The Difference between being a Winner and Being a Champion
by MarkJoel66 on Nov 24, 2009 11:14 AM EST
Email
PrintThe Pittsburgh Steelers are no longer Champions. Not after two pathetic efforts in two must win games. No one can argue that these Pittsburgh Steelers have the right to call themselves Champions, in any true sense of the word.
This does not mean that they might not end up as winners come February...
In boxing, the Challenger vs. Champ was the thing that drove the sport. You had beloved Champions, such as Joe Louis, and polarizing Champions such as Mohammed Ali... but every fight, the question was: Can the young challenger upset the Champion. And, make no mistake, when the Challenger won, it was an upset. Because a Champion just isn't expected to lose.
There was a time when the NFL had champions.
The Packers were Champions. So were the Cowboys. The Dolphins. The Steelers. Each year started with people wondering if there was any challenger capable of beating the Champ.
And then... Parity struck.
Pete Rozell decided that it was better for football if every year ANY team could win. His desire was every team to go 8 and 8, and have the playoffs decided by tie-breakers. Hall of Fame Pete Rozell reasoned that no one would want to cheer for a team that never won. It would be better if every season, all across the country, every fan thought that this might be the year that his team could win the Super Bowl.
Despite the NFL's best efforts, though, sometimes Champions do arise. Sometimes there is a team who is just so supremely talented that they are simply better than everybody else. This team still will tower over the NFL like George Foreman towering over a fallen Joe Frazier.
The Cowboys of 93... the 49ers of 95... The Bucs of 2003... and, yes, the Steelers of 2009. Who was going to beat those teams? They stood above the crowd... for one brief shining moment...
But, fortunately for the NFL's slavish devotion to mediocrity, there is always free agency. Nothing, not even the draft, balances the power in the NFL like the ability for teams to buy proven talent, and weaken great teams. Buying talent rarely makes a champion... but at least it will wreck the old champion, so it accomplishes the same thing for the NFL. All hail the great musical chairs of mediocrity known as Free Agency.
So, even if a team rises up, it will not stay there. This is today's NFL.
And, in this world that celebrates average, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the 2010 Pittsburgh Steelers.
This is not a champion. This is a "slightly better than most" team.
The good news is, from all indications, there is no other true champion this year, either.
Tell me, what team do you think is a definite lock to beat the Steelers? The Vikings? The Steelers already showed them to be mortal. The Patriots? Even Belichek is looking average these days. The Saints? The Colts? All of these teams have struggled at times to beat teams. So have the Steelers, yes. And yet, if the Steelers don't allow any runbacks for touchdowns, they could just as easily be undefeated right now. That is, actually, a very small margin of victory (or defeat).
These Steelers do not suck. They are just average, that's all. Just like everyone else.
The NFL grades on a curve, and everyone gets a "C".
I'm not saying the Steelers will win the Super Bowl this year, or even that they deserve to. I am only saying it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Frankly, they are probably just as likely at this point as any other slightly better than average team.
This is the Grand Design of the NFL.
They don't want a dominating team marching through the playoffs and ending up in the Super Bowl as the prohibitive favorite (like the Steelers did last year.)
They want a bunch of equally matched teams clawing it out to the very end.
And that's what they have.
In theory, it makes every game more exciting, because "On any given Sunday, any team can win..."
For fans who have cheered the true Champions of the past, these impostors wearing the hallowed Black and Gold make us sick.
But this is exactly what the NFL wants.
The Steelers are not out of this race.
But, to paraphrase Senator Benson:
"I knew the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers. I cheered for, lived for, and woke up every Sunday waiting for the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers... and, believe me, these guys are no World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers."
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Disagree
I hear what you’re saying, and to a large extent, it’s true….Any Given Sunday and all that.
But, there are champions in this league, whether you want to admit it or not. The Steelers, the Patriots, and to a lesser extent the Colts and Giants have been dominant for the entire decade. They are always the “teams to beat” over the course of an entire season; teams with a better chance than most others to win the whole thing.
Sure, the Browns, Bengals, Bears, etc. have all had good years here and there, and those are some of the teams where you can really see the parity of the NFL at work.
But there are also the perennial doormats of the league as well, and oddly, they number just about the same as the true champs of the league.
And while free agency has indeed led to slightly more parity, think back to the earlier Super Bowl games. The Fins, Steelers, Cowboys, Skins, and 49ers all won multiple rings, but there were a whole host of other teams that made it one year, never to be heard from again. The Broncos, Rams, Eagles, Patriots and others only appeared once (pre 1986)! Much like the Titans, Bucs, Bears, Hawks of this decade.
