The Steelers ranked as the second best dynasty in NFL history

1.Patriots (2001-2018)
2.Steelers (1972-1979
3.Packers (1960-1967)
4.49ers (1981-1994)
5.Cowboys (1991-1995)
6.Raiders (1967-1985)
7.Cowboys (1970-1979)
8.Washington (1982-1991)
9.Miami (1970-1974)

 

Hard to argue with that except, you know, the Patriots cheating and all......

 

2005-2010 wasn't a dynasty? 3 SBs in 6 years? Pretty solid team imo...
Thank you Troy.

 

Kind of interesting that the Patriots had their Dynasty from 2001-2018. Keep in mind that, after the 2004-2005 Season, they would not see another Super Bowl victory until the 2014-2015 Season. That said, I am never a fan of lists like this anyways.


The criteria of these lists are so convoluted that it is impossible to list such teams in the first place. I would even go as far as to say that the Packers have a more worthy argument to be number one overall as they achieved 5 Championship wins in 7 Seasons; the first two Super Bowls included.




Long story short?! These lists are nice to pass the time and discuss but the criteria to determine the best of (insert category here) varies too much to draw a conclusive statement.

 

First thought that popped into my mind. I'd put it ahead of 91-95 Cowboys and the 70-74 Dolphins. To be fair a dynasty should be more then 4-5 years IMO.

 

Cowher's team was a juggernaut no doubt.

 

The Steelers missed the playoffs twice during that so-called "dynasty". That disqualifies them, IMO.

 

The Packers actually have 2 dynasties. Of course the Lombardi teams of the 60's but Curly Lambeau's teams of the 30's won 6 NFL titles. They have 13 NFL titles so I can see if their fans are ticked off at this list.

 

This writer of this article (from 2013) gives his thoughts on why the Steelers of that decade were not a dynasty (like his word is gold, lol). I have read different opinions over the years, differing opinions, but at the very least back to back SB winners, or 3 in a specific time span. The Steelers were in those 3, but lost the last one. Winning all 3 would likely have lifted them as a dynasty of the first decade

 

Injuries didn't help but missing playoffs is good criteria imo. They could have done better with the years involved for some of the teams.

 

So long as they put a big fat cheater asterisk on the Pats being at #1

 

Had they won the third, then no doubt. I would say it was a great run. But I don't consider it a dynasty.

 

What made the 70s dynasty so impressive is the level of competition they faced. They had to deal with the Oilers, Raiders, and Cowboys which were all powerhouses. If not for the Steelers, any one of those teams had a legit shot at winning 4 Super Bowls in that decade. That was a Hell of a decade for watching football regardless of one's team loyalties.

 

CBS ranking the pats #1, i'm shocked it tell you!

I mean, they're unabashed pats fans at CBS. Who'd have thunk it?

 

In all fairness the pats should've been listed #1. Yeah they cheated a lot (as did the Steelers dynasty) but the results can't be denied. We might not like it but it is what out is.

 

70s had the Vikings with a 0-4 dynasty. Another solid foe.

 

Mmm. Surprised there was no Bears dynasty. I think they lead the NFL all time in wins. I guess criteria involved Championships (did not read article).

 

As much as I used to complain about the Patriots cheating, I now believe without Brady that cheating probably wouldn't do much for them. Doesn't make it right obviously but we in Pittsburgh do turn a blind eye to the steroid use in the 70's. Not saying one is worse than the other.

 

The steroid use in the 70s wasn't cheating since they were allowed back then. Where the Steelers cheated was holding onto the college tape of John Stalworth before the draft. There was only one copy at the time so teams were supposed to study players' tapes and then return them for other teams to study. The Steelers "forgot" to return Stallworths tape until after the draft.

 

JMO, but
1. Everyone was taking steroids at the time.
2. Don't sell your stock on New England so soon. It was just one year without him. Add in the year was a way different one , no fans, crazy weeks of who's playing,who's not, and stuff I don't even know about.
Anyway...I just wouldn't give up on N.E. being good, or the Bucs being Great. Brady and the Buccaneers had some very terrible games last year.

 

Roids were legal when we did them, no? Heck, we used to film signals, too. I was watching an old game during the pandemic last year, late 80s/early 90s, and the announcers talked about the Steelers coaches liking to film the DC or OC of the other team, and were mad when they started covering their mouth with the clipboard.

Pats did it after an explicit memo banning it.

 

Everyone was doing it! Sorry that just makes me laugh because Pats fans say they too. But you're right they weren't illegal then, kinda a gray area. I'm still not so sure on New England, don't forget before Brady Belicheck was nothing special, in fact Cowher owned him pretty handily before then. I really doubt that dynasty era is coming back unless Mac Jones turns into the next great.

 

Always first in our hearts.

 

Exactly. We had a great OL back then and the rules allowed for more grabbing. Rules were played by. No cheating.

 

Imagine if the Pats didn't cheat the Steelers out of two AFCC games and the Steelers took care of business in the Super Bowl:

2001, 2004, 2005, 2008

If Pouncey doesn't get hurt in the divisional round, maybe 2010.

It's a fine line.