The Steelers are tired of being the NFL’s most successful failure

[teegre]

1. Losing to the SuperBowl Champs to me means we should have been the Champs.
2. Tebowed the game should have never been that close that one play beats you
3. Missed FG and I would add a bad call by the officials at the end of regulation. Still our team was in that position because of other losses earlier in the year. It should never have come to that.
AB misstep - Again should have won games earlier in the year so that the misstep doesn't set us up for missing the playoffs

1. So we are the 1990s Bills.

2. It wasn’t just that last throw to D. Thomas. It was the other five “miracle” throws. (He only completed 10 passes.) Like I said, the TD to Eddie Royal was akin to a blind squirrel finding a nut in a snowstorm.

3. It just goes show you how close the difference truly is between winning & losing. One more first down by the Falcons... one more carry by Beastmode... a few less hours of videotape... and the Taperiots have 0 Lombardis.

[tom444]

That happens nearly every year with one team. What doesn't happen is that the Eagles don't do that every year. Sometimes everything just comes together for a team...…..everything. That was the first Super Bowl championship ever. You make it sound like they've figured on the secret to eternal life or something. Let's see them do this and contend every year for 5 or 6 years.....and even if they do and don't win at least 2 or 3 Super Bowls in that time....they'll be failures too according to your logic. At least, that's what it sounds like.

I just don't like the way so many are throwing around the word "failure". It's ridiculous, and only shows that many fans don't have any perspective and are spoiled brats.

Jesus. Are you sure you read and are responding to, my post?

[Butch]

That happens nearly every year with one team. What doesn't happen is that the Eagles don't do that every year. Sometimes everything just comes together for a team...…..everything. That was the first Super Bowl championship ever. You make it sound like they've figured on the secret to eternal life or something. Let's see them do this and contend every year for 5 or 6 years.....and even if they do and don't win at least 2 or 3 Super Bowls in that time....they'll be failures too according to your logic. At least, that's what it sounds like.

I just don't like the way so many are throwing around the word "failure". It's ridiculous, and only shows that many fans don't have any perspective and are spoiled brats.

Why are you so offended by the word failure? Isn't a lose a failure?

I had a friend who is a Texans fan who told me "I think it's funny how Steeler fans think not winning the Superbowl is a bad season". I told him that is the difference between a fanbase that knows success and one that is happy to have a winning record or just make the playoffs. Does that make me spoiled?

FWIW I have been in their shoes too. I lived through the '80s and remember how Excited I was when we beat the damn oilers in 1989. That year was a success to me. We didn't have Terry or Ben so I was thrilled that we got as far as we did.

I also know the value of having a Great QB and what it's like when you don't have one. I always expect the best with Ben and when we don't achieve it I feel it is not only a wasted opportunity but a failure.

[Butch]

1. So we are the 1990s Bills.

2. It wasn’t just that last throw to D. Thomas. It was the other five “miracle” throws. (He only completed 10 passes.) Like I said, the TD to Eddie Royal was akin to a blind squirrel finding a nut in a snowstorm.

3. It just goes show you how close the difference truly is between winning & losing. One more first down by the Falcons... one more carry by Beastmode... a few less hours of videotape... and the Taperiots have 0 Lombardis.

LOL

1. not exactly we did win a couple SuperBowls with Ben just not as many as I would like. I know I'm a spoiled Steeler fan.

2. Yes I agree those 5 throws were unbelievable and as I say never should have happened but they did and we were not playing as expected. Fail

3. Yes but I would have went in a different direction and say losing games early in the year or even playing down to your competition will some day come back to bite you in the butt. Ask Inspector Clouseau

[AtlantaDan]

I love how everyone over estimates the Steelers and under estimates the other teams.

Ben has never been the best QB in the league. Jags are very far from nobodies. They have the best defense in the league and the blueprint for how to build a defense to stop modern offense.

Steelers haven’t had a championship caliber defense since 2009 yet they are in the playoffs and often go on long runs.

Failure. Sure. Yeah. Whatever.

Articles on the Steelers being the NFL's "most successful failure" are just sportswriters churning out junk because they have to file something that day

For Steelers fans with a well developed sense of entitlement who believe no team has underachieved like the Steelers, this is the champ for long term playoff failure by a successful team (written before the Chiefs gagged up a 21-3 lead to the Titans at home in the playoffs last season)

The Chiefs have underserved their fans more than any other team in the NFL

The Hunts like to think of the family business like the Pittsburgh Steelers, but their playoff record is much closer to that of the Browns. The Lions, Jets and, yes, Browns are the only clubs to go longer without playing in a Super Bowl. Those three are known nationally as losers in a way the Chiefs have somehow avoided.

