Best team ever - really?

[jrmitch]

Just got done listening to the ESPN crew as they wrapped up coverage of the Super Bowl, and their consensus was that the Steelers are the most succesful organization in Pro Football. But are they?

I don't mean to diminish their accomplishments. Yet when we keep in mind that the NFL has actually played a championship game since 1933 - long before it was renamed the Super Bowl - the Steelers 6 championships still place them only 4th in terms of most titles won behind the Packers, Bears, and Giants. While the argument can be made that they're the most succesful team of the Super Bowl era, I don't see where it can be made that they're the most succesful team in league history.

So do only Super Bowl titles count when we evaluate the most succesful organizations in the NFL? Or do we also have to include the accomplishments of all teams in league history prior to the era of the Super Bowl? Thoughts?

[Aussie3rddayfan]

Just got done listening to the ESPN crew as they wrapped up coverage of the Super Bowl, and their consensus was that the Steelers are the most succesful organization in Pro Football. But are they?

I don't mean to diminish their accomplishments. Yet when we keep in mind that the NFL has actually played a championship game since 1933 - long before it was renamed the Super Bowl - the Steelers 6 championships still place them only 4th in terms of most titles won behind the Packers, Bears, and Giants. While the argument can be made that they're the most succesful team of the Super Bowl era, I don't see where it can be made that they're the most succesful team in league history.

So do only Super Bowl titles count when we evaluate the most succesful organizations in the NFL? Or do we also have to include the accomplishments of all teams in league history prior to the era of the Super Bowl? Thoughts?

The most successful sporting team of the last decade is the Ferrari Formula One team. Out of a possible ten constructors championships they have won eight. No other sporting team has done better than that in the last ten years.

[jrmitch]

The most successful sporting team of the last decade is the Ferrari Formula One team. Out of a possible ten constructors championships they have won eight. No other sporting team has done better than that in the last ten years.Fair enough. Here in the States the closest equivalent we have to the Formula One Constructors championships is probably the NASCAR manufacturers championship. The Constructors championships were inagurated in 1958; the manufacturers championships were started 3 years earlier.

Now, let's do this: not just examine the last 10 years, but the entire history of both championships. When we do so we find that Ferrari has won the Constructors title 16 times. But within the same period of time Chevy has won the Manufacturers championship 32 times.
To my knowledge no other team or organization anywhere in the world has won as many titles - of any kind - over the last 50 years. In fact, no one's even close. ;)

Meanwhile, back to the NFL - where going solely by the NFL record book Green Bay is still the most succesful team in it's history with 12 titles. Can a solid argument be made that the Steelers 6 Super Bowl wins make them more succesful?

[rossid]

Didn't they also say they were the "model" organization?

Wasn't that the Pats two years ago?

What kind of journalism is this?

Give me a break.

[Evanescence]

49'ers, Redskins and New England Pats !!!!!!!!!

[jrmitch]

49'ers, Redskins and New England Pats !!!!!!!!!All great teams, E - yet their combined number of NFL titles matches Green Bays 12. ;)

Green Bay also won 5 titles over a 7 year span (including the first 2 Super Bowls). No one else has won even as many as 5 titles over a 10 year period (including Pittsburgh). I'm still looking for a logical explanation about why any team with less titles than the Pack, Bears, or Giants should be considered as more succesful. :)

[VerbumReale]

Jimbo
Just how much of the history of the NFL can we count?? Seriously, from the 20s-50s it was little more than a regional league. It wasn't really until the late 50s that it became a nationally recognized league. Now that of course doesn't negate the point you make about the Packers of the 60s, but many of those early years of the NFL was at a time when college ball was considered the superior brand. In fact I would say even into the 60s it could not be assumed that every top college prospect would play NFL ball since the salaries were still actually lower than other jobs they could have gotten.

That said, I saw when they said that and to me it didn't seem like they were talking just about number of championships. I think they were measuring championships with stability with consistency with loyal fan-bases etc.

[danbos]

All great teams, E - yet their combined number of NFL titles matches Green Bays 12. ;)

Green Bay also won 5 titles over a 7 year span (including the first 2 Super Bowls). No one else has won even as many as 5 titles over a 10 year period (including Pittsburgh). I'm still looking for a logical explanation about why any team with less titles than the Pack, Bears, or Giants should be considered as more succesful. :)

Of course, if the trophy is named after your coach, you better at least win it a few times. ;)

[jrmitch]

Jimbo
Just how much of the history of the NFL can we count?? Seriously, from the 20s-50s it was little more than a regional league. It wasn't really until the late 50s that it became a nationally recognized league. Now that of course doesn't negate the point you make about the Packers of the 60s, but many of those early years of the NFL was at a time when college ball was considered the superior brand. In fact I would say even into the 60s it could not be assumed that every top college prospect would play NFL ball since the salaries were still actually lower than other jobs they could have gotten.

