Printable View
I will just leave this hear and y'all can discuss it a bit and see how it transpires ...
16–8 playoff record -Chuck Noll
12-9 Playoff record -Bill Cowher
8-11Playoff record -Mike Tomlin
the Standard set by Noll had been rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell
Noll only won with Bill Nunn's guys!
It was easier to consistently win in an era where you didn't have to pay players more than peanuts, there was no free agency, you could keep players forever, and the draft was 100 rounds long?
What a stunning surprise.
Noll was a great coach. One of the best ever. Honestly, I am more impressed by current era coaches that win with ever changing rosters and approaches.
now roster sizes are larger than ever because of practice squads that they didnt have back then and hell you can even have vets on the practice squad not just guys learning the league , medical advancements make guys who would have been lost for the season to be able to play again in weeks or months instead of years or ever ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
yes the draft was like 17 rounds but they still found guys who went undrafted that made incredible differences in TEAM ( see Donnie Shell UDFA) and you can still sign a bunch of UDFAs but now with larger roster sizes
see it can be as broad as it is wide
I don't know the difference in roster sizes and am far too lazy to try and Google it. As for UDFA's, I have always felt that teams were better positioned to develop UDFA's prior to the salary cap/free agency. They could retain guys on the roster and keep guys around indefinitely. I don't know. Maybe the current era of roster turnover and salary cap math actually encourages UDFA development?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
But, I do know that with a salary cap, the 1970's era Noll team(s) would have been together for about 3 maybe 4 years before they were forced to break it up. That means the teams of that era as we know it would likely have been together to make the 74 and 75 SB's...but I suspect that they don't have that entire group as long as 1978 and 1979.
In such an alternate reality, maybe they don't win or even appear in the 1978 or 1979 SB's. Or maybe they would have continued to find incredible players with the need to restock the roster? I don't know. But say they don't make the second two SB's due to roster attrition; how would that change the opinions and comparisons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
- 1974: Teams had 47 active players
- 1993: Teams had 53 players
the addition of practice squads ( they didnt have them back in the day) gives you IMO additional developmental capabilities and gives players a playbook to know and opportunity to practice with the team giving them some invaluable time to gel with teams to some degree vs the old days where they literally got a guy off the streets ( hence the term street free agent) where they have no continuity with the team , do not know the play book and may not even be in shape let alone football shape ...
as far as keeping teams together because of a lack of free agency nobody can predict outcomes because we just never know ...what I do know is it was the same for everybody then as it is now ...if you draft well good things happen
I should have also stated these larger roster sizes do not even count the practice squad players so your player pool is actually larger than you accredited roster size
How many players from those teams are either in the HOF or should be? 10 and we can probably add a few more to that. Say a dozen. Maybe even a few more? The old heads would have to weigh in.
No way that you keep a roster with a dozen (or more) HOF players on it together for more than maybe 3 years now.
Since 5 of the 10 came in between 1969 and 1972 and then the rest in or by 1974...there is the potential that maybe the math works out that you get to keep all of them through the 1974 draft class, rookie deals. So by the start of the 1978 season, you are looking at having maybe 4-5 of those guys on the roster and the rest are too expensive. Couple that with the fact that to afford those HOF guys at the top of the roster on their second and third contracts, the middle and bottom of your roster would have to be filled out with super cheap rookies and journeyman veteran role players.
The second half of that dynasty starts to look a lot different if the entire roster isn't a highly experienced well schooled band of brothers.
Comparisons between such widely separated eras of football is extremely difficult to make and almost always not terribly revealing.
it still reverts back to drafting well and nobody did it like the 70s Steelers did ... even if they lost guys to free agency they would have got 3rd round comp picks in return for a lot of them ( and they drafted well) and if the Steelers are losing half their stars in free agency we have to then keep the same standard for the other teams as well and at least a few of them end up in Pittsburgh too ....so again we have absolutely no idea how it washes out but what we do know with 100% certainty is how it did pan out when everyone played on the same level playing field ...Draft well, Coach well and succeed .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I guess. That seems incredibly reductive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
One can easily argue that after about 1975 or so, the Steelers did not draft well and that is why the team started falling apart as the 1980's moved on. Some rough math would indicate that the team would have far less talent during the second half of the 1970's with a salary cap in place. In other words, they would have started losing HOF caliber players while not drafting HOF caliber replacements (assuming the same draft picks are made). I suspect that they would NOT have won the second 2 SB's with a salary cap in place.
If Noll wins 5 less playoff games and only makes 3 SBs (winning 2 and losing one)...how does that change the comparison you are trying to make?
Tomlin has won zero super bowls or playoff games with his own players. :noidea:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I am not looking to change it you are lol
hard to envision drafting the same players if free agency were in play because you would have different holes to fill so that IMO is a flawed argument but when the whole premise is subjective its very difficult to surmise much of anything to be accurate ..
I am sticking with the facts in the OP ...
and that is ...