The Chiefs have won just one playoff game in 24 years, and that was against Brian Hoyer. They have won two playoff games in 46 years at Arrowhead Stadium, the same number as the Colts.
The Chiefs were the winningest team of the 1990s, and only made it as far as the AFC Championship Game once. Since 1990, no team has lost more playoff games while winning fewer....

The Chiefs have had some terrible teams, and miserable years, but since 1990 only the Packers, Steelers, Colts, Eagles, and Patriots have made it to more postseasons.....

Since the NFL playoffs expanded to the current format, teams with a first-round bye have won 74 percent of the division games. The Chiefs are 0-5 in that spot. Twice they’ve had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs, and bupkis....

This franchise has let its fans down in the playoffs so often it’s hard to keep track, and you end up comparing a blown 28-point lead to a loss without punting or without giving up a touchdown.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/sp...192969549.html

For those with short memories, the reference to the Chiefs losing a playoff game without giving up a touchdown was the Steelers beating the Chiefs at Arrowhead 18-16 on six field goals by Boz.

But it is the Steelers who are the "most successful failure" - got it

[86WARD]

2010: lost to SuperBowl champions
2011: Tebowed
2012: a missed Chiefs FG from playoffs
2013: an AB misstep from playoffs
2014: lost to SuperBowl champions
2015: lost to SuperBowl champions
2016: lost to SuperBowl champions
2017: lost to Jaguars

2012 & 2013 we’re rebuilding years. Even then, they were one play away from making the playoffs in each of those seasons.

That kinda the definition of a successful failure...so much success yet the ultimate result is failure.

[tom444]

.....................You stated that the Eagles should go on a run and win a Super Bowl every other year or so the way it sounded.................

I didn't say anything of the kind.

The point is that you make it sound like if they have a six year window to win more Super Bowls and they don't win any or maybe only one more, that would be a failure. Is that correct?

Where did I say anything even remotely like that?

I said both teams in the SB this year had injured stars.

[pczach]

I didn't say anything of the kind.



Where did I say anything even remotely like that?

I'm sorry man. I put together a couple things said by other people and quoted you instead. My bad.

I deleted my last post. My brain sometimes......

[tom444]

I'm sorry man. I put together a couple things said by other people and quoted you instead. My bad.

I deleted my last post. My brain sometimes......

No problem amigo.

[teegre]

3. Yes but I would have went in a different direction and say losing games early in the year or even playing down to your competition will some day come back to bite you in the butt. Ask Inspector Clouseau

The thing is, in 2012 & 2013, we were rebuilding. Troy was done. Clark was done. Keisel, Hampton, & Farrior were all done. Ergo, IMO, those seasons were pretty successful... and, they were a missed FG/errant misstep away from being very successful seasons.

#greatuseofClouseau

[Craic]

Why are you so offended by the word failure? Isn't a lose a failure?

No. Let me illustrate. I have anywhere from 30-85 students in a given college class. Several of them try to be the top student in the class. Obviously, only one gets to be the top student. Does that mean the other students are failures? No. Even though they lost out on first place in the class, they still pass the class with an A, because they've all put in the work to do so. The only students who consider that a failure are maladjusted students. The failures are the students who get an F. And, even then, they're not always failures in a sense because they may have overcome severe odds to earn their 55%. (And if they do, I'll often make a contract with them to earn a D if they visit or revisit certain assignments, of course, if they end up with enough points for a C, they still get a D because of the contract).

The idea of "Failure" is extreme thinking that doesn't account for reality. A team that is a failure is a team that has to reassess every element of their organization. The Browns are failures. Before last season, I would have said the Rams and the Jags were failures. Before the 2016 season, I would have said the Raiders were failures (and 2016 is beginning to look like an aberration). If you want successful failures, look at the Bengals, who keep making the playoffs and haven't won a single playoff game in twenty-seven years and have lost their first game seven straight times in the playoffs since 2005, which was their first playoff appearance in 15 years.

[Mojouw]

No. Let me illustrate. I have anywhere from 30-85 students in a given college class. Several of them try to be the top student in the class. Obviously, only one gets to be the top student. Does that mean the other students are failures? No. Even though they lost out on first place in the class, they still pass the class with an A, because they've all put in the work to do so. The only students who consider that a failure are maladjusted students. The failures are the students who get an F. And, even then, they're not always failures in a sense because they may have overcome severe odds to earn their 55%. (And if they do, I'll often make a contract with them to earn a D if they visit or revisit certain assignments, of course, if they end up with enough points for a C, they still get a D because of the contract).