Nope, I see the NFL as very similar to how it’s always been since the merger, and until some other team hoists the Lombardi this February, our western PA warriors are indeed the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers!
by PonchoBrew on Nov 24, 2009 1:26 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
There is a difference
There is a difference between being great for a year, and being a dynasty.
With free agency and the salary cap, the dynasty days are over.
But there are still teams who, year to year, are simply better — for a brief moment before free agency and the salary cap cuts them down.
My point is that it does not happen every year. And it is not happening this year.
There is no huge favorite, to my mind. Every team I see can be beat. None of them scare me. But the Steelers could just as easily lose three more and end up out of the playoffs.
Hooray for Parity.
With free agency and the salary cap, the dynasty days are over.
The Patriots arent a dynasty? The Steelers arent a dynasty? You’re being blinded by nostalgia, my friend.
Dynasty?
Only if you change the definition of the word.
Two Super Bowl wins, with two different coaches, in a decade makes a dynasty for you?
You throw the term around loosely, my friend…
It’s not 2 in a decade, it’s 2 in 4 years, with a good chance for more. Also throw in a ton of AFCCGs……would you change your opinion if we won again this year? How about if we lose this year, but win next year?
The team of the 70’s won 4 in 6 years, and the Steelers of right now have a better chance than most other teams to do that as well.
What about the Patsies? Were/are they not a dynasty? 3 for 4 in this decade, perennial playoff appearances, near perfect record 2 years ago…..smells like a dynasty to me.
What’s your definition of the word?
You don't get to decide when the Decade starts and ends
It’s not 2 in a decade, it’s 2 in 4 years, with a good chance for more. Also throw in a ton of AFCCGs……would you change your opinion if we won again this year? How about if we lose this year, but win next year?
The decade ends now. And, even if we win this year, I’m pretty sure the pundits will still call the Patriots the team of the decade.
What about the Patsies? Were/are they not a dynasty? 3 for 4 in this decade, perennial playoff appearances, near perfect record 2 years ago…..smells like a dynasty to me.
This kind of cracks me up. You call them the Patsies, and then call them a dynasty. Which is it?
No, the Patriots are no dynasty in my mind… they shouldn’t have even made it to the Super Bowl the first time out. I have watched and re-wathced that play a hundred times. Tuck rule or not, that was a fumble.
Throw in SpyGate, the fact that they barely won their Super Bowls, and the consistent ref bias, and this is no Dynasty. I am no Baltimore fan, but I agree with them that they beat the Patriots during their “perfect season” run. That was, in fact, one time that the Ravens were right to call foul.
this year, Brady pointing to a ref and asking for, and getting, a call, just shows how bad it has become.
No, the Patriots are no Dynasty to my mind. The last Dynasty was the Cowboys of the 90s. If Jerry Jones hadn’t let his ego run rampant and run Jimmy Johnson out of town, there is no telling how many Super Bowls that team might have won…
You don’t get to decide when the Decade starts and ends
Wow, I didn’t know dynasties were limited to a certain 10 year span based on an arbitrary calendar. While it is always nice to have your team labelled “Team of the Decade”, who really cares? I’m pretty sure most of us would be perfectly content with the nucleus of this team getting 2 Rings this decade, and 2 more next decade, and not be crying in our towels about not being TotD.
To your other points; I can call them the Patsies just as easily as I called that dynastic team from Dallas the “Cowgirls”. Doesn’t mean I dont respect their accomplishments. I do. And while I dont like the Patriots, and I do think they’ve had more than their fair share of good fortune, I still have to respect the fact that they’ve consistently put themselves in position to win.
That being said, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving! Go Steelers!!!
It would be really nice
… if we could somehow edit our replies on here. That way if you make a small mistake, you can fix it…
And my thanksgiving was just fine. I spent the whole day thankful that the Steelers didn’t get Eli Manning…
Wow...
For fans who have cheered the true Champions of the past, these impostors wearing the hallowed Black and Gold make us sick.
That’s pretty severe. I guess that I wasn’t around for the “true Champions”, but I’m amazed you put time and energy into watching and routing for a team that sickens you.
I’m impressed with the Steelers of today. They remain consistently good in times of parity. They have adapted to the times well and make it entertaining to a fan year in and year out. There are plenty of other teams that are terrible in comparison. Are they Champions by your definition? I dunno, as it seems your definition is:
Champion: A team that should win every game they play by 10+ points.
I’ll take the current Pittsburgh Steelers. Champions or no.
by Chicago Steeler on Nov 24, 2009 4:43 PM EST reply actions
Champions
I dunno, as it seems your definition is:
Champion: A team that should win every game they play by 10+ points.
