Peter King kinda awards the Pats the team of the decade

[Rob0729]

From his MMQB column:

Let's start this exercise by saying the only teams that can logically compete for Team of the Decade in this decade are New England and Pittsburgh. Indianapolis (regular-season record: 101-43, 7-7 in the playoffs) does have seven more regular-season wins than Pittsburgh, but the Colts can finish this decade with two Super Bowl titles, and a two-time Super Bowl winner can't lay claim to Team of the Decade over a team with three. So it's either the Patriots (three titles as we speak) or Pittsburgh (two) who can wear history's crown.
You be the judge what history will say if the Steelers win a third after seeing the Patriots' and Steelers' records since 2000:
TeamReg. Season W-LPlayoff W-LTotalSB W-LLosing YearsPlayoff Years
New England102-4214-3116-453-116
Pittsburgh94-49-110-4104-53-12-016


For my money, the Steelers would have to have a dream season -- say, 14-2 or better, with a Super Bowl win -- while the Patriots would have to stumble and miss the playoffs for Pittsburgh to win the fictional title. Whatever happens this year, the Steelers can't win more playoff games than New England, can't win more Super Bowls, can't appear in more Super Bowls, and, with 12 fewer wins entering the season, almost certainly can't win more games. Then there's New England's 16-0 regular season two years ago.
In other words, something really strange would have to happen for the Steelers to pass the Pats as Team of the Decade.

Peter King on Michael Vick, Brett Favre, NFL camps,*draft - Peter King - SI.com

 

[xmarkd400x]

Reformatted table:

Team         Reg. Season W-L    Playoff W-L    Total     SB W-L   Losing Years   Playoff Years
New England   102-42            14-3          116-45       3-1         1                6
Pittsburgh    94-49-1           10-4          104-53-1     2-0         1                6

 

[Ryan]

I've seen a lot of Steeler fans (and some players) saying that they're the team of the decade already. I don't really get that one. The Pats have it locked up and if they win it all this year, they will be miles ahead.

 

[signbabybrady]

Whats left off this discussion is the two AFC Championship wins we have over them.

Whenever there is discussion like this its rare that it can be settled on the field but this one already has been.

 

[TCB]

I don't get it. Is this really a big deal? Are they presenting a trophy for "team of the decade"? Will not being declared TOTD diminish the accomplishments of either team?

 

[Rob0729]

I don't get it. Is this really a big deal? Are they presenting a trophy for "team of the decade"? Will not being declared TOTD diminish the accomplishments of either team?

It is a non-award award. It really doesn't matter. It is just something to talk about. The media cares and it does at least at times create some good discussion.

 

[Bring Back Antowain!]

Whats left off this discussion is the two AFC Championship wins we have over them.

Whenever there is discussion like this its rare that it can be settled on the field but this one already has been.

Agreed. The fact of the matter is, the Patriots, this decade, are killing the Steelers.

The Patriots are 5-2 against them, and better yet, as you mentioned, 2-0 against them in the playoffs.

There is no question who the team of the decade is. And the fact that the Steelers, a team that has been at times quite inconsistent this decade, are even mentioned.

 

[Rob0729]

I've seen a lot of Steeler fans (and some players) saying that they're the team of the decade already. I don't really get that one. The Pats have it locked up and if they win it all this year, they will be miles ahead.

I think they want to dismiss the Pats' Super Bowl wins because of Spygate. Joey Porter has said that the Pats stole their dynasty. I am sure many other Steelers fans and players feel the same way. Who cares is my moto.

 

[Bill B.]

Aren't we a year to early with this team of the decade talk. A decade would start at the year 1 and end at the year 10. Technically, the first year of this decade is 2001 and the last year is 2010. There is no year zero.

 

[signbabybrady]

Aren't we a year to early with this team of the decade talk. A decade would start at the year 1 and end at the year 10. Technically, the first year of this decade is 2001 and the last year is 2010. There is no year zero.

But I already rented the chairs.

