T/F: The Steelers value stability over success

Stability vs. Success?

My only comment is that if there is one team that epitomizes having a full cup of both, it's the Pittsburgh Steelers. Only 3 head coaches in the last 50 years AND tied with just one other team for the most Lombardis during that time? Not to mention that during the 70s, they had a total of 20 players who all won four Lombardis together. The next closest team to them in that category of Stability+Success was the 1980s 49ers, and they had just 11 such players, barely over half as many. The Patties of the 2000s+ don't even have that many.

Yeah, and it's just my opinion, of course, but I have to say that picking a subset of just a handful of years to try to counter all of that is a fairly weak argument.

I mean, nobody likes watching a stretch of lesser play from your team. I know I don't. But I have as little concern that this team will turn that around in due time than I do with any of my favorite teams/competitors in any of the many sports I watch. It's just what they've always done.

 

When a former head coach is available for a staff position, the Steelers should be all over that like flies in ****, but they never are. Let's promote this scrub instead. Is it cost? Is it not wanting to work for Tomlin?

 

I've asked this before but I'll bring it up again.

If you had a span of 10 years and in one scenario you have 10 winning seasons but 1 championship.

In the other you have only 6 winning seasons but 3 championships.

Which is better?

 

At this rate the Pats might win a super bowl before we win a game! LOL

 

Ravens won in 2001 (2000 season).

Rams won 99 season.

 

Championships is always the answer! The goal for every NFL team every year no matter how good they are is to win a championship. Not a single team ever has said their main goal is to just have a winning season.

 

Glenn's the guy who gets pissed when people incorrectly use their or they're.

 

I know of one franchise that values winning seasons over anything else. In fact they often brag about it.

 

I often wonder that when an NFL owner sees the $$$ they made at the end of the year, they don't care as much as fans do and just say eh we'll stick with what we have. Never forget at the end of the day it is a business.

 

LoL. Thanks. I couldn't remember.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong here. But doesn't the Steelers have both stability and success. Each of the 3 HCs have a SB win.

 

They never are? Haley, Munchak,Lebeau, Gilbride. Just to name a few

 

I mean yeah but considering how long each of them were here, it's a bit skewed.

 

Ok you got me. I mean recently. Doug Marrone they should have pursued for OLine.

 

My apologies for not noticing you being relatively new here to the board. First and foremost, welcome and glad to have you here!! My name is AskQuestionsLater and will be happy to assist you!!


Now, as for the reason this statement is quoted by me? Said statements by @88Unstoppable82 are the truth and nothing but. As I have stated many times already this week and, am running out of ways to say it, Big Ben is finished. However.... just because Big Ben is finished does not necessarily mean the team is. Sure, finding a QB is going to be paramount whether or not Big Ben is finished or not but to say this is going to go back the 1980s merely because of Big Ben's decline is a bit premature.



For that matter, comparing different era's of Sports is so the 2000s anyways. Way too many differences between era's; rules being no doubt the biggest of them all in which the Offense is continually being favored. This is not to say that the Steelers will have any easier luck finding their successor to Big Ben. What this does mean is that, at minimum, a quality QB is capable of leading a team into playoff contention.... not that said goal is the ultimate goal of the Steelers. The Super Bowl is of course.... but easier said than done. Do not believe me?



See the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of 2021 vs. 2020 for further information. Why am I citing this team whereas I could have even picked the 2019 to 2020 Kansas City Chiefs? Answer is in three words that perfectly describe their current situation;



War

Of

Attrition




Now, does said reasoning grant Tomlin a free pass? Not exactly. However, having your team 100% into the playoffs and to the Super Bowl is more ideal than without.

 

It would probably make him nervous?

 

Of course they do... They'll SAY all the right things ( like Tomlin does ) " WE WILL fix the run game! WE WILL never be last again in rushing! WE WILL unleash Hell! WE WILL, WE Will blah blah blah...

It gives us Fans a feeling of....Man, These Guys are as pissed off as I am..I think they fib, to put on a false front!

 

They be

 

False. They believe the path to success is stability. They have about 50 years of data to back that up.

 

50 years ago there were roller rinks, bell bottom jeans and the Partridge Family. People would actually hold a job for 30 years. Times have changed. Sports have advanced incredibly as well. It's time the Rooney's change their ways as well.

 

And no Free Agency

 

Patriots have 6. 1 coach, long tenure
Steelers have 2 SB wins in the 2000s. 2 coaches, both tenured
Baltimore has 2. 2 coaches long tenure
TB has 2 2 coaches
Giants have 2. 1 coach long tenured
NO 1 coach long tenure
Seattle 1 coach long tenure
GB 1 coach (although on second coach who has shown success)
Indy 1 coach
Philly 1 coach
Denver 1 coach ( Peytons championship, though)
and KC 1 coach long tenure⁷





So yes, we're in "second place" for SB wins in the 2000s but far behind the Pats. At this rate even without Brady I think the Pats win another SB before we do.

Looking into this, if you take Bellicheat out of the equation, using 5 years as sort of a benchmark, 8 coaches won Super Bowls in their first 5 years (includes Tomlin), 1 (Hairball) at 5 years, and 7 after 5 years in the last 20 ( including Cowher). Tenure is not a mark of success. And other than Bellicheat, only coach to repeat with same team is Coughlin.

 

Very much agree that times do change, as well as rules, speed of the game, on and on. The question posed in the OP brought up the question to me, 'is MT running the organization now as he was in his first 5 years and has he adapted over the last 10 years?' In the case of HC's whose tenure becomes somewhat like our current HC's, is he able to adapt to the changing conditions and environment of the game or will they get stuck in what once was a successful way to run a team even when there are signs pointing to that not being the case for sometime now? Owners are around for decades sometimes and depend on their personnel hires to keep abreast of the changes of the game and make changes that need to be made. Maybe that is why other teams go through coaches more than we do (plus losing of course)? Rooney's do not seem to like change and neither does MT, a match made in heaven I guess. So what do you think about how the game has changed in the past 15 years and has there been an observed effort to keep up with the times? I only ask because I really don't know but it doesn't look like it right now.

 

Move the goalposts much?

 

I like the Lions, my favorite NFC team. Going through their 30s-60s Steeler phase...again