Don Banks of SI discusses the 'Team Of The Decade' debate

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers vie for*team of decade - Don Banks - SI.com

I think its well between the Steelers and the Patriots and whoever goes farther this season will probably earn the title by most sports writers.

Not to disrespect Cassel anymore, but if Brady had played all last season I think this issue would be non existent and we probably would have been where Pittsburgh ended last season and ended the argument of who the better team was for the past 10 years.

 

[ALP]

New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers vie for*team of decade - Don Banks - SI.com

I think its well between the Steelers and the Patriots and whoever goes farther this season will probably earn the title by most sports writers.

Not to disrespect Cassel anymore, but if Brady had played all last season I think this issue would be non existent and we probably would have been where Pittsburgh ended last season and ended the argument of who the better team was for the past 10 years.

I disagree...the only way to make this an argument would be for PIT to go undefeated and win the SB...

otherwise we have more SB than them, and more appearences, and better seasons, pluts a 16-0 reg season.....

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I disagree...the only way to make this an argument would be for PIT to go undefeated and win the SB...

otherwise we have more SB than them, and more appearences, and better seasons, pluts a 16-0 reg season.....

If for some reason with Brady back that the Patriots miss the playoffs again in 2009 and the Steelers win the Super Bowl or at least get into the AFCCG then you might have a good argument for those who wish to look at the broad picture - Of course SB wins will probably give the edge to the Pats and realistically should be the difference.

 

[Patriot Missile]

If 2 counts for more than 3 than I guess the Steelers are the team of the decade.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's only a debate if you're a Steelers fan or a member of the media looking to invent a story.

 

[Rob0729]

New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers vie for*team of decade - Don Banks - SI.com

I think its well between the Steelers and the Patriots and whoever goes farther this season will probably earn the title by most sports writers.

Not to disrespect Cassel anymore, but if Brady had played all last season I think this issue would be non existent and we probably would have been where Pittsburgh ended last season and ended the argument of who the better team was for the past 10 years.

So if the Pats go 4-11 and the Steelers go 5-11 this season, the Steelers will win the team of the decade? Eventhough the Pats have 3 Super Bowl wins and 4 appearances vs. the Steelers' 2 wins and 2 appearances?

The only way the Steelers even have a shot at the title is to win the Super Bowl this year. Even then, the Pats have one more Super Bowl appearance and many records including longest winning streak, longest home winning streak, best regular season record, most TDs by a QB in a single season, most receptions by a WR in a single season, etc.

I think many in the media will keep the debate open solely to make a story.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with your comments.

Unfortunately, it is part of a team's responsibility to have backups. Depth counts! We had the best team in the league last year (as we do this year) and we also had one of the weakest schedules. Unfortunately, we didn't have a backup quarterback capable of even getting this best team to the playoffs. Were injuries the issue? Are we only the best team when we don't have injuries?

Many said before last season that the backup QB didn't really matter because if Brady went down we'd be lucky to make the patriots, even with a relatively easy schedule. Cassel proved them right.

New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers vie for*team of decade - Don Banks - SI.com

I think its well between the Steelers and the Patriots and whoever goes farther this season will probably earn the title by most sports writers.

Not to disrespect Cassel anymore, but if Brady had played all last season I think this issue would be non existent and we probably would have been where Pittsburgh ended last season and ended the argument of who the better team was for the past 10 years.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

We had the best team in the league last year (as we do this year) and we also had one of the weakest schedules. Unfortunately, we didn't have a backup quarterback capable of even getting this best team to the playoffs.

That 3rd down defense last year was just awful. Shame on our QB for such awful clutch defense...oops...

I said "defense" right?









...










...








NEVERMIND!

(in my best Glida Radner/ Rosanne Rosanna Danna voice)

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with your comments.

Unfortunately, it is part of a team's responsibility to have backups. Depth counts! We had the best team in the league last year (as we do this year) and we also had one of the weakest schedules. Unfortunately, we didn't have a backup quarterback capable of even getting this best team to the playoffs. Were injuries the issue? Are we only the best team when we don't have injuries?

Many said before last season that the backup QB didn't really matter because if Brady went down we'd be lucky to make the patriots, even with a relatively easy schedule. Cassel proved them right.

The backup wasn't the problem, as we saw by the end of the season. If you want to look for blame, feel free to blame BB for not pulling Brady out of more games and letting Cassel get more experience and shortening his learning curve once he was forced onto the field. We could also toss in the bad luck of being the only team in NFL history to fail to make the playoffs with 11 wins under the current system.

Either that, or we could just realize that the salary cap makes it almost impossible to adequately buttress the QB position if you've got a top 5 salary QB as your starter.

Or, to put it another way, Byron Leftwich wasn't taking Pittsburgh to the Super Bowl if Ben R. went down on week 1, Sorgi wasn't taking the Colts there, etc...

