know if the 05 Steelers would be on the list and sure enough we are. It's a pretty dumb list honestly. It gets number one right but anyone with a brain knows that. However, what it refuses to take in to account is the fact that Ben was hurt for a few games of that year and there's no way we would have went 11-5 if Ben would have stayed healthy. There is another team we are majorly connected to on the list as well. But do any of you rank the 05 Steelers among "the worst Super Bowl winners"? I wouldn't put them in the top 5. The 07 and '11 gnats would be one and two for me and I would also put the rats on the list as well. So what say you guys? Here's the article. Read it closely and notice how poorly it is written as well.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/sports/the-5-worst-teams-to-win-a-super-bowl.html/?a=viewall

 

They're just going off of regular season records, right? Which seems fairly objective for a top 5 of superbowl winners with the worst regular season records. But that isn't a top 5 of the "worst teams".

Worst teams for me means teams that were solid but not great (Raiders in 1980, Giants in 1990, Ravens in 2012), or had no stellar spectacular players (Chiefs in '69, maybe?), or simply played a bad game on the day yet still won (I think some pundits would put the Steelers in 2005 in that camp, but I would disagree; the Colts in 1970 would be better candidates).

 

I saw that last night. We cares if your the worse, you got the damn trophy and ring. Who cares.

 

Tampa Bay Bucs...and of course those 3 NE Patriot teams...

 

I'd settle for being the "worst" BEST team every year.

 

Yes, I noticed that.

Play-off games will often get forgotten in the light of the superbowl result. Case in point (as if people needed reminding): how people still claim that the refs supposedly 'gave' us the game in 2005, neglecting one of the worst calls ever just two games before against the Colts.

 

The Chiefs in 1969 had some serious talent. HOFers - Bobby Bell, Len Dawson, Willie Lanier, Buck Buchanan, Curley Culp, CB Emmitt Thomas, and Jan Stenerud. Otis Taylor was a two-time All Pro and killed the Vikes. Don't laugh at Stenerud - he's one of the guys that changed kicking and he's still the only kicker there.

 

Aye, I was thinking about that after I made the post. I suppose I was trying to distinguish "talented" teams from teams with that kind of spectacular razzle-dazzle (a Swann, a Montana, a Marcus Allen, etc.), and they were who came to mind, but I'm now not sure that the category is a good one... or if the Chiefs belong there (I'd forgotten about some of those guys)... difficult to compare across eras.

 

While I will admit Big Ben had one of the worse performances of a Super Bowl winning QB, Hines Ward and the defense and the play calling were exceptional.

 

My unbiased list ranks the worst winners as:
1. 2012 Ravens - they suck
2. 2000 Ravens - suck just as much
3. 1996 Cowgirls - no explanation needed
4. 2010 Packers - see #3
5. 2004 Patriots - cheated

 

I've never understood the, "Oh they weren't the best, they just got hot at the right time."

Yeah, I'll grant that. The Steelers were ONLY the best team in the NFL for weeks 14, 15, 16, 17, WC, Div., AFCCG, and SB. That's it.

With a crappy season like that, I mean, does that even count?? I think the players should concede and give their rings to the Colts, who were clearly better.

 

I don't think a more objective list could be imagined, tbh.

 

I thought the Chiefs had some playmakers and excitement and were especially good on defense. The Vikings of the 60s and 70s? They were the poster children for bland - unless Fran was running for his life and even they had Gene Washington.

 

Good call, though they weren't superbowl winners. I think this category that I've created tends to work more for runners up, in fact.