Nope… not at all. Even the Steelers of the 70s could lose games you expected them to win. Strangely, we have always seemed to have trouble with Cincinnati.
In one of the NFL Films about the Steelers, there is a quote that sums it up perfectly: “Great teams aren’t always great… but they are always great when the have to be…”
My definition of a Champion is the team that closes out Kansas City in the fourth quarter for the win… that keeps the Cincinnati Bengals from coming back to in week three, and keeps Chicago out of the end zone for the win… They also don’t go four and out against Cincinnati when they need a score to win.
In 1976, the Pittsburgh Steelers were defending Super Bowl champions. In the middle of the year, they lose Terry Bradshaw, who would miss 6 games due to a cheap shot by Joe “Turkey” Jones.
Super Bowl Hangover? Loss of key players? Does this sound familiar?
The difference is that the Champion Pittsburgh Steers of 1976 went 6-0 with some guy named Mike Kruczek (who had never played a game in the NFL!)
How well do you think these Steelers will do if we start Dennis Dixon for the next 6 games?
The 1976 Steelers had five shutouts! Why? Because they had to, that’s why. They rose to the occasion, and did what had to be done.
And yes, when I watch these Steelers lose a fourth quarter lead to the Kansas City Chiefs — a team who had yet to beat a team with a winning record — I get sick to my stomach. I feel like throwing up.
That doesn’t make me less of a fan — despite your insinuations.
I’ll take the current Pittsburgh Steelers. Champions or no.
You’ll take them over what? The Bears? OK, I can see your point… but over the 1976 Steelers? No thanks.
But you could have said the same things last year, after they were beaten by the Colts and/or Giants, yet they came together enough to get a 6th trophy, no?
There’s still time this year….
Let me get this straight...
In your mind, losing to the Colts and Giants (and not back to back, mind you…) is the same thing losing to the Bengals and the Chiefs?
Really?
Yes and no
We still had both those teams beaten, only to lose them when it came to gut check time. The Giants last year lost to the Browns, so maybe they were just as bad as the Cheifs this year….
And the Bengals dont exactly suck this year either, oh by the way.
the giant game..
Lost our long snapper..that was a game changer..
by nycsteelerfan on Nov 26, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
Clarification
I in no way mean to insinuate that you are less of a fan than me or any other fan. I have no means of judging that nor would I choose to (unless you just started watching last year and are thinking about switching teams cause they’re not playing well). You are clearly a fan with more long term knowledge than me.
And in someways I also felt a little ill after the game on Sunday, but on the whole I still enjoy watching most of the games they have played over the last decade I’ve been paying attention.
The 2005 Steelers won 3 straight playoff road games. Doesn’t that make them Champions just the same as the 1976 team having 5 shutouts?
And yes, in some ways I’m saying I’d take them over any other team in pro football.
by Chicago Steeler on Nov 25, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
Winners... not Champions
I don’t think you can compare winning three straight playoff games — and being lucky to do so — with having five shutouts with your quarterback out of the game.
As for taking them over any pro football team right now — of course… but I am saying that you cannot compare the caliber or quality of this team with the Champions that came before… and that is by design.
The NFL doesn’t want a juggernaut.
My post was more of a setting expectations post than a criticism.
This is what the NFL is.
I just had hoped that — following last year with basically the same team and an easier schedule — we were going to see the Steelers show their dominance.
That hope died on the field in Kansas City.
This team is what it is: Slightly above average.
but I am saying that you cannot compare the caliber or quality of this team with the Champions that came before… and that is by design.
The NFL doesn’t want a juggernaut
You’re right. Because the NFL is a business first.
breathe in deep feel your heart beat, just to know that life's worth livin'. feel your feet on the earth, better love it while it's still here spinnin'.
by NoCal-SteelCity on Nov 25, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
The difference between being a winner and being a champion
is winning the Super Bowl. “There can only be one.”
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
That's deep dude
Wall of Shame
-"I’m glad we play Pitt twice, and not Tenn this year." - Brownie's Year
-"BB is ok (slightly overated)…but he is NO Kyle Orton! I’ll take Kyle over Ben any day" - Bronco_Fan_Tom
-PIT 24 KC 27
by John Stephens on Nov 25, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Eh?
You can be a winner without winning the Super Bowl?
I’m pretty sure the Baltimore Ravens would disagree with you. I doubt they felt like winners last year.
And, if we don’t get through the playoffs, I’m pretty sure no one is going to come on here and proudly declare the Steelers “Winners!”
ease off the coffee
We have been winners 6 times this season.