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

If 2 counts for more than 3 than I guess the Steelers are the team of the decade.

You guys realize that only non-Steelers fans that also hate the Pats make this argument right? 3 is still greater than 2. So the Pats are the Best NFL team in the last 10 years. 4 appearences in "the dance" 3 wins.

The Steelers would have to go 16-0 in the Regular season then beat the Pats who are at like 14-2 in the AFC Title game this year, then go on to beat the NFC Team in the Super Bowl to be "equal" as Team of the Decade.

Seriously, its a dumb argument. The team with more SB Rings wins.

No one considers the Redskins of the 80s the team of the decade even though they had 2 wins and another appearance. The Team of the 90s was the Cowboys, because they had 3. But Remember, the Broncos had 2. See how that works out. No one argues the Broncos as the team of the Decade in the 90s. Its the same argument. The Steelers are not the best team of this past decade. Not yet, and then if they do win this year, and get to 3, then there is at least a debate but the trump card could be the 16-0 season and 4th appearence, and the fact the Pats beat the Steelers when the Steelers were 15-1 and had homefield advantage.

 

[stevedogc]

I can not imagine a scenario in which after the 2009 season the Steelers should be considered the team of the decade. Im sure most of the so called experts would give the nod to the Steelers for a few reasons. 1. They are dumb. 2. They dont like the Pats. 3. The Steelers SB's came more recently then the Pats and are fresh on their minds. Either way, even if the Steelers win the SB next season the Pats still have accomplished more.

Lets assume the Steelers win the SB next season, we will know the following:

1. Superbowls: 3 for each team
2. AFC Championships: Pats - 4 Steelers - 3
3. Regular season winning percentage: Pats have better percentage. Steelers would need to finish 2009 season 8 games better then the Pats to surpass them, wont happen.
4. Playoff winnng percentage: Pats have better percentage. Steelers would need to go 4-0 and the Pats would need to go 0-1 in the 2009 playoffs for the Steelers to have the better percentage.
5. Regular season H2H: Pats currently lead that 5-2. Which is where it will stand since they dont play each other in the 2009 regular season.
6. Playoff H2H: Pats lead that 2-0. Best the Steelers could do is win a H2H playoff game next season and make it 2-1
7. Pats accomplished something no other team in league history has done. A 16-0 regular season.

 

[TheComeback]

I agree with your comments.

Unfortunately, it is part of a team's responsibility to have backups. Depth counts! We had the best team in the league last year (as we do this year) and we also had one of the weakest schedules. Unfortunately, we didn't have a backup quarterback capable of even getting this best team to the playoffs. Were injuries the issue? Are we only the best team when we don't have injuries?

Whoa there, buddy.. spoiled much?



Now, back on topic. There is no debate, as others have said--not unless you are trying intentionally to start one. The Patriots have the best record of the decade (probably tied with the Colts, who have also been more worthy than the steelers), more Superbowl wins, more Superbowl appearances, a 16-0 season, a few Hall of Fame players, and a Hall of Fame head coach.. there is no argument. Screw the Steelers. Roethlisberger is the most overrated QB in the game.

And let's look at who the Steelers played in their Superbowls... oh that's right. The NFC West. Lol. You might as well have mailed them rings in advance... and even then they could barely handle the Seahawks without help from the refs.

Three out of four of the pats' Superbowls will go down as some of the best ever played... the Rams in 01, Panthers in 03, and Giants in 07.. all great games and other than the giants, elite opponents from the NFC. Even the Giants had one of the best defensive lines ever, certainly one of the best of the decade.

 

[supafly]

So if the Pats go 4-11 and the Steelers go 5-11 this season, the Steelers will win the team of the decade? Eventhough the Pats have 3 Super Bowl wins and 4 appearances vs. the Steelers' 2 wins and 2 appearances?

The only way the Steelers even have a shot at the title is to win the Super Bowl this year. Even then, the Pats have one more Super Bowl appearance and many records including longest winning streak, longest home winning streak, best regular season record, most TDs by a QB in a single season, most receptions by a WR in a single season, etc.

I think many in the media will keep the debate open solely to make a story.

I agree with all of your points, but the most important measuring stick IMO is the fact that Pittsburgh finished 5-11 and 6-10 (IIRC?) during this decade.

I really don't see how you can even be considered for 'team of the decade' when you've had at least 2 totally butt-whipped, losing seasons. The worst the Pats finished was 9-7, and even then, we still had a shot at the playoffs in the last wk--no contest

 

[spacecrime]

I agree with your comments.

Unfortunately, it is part of a team's responsibility to have backups. Depth counts! We had the best team in the league last year (as we do this year) and we also had one of the weakest schedules. Unfortunately, we didn't have a backup quarterback capable of even getting this best team to the playoffs. Were injuries the issue? Are we only the best team when we don't have injuries?