That said, I saw when they said that and to me it didn't seem like they were talking just about number of championships. I think they were measuring championships with stability with consistency with loyal fan-bases etc.My dear sir, you raise a valid point. Yet........:D

As I look at this I also see another issue. My hazy memory of the history of our other pro sports leagues kicked in, and after doing some digging to refresh what was once a very fine mind - :) - I saw that the same reasoning about the number of teams, their geographic location, and expansion on a more national scale seems to apply equally to all four of our major pro sports leagues. Yet only in the NFL do we seem to question the credibility of it's earlier champions. So y'all please bear with me; Steve's hit a nerve. I want to take a moment and do something. Let's back up; use 1966 - the year of the first Super Bowl - as our starting point; and take a look at how this argument applies to all four sports: The NFL - currently has 32 teams, with the Pack leading the way with 12 titles. In 1966 the NFL had 15 teams. 9 of the 12 Packer titles came when the league had 15 teams or less, with all but two of the teams in the league being located in either the Midwest or Eastern United States. Since 1966 the NFL has added 17 new teams, with 10 of those coming in 1970 at the completion of the merger with the rival AFL. Major League Baseball - currently has 30 teams, with the Yankees being the most succesful with 26 World Series titles. In 1966 there were 20 teams. However, there were only 16 teams - and none west of St. Louis - when the Giants and Dodgers relocated to California in 1958. Prior to that relocation the Yankees had won 17 of their 26 championships. Since 1966 MLB has added 10 new teams. The NBA - also has 30 teams, with Boston being the most succesful with 17 titles. In 1966 the NBA had only 9 teams, with most of those being located in the Eastern third of the United States. 8 of Bostons 17 titles came prior to the period of NBA expansion that began in 1966; since then the NBA has added 21 new teams. The NHL - also has 30 teams, with the Canadians winning 24 Stanley Cup titles. We want to talk growth? In 1966 the NHL had only 6 teams, with 4 of those teams being located in the Northeast. The most significant periods of growth for the NHL came in the '70s and the '90s. 14 of the Canadiens 24 Cup titles came before 1966; since then the NHL has added 24 new teams.Steve, I don't discount your argument; I think it has merit. Yet I've never heard the earlier titles won by the Yanks, Celts, or Canadiens being challenged as legit, while I've constantly heard arguments that seek to diminish the pre Super Bowl success of the older NFL clubs. So....

Why do we only do this with the NFL? All 4 pro leagues have seen significant expansion, and all of their most succesful teams had won many of their titles when the leagues were all more regionally located in the East and Midwest. It seems to me that if we're going to apply this logic to the NFL and the Packers - and I'm not saying that we shouldn't - then we also need to do likewise to baseball, basketball, and hockey.

Thanks for making me think.......great; now you've given me a headache....... :)

[TheBus36(Retired)]

I think they were really kind of talking about how the organization is run. Yeah, we don't win championships year in and year out, but we are very successful and usually have a pretty good chance every season. The Rooney's have done a wonderful job running our organization. Just my two cents.

R

[jrmitch]

I think they were really kind of talking about how the organization is run. Yeah, we don't win championships year in and year out, but we are very successful and usually have a pretty good chance every season. The Rooney's have done a wonderful job running our organization. Just my two cents.

RYo, dude - where you been, man? You fall of the face of the earth or somethin'........?? :D

[ZippyApplePants]

My dear sir, you raise a valid point. Yet........:D

As I look at this I also see another issue. My hazy memory of the history of our other pro sports leagues kicked in, and after doing some digging to refresh what was once a very fine mind - :) - I saw that the same reasoning about the number of teams, their geographic location, and expansion on a more national scale seems to apply equally to all four of our major pro sports leagues. Yet only in the NFL do we seem to question the credibility of it's earlier champions. So y'all please bear with me; Steve's hit a nerve. I want to take a moment and do something. Let's back up; use 1966 - the year of the first Super Bowl - as our starting point; and take a look at how this argument applies to all four sports: The NFL - currently has 32 teams, with the Pack leading the way with 12 titles. In 1966 the NFL had 15 teams. 9 of the 12 Packer titles came when the league had 15 teams or less, with all but two of the teams in the league being located in either the Midwest or Eastern United States. Since 1966 the NFL has added 17 new teams, with 10 of those coming in 1970 at the completion of the merger with the rival AFL. Major League Baseball - currently has 30 teams, with the Yankees being the most succesful with 26 World Series titles. In 1966 there were 20 teams. However, there were only 16 teams - and none west of St. Louis - when the Giants and Dodgers relocated to California in 1958. Prior to that relocation the Yankees had won 17 of their 26 championships. Since 1966 MLB has added 10 new teams. The NBA - also has 30 teams, with Boston being the most succesful with 17 titles. In 1966 the NBA had only 9 teams, with most of those being located in the Eastern third of the United States. 8 of Bostons 17 titles came prior to the period of NBA expansion that began in 1966; since then the NBA has added 21 new teams. The NHL - also has 30 teams, with the Canadians winning 24 Stanley Cup titles. We want to talk growth? In 1966 the NHL had only 6 teams, with 4 of those teams being located in the Northeast. The most significant periods of growth for the NHL came in the '70s and the '90s. 14 of the Canadiens 24 Cup titles came before 1966; since then the NHL has added 24 new teams.Steve, I don't discount your argument; I think it has merit. Yet I've never heard the earlier titles won by the Yanks, Celts, or Canadiens being challenged as legit, while I've constantly heard arguments that seek to diminish the pre Super Bowl success of the older NFL clubs. So....

Why do we only do this with the NFL? All 4 pro leagues have seen significant expansion, and all of their most succesful teams had won many of their titles when the leagues were all more regionally located in the East and Midwest. It seems to me that if we're going to apply this logic to the NFL and the Packers - and I'm not saying that we shouldn't - then we also need to do likewise to baseball, basketball, and hockey.

Thanks for making me think.......great; now you've given me a headache....... :)

That is only because your brain isn't used to thinking. :P :D

I think the Steelers are a great team and organization. I think it's difficult to compare different sports and different eras. So I don't know if they're the best team ever. It can be fun to talk about though.

Yo, dude - where you been, man? You fall of the face of the earth or somethin'........?? :D

You actually missed him? :eek: You're probably the only one who did! Now we know you don't think clearly!

[TheBus36(Retired)]

Yo, dude - where you been, man? You fall of the face of the earth or somethin'........?? :D

Nah, just pretty darn busy. But hey, I'm employeed! How you been?