 

[Ring 6]

Aren't we a year to early with this team of the decade talk. A decade would start at the year 1 and end at the year 10. Technically, the first year of this decade is 2001 and the last year is 2010. There is no year zero.

No. The 1970s werent 1971-1980, they were 1970-1979. Same principal holds here ofr 00-09. The "00s" with next year starting the '10s'

 

[Deus Irae]

Aren't we a year to early with this team of the decade talk. A decade would start at the year 1 and end at the year 10. Technically, the first year of this decade is 2001 and the last year is 2010. There is no year zero.

Yes, but a lot of people don't understand how a decade actually works.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I don't get it. Is this really a big deal? Are they presenting a trophy for "team of the decade"? Will not being declared TOTD diminish the accomplishments of either team?

TCB

Not important for fans. However, as a player, it's nice to be part of a dynasty for future endorsements, appearances, opportunities.

Of of the Steel Curtain dudes said that the only teams never remembered are Super Bowl losers and teams that won only once.

Emmitt Smith doesn't get endorsements with this articulate insightful qualities.

 

[Bill B.]

No. The 1970s werent 1971-1980, they were 1970-1979. Same principal holds here ofr 00-09. The "00s" with next year starting the '10s'

I had this same argument as to when the 21st century started. If you go back in time to when mankind started counting years you have to ask yourself, "Was there a year 0?" Did the year 1 BC precede the year 1 AD? No one really knows but if you look at it mathematically, the decade should start at the year one and ends at year 10.

 

[Bartmac36]

No matter what happens, the Pats own the title...they have a winning record vs. Pittsburgh, especially in the playoffs...they are the team everyone will remember 20 years from now, not the Steelers...

 

[Deus Irae]

No matter what happens, the Pats own the title...they have a winning record vs. Pittsburgh, especially in the playoffs...they are the team everyone will remember 20 years from now, not the Steelers...

If Pittsburgh goes 19-0 and the Patriots don't make the playoffs, I don't think you can claim the Patriots are the team of the decade. Hell, unless the Patriots lose the AFCCG in that scenario, I think you have to give it to Pittsburgh.

 

[madmike77]

If the Steelers don't win the SB this year it's definitely the Pats decade.

If the Steelers do win, then it's sort of the Pats decade. Yeah they'd likely have the better record, but with both teams winning 3 SBs you couldn't really say there was a dominant team.

Not sure why it really matters anyway. Both teams have had good runs.

 

[jmt57]

We're kind of beating a dead horse here since this has been discussed multiple times in the last month or two, but if the Colts are eliminated due to having less Super Bowl victories, then doesn't the same logic apply to the Steelers? And if Pittsburgh does does win the next Super Bowl, then wouldn't the Pats still win any tiebreakers such as # of conference championships, overall won-loss record, playoff record, and head-to-head record - especially those two AFC championship games?

Right now I think I could make a better case for the Colts being the second best NFL team this decade than for the Steelers being the best.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm fine with all the media - and fans - waiting until the end of this season to decide anything... that being said, understanding they're grasping for anything to talk about before training camps start, I understand their point that even if the Steelers tie the Pats with 3 SB rings this decade, the Pats will still have appeared in one more Super Bowl, effectively breaking that "tie".

 

[BradyFTW!]

I had this same argument as to when the 21st century started. If you go back in time to when mankind started counting years you have to ask yourself, "Was there a year 0?" Did the year 1 BC precede the year 1 AD? No one really knows but if you look at it mathematically, the decade should start at the year one and ends at year 10.

While this is technically correct, when you're talking about the "team of the 2000s", 2000 is in the 2000s and 2010 isn't. The 2000s aren't determined by the fact that they started at a precise 10 year interval after when we first started marking off time. It's just the 10 year span that starts with the numbers 2, 0, and 0. So the real answer, I guess, is that you can't universally claim either answer (2001-2010 or 2000-2009) as the end-all for what constitutes "the decade". It really depends on what definition you're starting with, and most people start with 2000-2009.