16–8 playoff record -Chuck Noll 23 seasons
12-9 Playoff record -Bill Cowher 15 seasons (more wins ..less losses than MT.... less years to accrue that playoff record)
8-11 Playoff record -Mike Tomlin 18 seasons (18 seasons and just 19 playoff games averaging a 1 and done per season)
the Standard set by Noll had been rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell
You’re still comparing apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
It may be a valid comparison and it may not be. Worth talking about either way.
It does not seem you’re interested in discussion.
Me? I’m just looking to pass the time. Thought it might be interesting to attempt to create a filter to do a controlled comparison between vastly different eras. I’ve put my thoughts out for how the 1970’s would’ve been different with free agency and a salary cap.
/shrug ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
though that is what we have been doing since your 1st post in this thread some 3.5 hours ago ....
my bad
There were 14 game seasons in the 1970s and $50k per season to your starting RB was big money.
Ok. I will ask it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Play out the hypothetical. If a combination of FA and salary cap attrition combined with the inability to draft equivalently talented replacements by say about 1976 or so cuts into the roster what happens? And a quick look through the draft records makes it seem like between 1976-1980, the team had a pretty dramatic fall off in draft hits compared to the first half of the decade. Which to me, indicates that the speculative idea that FA and a cap would have seriously down-graded the Steelers roster for the back half of the 1970's as not too outlandish.
I would argue that they wouldn't have won 4 super bowls. Maybe a 2-1 record? But I think attrition would have caught up too greatly and I don't know if they make a third appearance. Is it possible that the other AFC rosters would have similarly been impacted and the Steelers would have still held sway through the end of the decade? Absolutely.
But, again, a short review of the second half of the 1970's and I think they would have not been the dominant team in the AFC. What I can not remember is what the other contenders in that part of the decade might have looked like. How close were the Raiders? The Oilers etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I know where you are coming from but what you are asking is just far to much speculation to even be remotely accurate because we do not know what players would have been lost by 1 team let alone the rest of the league and then where all those players would have landed and how many players the steelers would have been down considering they would be signing players to replace the ones lost and drafting differently too because of new holes ....
with all that speculation how can anyone draw any conclusions let alone who would win games or championships .....
That’s kind of my point in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Comparing Cowher and Tomlin; I’ll buy you can do that.
Comparing Noll and like half of Cowher; I’d buy that.
Comparing Noll and Tomlin? Not sure it is valid in any instructive way. I figure comparing styles or something might be of use but just raw W-L? Not sure it translates across the decades to mean anything.
Out of curiosity, how would you react if Noll had a handful more playoff losses and a few less wins. And he only made it to two SBs?
The rostered players may be more now. But with the draft being like 20 rounds you had a much larger pool of players to roster from. The Steelers did draft well in the early 70s. Nobody has drafted that well since.
The Raiders continued to be good into the 80s. They won a SB vs the Eagles and I think they won another over the Redskins. That team drafted well also. They were relevant from '68 through'84.
the player pool was actually basically the same ...all college Jr's and Sr's the pool is whom you can draft from not the amount of folks you draft 17 rounds is a lot for sure but regardless of that you can still bring in UDFAs and have a 90 man roster for camp that is a lot of extra guys and its never been more in any era that I am aware of ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Born2Steel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
no idea because I am dealing with known results that I have lived through my entire life as a reality .... not trying to play games with what ifs and what might have been's but instead real results .... and perhaps that is why I am so reluctant to engage in alternate reality conversations about it and keep pointing towards real life actual historical results because those things actually happened instead of trying to make it up as we go along with alternative sets of parameters in order to base said made up results from ... but maybe that is just me /shrug
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Then I’ll restrict my comment to the fact that so much time and fundamental change has taken place in the NFL between Noll and Tomlin that it makes comparisons somewhat meaningless. It would be like comparing Noll to Curly Lambeau, Guy Chamberlain, or whoever coached the Akron teams in the 1920’s.
Does that mean I’m saying Tomlin is better? Nope.
Because it is important that folks read that bit.
I’m saying that when you compare two dissimilar things, there’s not much you can say.
What can be said is that playing under the rules that he and all other coaches had to play under at the time, Noll was better than anyone else at winning playoff games and that playing under the rules that he and all other coaches have to play under now, Tomlin has been lacking in winning playoff games for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Ok. But what’s that got to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Is Tomlin winning less than his peers? Which peers? How much less?
We can argue that without the advantage that Nunn gave the Steelers and Rooney for being willing to take the risk; far less 1970s era winning happens.
Stats without their relevant context are meaningless.
I think there’s some interesting things to think over coming out here.
Such as:
How do we, as fans, compare between eras?
What are realistic benchmarks or expectations in 2025 and moving forward to measure current success in the NFL?
And. Something I’ve been thinking about lately; where does the Steelers historic reluctance to fire coaches come from? Ownership? The head coaches? Tradition?
What’s more critical to success in the NFL between- roster talent or execution of a strategy? In other words are GMs or coaches more critical to success ?
