Team of the Decade Pats or Steelers?

[Steelersfan85]

I have to go with the Steelers here but thats a biased opinion. The Pats did have Spygate but who knows how they would have done without it. They would have still won 1 or 2 Super Bowls. I just have to go with the Steelers.

[z Revis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steelersfan85

I have to go with the Steelers here but thats a biased opinion. The Pats did have Spygate but who knows how they would have done without it. They would have still won 1 or 2 Super Bowls. I just have to go with the Steelers.

I'm not really sure how much consideration spygate can get. All we know for sure is that they cheated in one game and that was the Jets game last year...but even after that they still went 17-1.

[Unmasked]

Is there a question? The Patriots.

[SPTO]

I think if the Steelers win next year's SB they get the slight edge as they'd have won 3 SBs without a loss while the Pats had 4 appearances but lost 1.

What would seal it for Pittsburgh IMO would be if they play NE in the playoffs and beat em next year.

That's the only way Pitt. becomes "team of the decade" IMO.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

I think if the Steelers win next year's SB they get the slight edge as they'd have won 3 SBs without a loss while the Pats had 4 appearances but lost 1.

How is that a knock on New England?

The best outcome of a season is a Super Bowl win. The next best outcome is either a Super Bowl loss (or a #1 pick, but we'll go with Super Bowl loss).

3 chips and a loss is better than 3 chips (with maybe the exception of college football some years).

Plus, the Pats have already beaten the Steelers twice in the playoffs, both in AFC chip games at Pittsburgh. The only way the Steelers are even in the conversation is if they go 19-0 and the Pats have a losing record.

[dave374]

Patriots by far.

They probably would have won this year if Brady hadn't been injured ... and they still had a solid season with a QB who hadn't started a game since high school.

16-0 season may have been marred by the Super Bowl loss, but they be the only team that will ever go 16-0.

This year's Steelers would have lost to New England with Brady.

Hell, they may have lost to the Pats anyway if Cassel played like Cassel on day one, but the Pats had to dumb down the offence the first four or five weeks he played.

All that said, I'm not knocking the Steelers. A great, great organization. But the Pats are the team of the 2000s, just like the Steelers of the 70s.

Steelers first Super Bowl win of the 2000s was a joke. Bad officiating won that game for them.

[MaddenMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by z Revis

2. They would still only have 3 Super Bowl appearances as opposed to 4 by the Pats.

While getting there does matter, there would be an argument that 3 wins=3 wins.

Good points with the additional appearance and the winning % imo.

[mjb2124]

Quote: Originally Posted by dave374

This year's Steelers would have lost to New England with Brady. Hell, they may have lost to the Pats anyway if Cassel played like Cassel on day one, but the Pats had to dumb down the offence the first four or five weeks he played. Steelers first Super Bowl win of the 2000s was a joke. Bad officiating won that game for them.

Let's back the train up a bit. The Steelers played the Patriots in Week 12 this season after Cassel had 2 straight 400yd passing games. The Steelers won 33-10 IN Foxboro.

With Brady, things could have been different, but you never know. There's no point in debating that.

Regarding the last sentence. That entire Super Bowl has been dissected 1000 times over and it's been shown that many of those calls were right. Maybe instead of blaming the refs, Seattle should blame Hasselbeck for the INT he threw late in the game or Stephens for the handful of passes he dropped - one that was inside the 10-15 yard line.