Many said before last season that the backup QB didn't really matter because if Brady went down we'd be lucky to make the patriots, even with a relatively easy schedule. Cassel proved them right.

Hmmm, interesting. Do you happen to know where our offense ranked last year? 30th? 31st? Dead last?

 

[mgteich]

These discussions have been about wins and clutch wins, not stats.

And BTW, the team had the best ever offense in 2007.

Hmmm, interesting. Do you happen to know where our offense ranked last year? 30th? 31st? Dead last?

 

[Deus Irae]

These discussions have been about wins and clutch wins, not stats.

And BTW, the team had the best ever offense in 2007.

1.) The team won 11 games. Never before under the current system had an 11 win team been frozen out of the playoffs.

2.) The QB was "clutch" enough to put them in position to beat the Jets, which would have been a 12 win season. It wasn't the QB who gave up the first down on 3rd and long in the overtime.

3.) The QB had the team in position to take a 14-3 lead over the Steelers but the most talented WR in NFL history dropped an easy touchdown pass and triggered a collapse.

4.) The QB didn't get run over by the Wildcat against Miami. Whether Brady could have overcome that or not, that game is clearly on the shoulders of the defense and not the QB.

5.) The QB didn't drop a sure touchdown pass against the Colts. He also did not make a bonehead penalty which took the team out of scoring range.

Pointing to the backup QB is just silly. He was a top 10 NFL QB (at least within the bounds of his system) by the end of the season. Had the rest of the team done its job, it's possible that this team could have won 4 of the 5 games it lost. Only the Chargers game was clearly lost by the QB (1st and goal), and even that one had at least an outside chance of stabilizing if the most talented wide receiver in NFL history had done his job instead of letting Jammer beat him on 2 very important passes.

Even with Matt Cassel as the QB, this team could easily have gone 14-2 or 15-1 if the rest of the team had simply done its job.

 

[Patriots2001]

Not sure if this was mentioned but the head to head in the AFCCG twice won by NE and both times on the road..Get yer superbowl tickets Bill Cowher NOT.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

You guys realize that only non-Steelers fans that also hate the Pats make this argument right? 3 is still greater than 2. So the Pats are the Best NFL team in the last 10 years. 4 appearences in "the dance" 3 wins.

The Steelers would have to go 16-0 in the Regular season then beat the Pats who are at like 14-2 in the AFC Title game this year, then go on to beat the NFC Team in the Super Bowl to be "equal" as Team of the Decade.

Seriously, its a dumb argument. The team with more SB Rings wins.

No one considers the Redskins of the 80s the team of the decade even though they had 2 wins and another appearance. The Team of the 90s was the Cowboys, because they had 3. But Remember, the Broncos had 2. See how that works out. No one argues the Broncos as the team of the Decade in the 90s. Its the same argument. The Steelers are not the best team of this past decade. Not yet, and then if they do win this year, and get to 3, then there is at least a debate but the trump card could be the 16-0 season and 4th appearence, and the fact the Pats beat the Steelers when the Steelers were 15-1 and had homefield advantage.

A fair post, if there ever was one. You're alright dino.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

by the way, isn't Don Banks a Steelers fan? I would think he is, since according to him:
"how can we say anything less than the Super Bowl's 43rd edition was the best ever?"

Best Super Bowl ever? - Don Banks - SI.com

 

[BionicPatriot]

1.) The team won 11 games. Never before under the current system had an 11 win team been frozen out of the playoffs.

2.) The QB was "clutch" enough to put them in position to beat the Jets, which would have been a 12 win season. It wasn't the QB who gave up the first down on 3rd and long in the overtime.

3.) The QB had the team in position to take a 14-3 lead over the Steelers but the most talented WR in NFL history dropped an easy touchdown pass and triggered a collapse.

4.) The QB didn't get run over by the Wildcat against Miami. Whether Brady could have overcome that or not, that game is clearly on the shoulders of the defense and not the QB.

5.) The QB didn't drop a sure touchdown pass against the Colts. He also did not make a bonehead penalty which took the team out of scoring range.

Pointing to the backup QB is just silly. He was a top 10 NFL QB (at least within the bounds of his system) by the end of the season. Had the rest of the team done its job, it's possible that this team could have won 4 of the 5 games it lost. Only the Chargers game was clearly lost by the QB (1st and goal), and even that one had at least an outside chance of stabilizing if the most talented wide receiver in NFL history had done his job instead of letting Jammer beat him on 2 very important passes.

Even with Matt Cassel as the QB, this team could easily have gone 14-2 or 15-1 if the rest of the team had simply done its job.

Story of the ******* year. So frustrating.