Yes ..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
he is losing more than his peers as he is 8-11 in playoff games and since in every game you have 1 winner and 1 loser anything under .500 is losing more than your peers
They had them as far back as the 50's. Back then they were called "taxi squads".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Fun fact: The "taxi squads" got their name because the original owner of the Cleveland Browns owned a taxi company, and whenever Paul Brown had a player who wasn't quite good enough to make the team but still had potential, the owner would put the guy on the payroll of the taxi company, although his actual job was to practice with the Browns.
I knew the term, but did not know that was why they called it that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
Looked up the history of the practice squad...and lets just say the NFL was basically the wild wild west until the late 1970's. Teams could just make up things and be like "...show me where you can't do that!". No wonder lawyers started getting involved right when the money got big - the first generation of owners were all cowboys!
This post sums this thread up perfectly, well done Mach1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
Don't compare Tomlin to Noll he doesn't belong there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
I don't know if you have been watching Hard Knocks on HBO, but on the next to last episode Jim Harbaugh was talking the entire team as they were preparing for their playoff game. He actually talked about Chuck Noll and gave his team some great Noll sayings. Harbaugh told his team that they don't like the Steelers....but they respect them....right?. I found it amazing that a Ravens coach was quoting Chuck Noll, and the team seemed mesmerized by how simple and profound Noll's messages were.
Harbaugh stated that Noll talked about fundamentals and if you don't do the basic things well, the rest doesn't matter. You can't play well if you can't do the simple football things well.
I thought it was awesome, and I wondered if Tomlin ever embraces Noll's coaching style and addresses the team like that to share the thoughts of another great Steelers coach?
To me, even if the Steelers got the best head coach that currently exists on the face of the earth but they don’t have a superstar talent at QB - they ain’t winning shit.
And if Antonio Pierce or Matt Eberflus or Robert Saleh or any other “failure” that was fired this year had Patrick Maholm as their QB for the past several years - they would have a shot of winning the SB every year.
It’s a QB dominated league and the NFL knows it and deliberately designed it that way. Why? Because superstars at qB increases scoring and bring ratings. the game sucks when QBs suck. Changes in rules to protect the qB and make it easier to gain yards in passing with interference rules, no headhunting rules have increased scoring and the league is laughing its way to the bank because the fans are loving the scoring.
it’s easy to fire coaches and cut players but it’s difficult to find a franchise QB as it takes some luck. KC currently is basking in glory with Maholm but had no QB for almost 60 years before him.
This is why I am not so keen on getting rid of Tomlin. If anything Buffalo with Allen getting rid of their HC makes more sense than Pittsburgh with no QB talent getting rid of theirs.
Going forward - what do we do? Rooney is not a scumbag as another thread alleges but be is hesitant to do a full rebuild and that may prolong the purgatory that we are in as both Bradshaw and Roethlisberger were drafted after losing seasons. (if the Steelers go 6-10 like Cowher did in 2003 - this board would have crucified Cowher) And drafting in the bottom half of the order year after year makes it harder to find the next franchise QB. But what else can they do? They aren’t going to tank games. And they rarely give up future first rounders to move up to draft one.
But basically those are the only choices. One is to continue to take a flyer on a late first round QB pick like they did with Kenny and see if that will work. The other is to bite the bullet and give up first round picks to move up in the draft. I would prefer they don’t do that. And so I must be mentally prepared to live in this purgatory like I did between Bradshaw and Ben - ugh 25 years.
(And oh by the way, as you all know, just drafting a QB high in round 1 doesn’t guarantee success - quite the opposite. Most highly drafted QBs are duds. So we just have to get lucky when we do so)
Which is why when you draft a QB in the first round who COULD be a franchise QB, you give him every chance to succeed and you don't get rid of him just on the basis of one bad stretch of games or one bad season.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETL
Tomlin did have one of the greatest Qb’s on the face of the earth and couldnt do shit in the playoffs. I’ve just had enough of this guy. Time to stop making excuses for Tomlin and move the hell on.
and you dont pair him with the most inept coordinator in the league. The comedy of errors was just unbelievable. I still cant believe its the steelers that mismanaged that whole thing. And the quick fix (Russell Wilson) didnt even work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
How many years should they have given Pickett in your mind? Beyond the three that is. IMHO a franchise grade QB should have gotten more out of a shitty offensive plan than Pickett did. Wasn't he last or near last in production? I believe a franchise QB can at least get a bad plan out of the basement. I wouldn't even revisit this conversation unless he starts somewhere else and proves to be franchise worthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
THIS THREAD IS NOT A KENNY PICKETT THREAD
lets not turn it into one that is why half the damn board has left
Noll was a DC under Don Shula at Baltimore in the late 1960s. Noll along with Shula, Walsh, Gibbs, Brown and Lombardi are icons of the NFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by pczach
Tell it to those that can't get off of Pickett. They are the ones that drag it around everywhere they go. I'm not going to go into a different thread and reference this one just to ask a question off a quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Agreed. Pickett is not the guy. All of this pining away for him is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky Mtn.