Print and Go Back AFC North [Print without images]

Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thought of the Day II

By James Walker

We received an overwhelming response to our latest “Thought of the Day” topic in the AFC North blog. The question is should the Pittsburgh Steelers be considered a dynasty if they win their third title in six years next season?

Here are some responses:

Brandon from Charlotte, N.C., writes: Winning three Super Bowls in six seasons is no doubt a dynasty. Winning a Super Bowl every couple years seems consistent enough to me. Looking back, no one will care about the 8-8, 10-6, and 9-7 seasons that happened in-between.

Joe G from Niagara Falls, N.Y., writes: The Steelers wouldn't be a dynasty if they won the SB in 2010, because they haven't controlled the AFC North like a dynasty team should. Since 2002, the Steelers have won the division title four times, and the Cincinnati Bengals twice, and the Baltimore Ravens twice. It's hard to be a dynasty if you don't win your division every year. The New England Patriots have won the AFC East six out of the last eight seasons.

Aaron from Bloomington, Ill., writes: I do not see how one would not consider the Steelers a dynasty if they won a third title in six years. Most consider the San Antonio Spurs a dynasty, and they never won back-to-back NBA championships. However they were/are consistently a good team that floats between good enough to beat anybody and just plain dominant, and that's pretty much where Pittsburgh has been for the last five years.

Joshua Wach from Baltimore writes: My opinion has always been that a dynasty has to have back-to-back titles. I always felt that a team like the Spurs in basketball was not a dynasty. If you think back to all the teams that we consider dynasties, I don't think you would find no back-to-back titles. On the other hand, I will concede that football is different than basketball or other sports, because it is so much harder to win back-to-back with the concept of "any given Sunday." Anyhow, we won't need to come to a conclusion because the Ravens are going to win!

Pete from Baltimore writes: As a Bengals fan living around Ravens fans, I experience nothing but Steeler hatred during football season. But I grudgingly have to admit that if they won another Super Bowl in 2010, they'd be a dynasty. The three rings in six years is big, but what's more impressive in this age of parity is that a team that was on top so often also managed to have no really poor seasons. One other playoff appearance in the off-years, plus 8-8 and 9-7. They had no losing seasons. Add in the 15-1 season before the run of championships, and it sadly reminds me how much better this franchise is run than the one in Cincinnati.

John Telek from Johnstown, Pa., writes: I will preface my answer by stating that I may in fact bleed black and gold. Even though that may be disturbingly true, a title next February would not make these Steelers a dynasty. Now, Super Bowl titles after the '10 and '11 seasons would. Of course, I am not one of those people that uses the excuses of free agency and salary caps to make it easier for teams to achieve dynasty status.

Craig P. from Philadelphia, Pa., writes: Yes, I think if you win three titles in a decade then you are a dynasty, especially if all the key players on a team are pretty much the same during the run. What I don't understand is how people are putting the Indianapolis Colts in the same breath as the Steelers and Patriots as the team of the decade. One Super Bowl win, another appearance and a decade of choking does not make you the team of the decade.

Kevin from Kodiak, Alaska, writes: Can you be a dynasty when you miss the playoffs each season after you win a championship? I'd have to say no, but I'm a Bengals fan so what would I know about this?

Graham from Los Angeles writes: If the Steelers win a third Super Bowl in six years, then they will be considered a dynasty, because it shows their consistency and ability to come back from self-destruction and injury.

Dan Finnegan from Bremerton, Wash., writes: No, I've seen the original Steelers dynasty. Frankly, I think to have a dynasty you have to win multiple Super Bowls in a 10-year stretch, and you have to defend your title successfully at least once. The Steelers of the 2000s did not successfully defend either of their two SB titles this decade. The HOFers of the 1970s did it twice in a six-year period and were in the hunt nearly every year of the decade.

We will wrap up this interesting topic on Wednesday. If you have any further “Thought of the Day” comments on the Steelers, feel free to send them to our AFC North inbox.