"We just have to play better as a whole team." James Harrison
by LongTimeSteelersFan on Nov 25, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
If you just mean winners of Super Bowls then no
If you mean a program that wins more games than they lose and competes in the post season most seasons then yes. I consider the second option. That’s my opinion.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Nov 25, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
agreed
+1
I don’t expect the Steelers to compete for the Super Bowl every…but a competetive team I do expect.
breathe in deep feel your heart beat, just to know that life's worth livin'. feel your feet on the earth, better love it while it's still here spinnin'.
by NoCal-SteelCity on Nov 25, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Wait..
You don’t think that the Steelers team that won the Super Bowl should contend for the Super Bowl the following year?
I do.
So you are saying...
Just so I understand…
Winner (definition) a team that finishes every year 9-7 or better and often makes the playoffs.
Champion (definition) whatever team wins the Super Bowl that year.
If that is what you are saying, I think you have accepted the NFL’s definition, and their idea of what the league should be.
My definition is more like this:
Winner: The teams that succeed in the playoffs. (ie The Cardinals and Steelers were the winners of their divisions.)
cham·pi·on (chmp-n) n.
1. One that is clearly superior in their given profession or sport
2. One who fights; a warrior.
Recent Examples:
2001 Baltimore Ravens – Champions
2002 New England Patriots – Winners
2003 Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Champions
2004 New England Patriots – Winners
2005 New England Patriots – Winners
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers – Winners
2007 Indianapolis Colts – Champions
2008 New York Giants – Winners
2009 Pittsburgh Steelers – Champions
The Ravens in 2001 had a defense that was simply amazing, and they looked like Men against mice out there. Ditto the Tampa Bay Bucs — though they may have had a coaching advantage that we can’t know, since Gruden had come from the Raiders. But both of these games were dominating performances by teams that were clearly superior.
The Patriots were lucky to even make the Super Bowl (the famous tuck rule), barely won two of their three Super Bowls, and the whole Spy-Gate casts a serious pall on their rings. They are not Champions in my mind.
the 2005 Steelers were better than the Seahawks, but not “clearly superior.” And, that was one of the most boring Super Bowls I can remember. Ben was simply awful, and there were numerous strange ref calls (on both sides, though this rarely gets mentioned). And they may not have ever made it to the show if Palmer had not been hurt on the first play of the Wild Card game.
The Colts I put as Champions because this is one year that they actually put it together. They had the talent to do it before, but this was the year they put it all together. The game was sloppy, but the only thing that kept Chicago in the game was the runback by Hester.
The Steelers last year were a superior team. They had an historically hard schedule, and made it into the Super Bowl only after playing every hard team in the league (it seemed). Including Baltimore three times. This was a team deserving of their Lombardi.
This Steelers team? This 6-4 “Defending Champion” team? I’m sorry… when a team loses to the Chiefs in a game after they lose to the Bengals, at home, in a game they had to win… THAT is a slightly above average team. They might win. But they are not clearly superior.
I'm not sure what the point of this post is....
So, they’re winners because we won the Super Bowl last year, but they’re not winners because some senator said they’re not the Steelers of old?
Of course they’re not the Steelers of old. That was one of the greatest teams in the history of sports. 9 Hall of Famers…that’s ridiculous. No team will match that.
And as far as the league’s “slavish devotion to mediocrity”…that’s what makes the NFL great! (although I don’t agree with the terminiology) Teams have to persevere. That’s where true champions are made. I love the fact that every year, every team has a shot. It’s not the NBA where either the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, or Celts will win. It’s not the MLB where the Yanks or B Sox will win. The parity is what makes this league great.
Now, you can write the Steelers off all you want as being “no world champions,” but that just shows how spoiled we are as fans: try being a Browns fan; a Lions fan; etc….If you realistically expect the team you support to win the Super Bowl every year, or even compete for it, they you’ll find yourself more upset than satisfied.
breathe in deep feel your heart beat, just to know that life's worth livin'. feel your feet on the earth, better love it while it's still here spinnin'.
by NoCal-SteelCity on Nov 25, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
your last paragraph
explains precisely why the Steelers are a winning team and organization. Their consistently top level performance over the years has us expecting them to contend every year. I don’t know if I agree that this current team is a dynasty. They certainly have the potential though, with BB, coach T and a good mix of veterans and young talent. I’d much rather be slightly disappointed in their off years and overall proud to be a member of the Steeler Nation than embarrassed year after year as a fan of the cellar dwellers.
Huh?
So, they’re winners because we won the Super Bowl last year, but they’re not winners because some senator said they’re not the Steelers of old?
WTF are you talking about? Senator???
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