The idea of "Failure" is extreme thinking that doesn't account for reality. A team that is a failure is a team that has to reassess every element of their organization. The Browns are failures. Before last season, I would have said the Rams and the Jags were failures. Before the 2016 season, I would have said the Raiders were failures (and 2016 is beginning to look like an aberration). If you want successful failures, look at the Bengals, who keep making the playoffs and haven't won a single playoff game in twenty-seven years and have lost their first game seven straight times in the playoffs since 2005, which was their first playoff appearance in 15 years.

Excellent analogies.

For me failures are the Carolina Panthers. Went to a SB and then it all fell apart. Does anyone really take them seriously as a contender?

The Bengals are failures. Good enough to make the playoffs every year, but no one seriously considers a Marvin Lewis and Andy Dalton led team a SB threat.

As mentioned above, the Chiefs -- good lord.

As many are defining it around here, no team in the league lives up to the standard being set. If that is the case, then you must question if your standard is more than a little bit off.

[tom444]

No. Let me illustrate. I have anywhere from 30-85 students in a given college class. Several of them try to be the top student in the class. Obviously, only one gets to be the top student. Does that mean the other students are failures? No. Even though they lost out on first place in the class, they still pass the class with an A, because they've all put in the work to do so. The only students who consider that a failure are maladjusted students. The failures are the students who get an F. And, even then, they're not always failures in a sense because they may have overcome severe odds to earn their 55%. (And if they do, I'll often make a contract with them to earn a D if they visit or revisit certain assignments, of course, if they end up with enough points for a C, they still get a D because of the contract).

The idea of "Failure" is extreme thinking that doesn't account for reality. A team that is a failure is a team that has to reassess every element of their organization. The Browns are failures. Before last season, I would have said the Rams and the Jags were failures. Before the 2016 season, I would have said the Raiders were failures (and 2016 is beginning to look like an aberration). If you want successful failures, look at the Bengals, who keep making the playoffs and haven't won a single playoff game in twenty-seven years and have lost their first game seven straight times in the playoffs since 2005, which was their first playoff appearance in 15 years.

I would suggest that the main reason to attend your class isn't to be the top student. I would also suggest that the main reason to take the field is to win the game. So there's a major difference.

[Craic]

I would suggest that the main reason to attend your class isn't to be the top student. I would also suggest that the main reason to take the field is to win the game. So there's a major difference.

And, the Steelers have won, on average, 10-12 games a years for several years. The main reason for them to take the field in September is not to win a game in February, it's to win a game in September. The main reason in November to take the field, is to win the games in November. The same with December and January. They accomplish their goal more often than not in each of those games.

[tom444]

And, the Steelers have won, on average, 10-12 games a years for several years. The main reason for them to take the field in September is not to win a game in February, it's to win a game in September. The main reason in November to take the field, is to win the games in November. The same with December and January. They accomplish their goal more often than not in each of those games.

I'm glad you're satisfied.

[86WARD]

No. Let me illustrate. I have anywhere from 30-85 students in a given college class. Several of them try to be the top student in the class. Obviously, only one gets to be the top student. Does that mean the other students are failures? No. Even though they lost out on first place in the class, they still pass the class with an A, because they've all put in the work to do so. The only students who consider that a failure are maladjusted students. The failures are the students who get an F. And, even then, they're not always failures in a sense because they may have overcome severe odds to earn their 55%. (And if they do, I'll often make a contract with them to earn a D if they visit or revisit certain assignments, of course, if they end up with enough points for a C, they still get a D because of the contract).

The idea of "Failure" is extreme thinking that doesn't account for reality. A team that is a failure is a team that has to reassess every element of their organization. The Browns are failures. Before last season, I would have said the Rams and the Jags were failures. Before the 2016 season, I would have said the Raiders were failures (and 2016 is beginning to look like an aberration). If you want successful failures, look at the Bengals, who keep making the playoffs and haven't won a single playoff game in twenty-seven years and have lost their first game seven straight times in the playoffs since 2005, which was their first playoff appearance in 15 years.

Those students aren’t competing for one “A”. All of those students could get an A with hard work.

The same can’t be said about an NFL team. 32teams can be successful but ultimately, the goal is to win a Super Bowl and 31 of those teams are going to fail in that aspect.

So sure, you can be successful but really, if you’re doing it right and you don’t win the Super Bowl, you’ve failed. It’s not a bad thing and you would hope that the organization would look at it the same. If the organization looks at a 12-4 season with a round one exit out of the playoffs as a success, you’re worse off than an 0-16 Browns team that has the Super Bowl as the ultimate goal and is looking at not winning a Super Bowl as a failure.

[86WARD]

And, the Steelers have won, on average, 10-12 games a years for several years. The main reason for them to take the field in September is not to win a game in February, it's to win a game in September. The main reason in November to take the field, is to win the games in November. The same with December and January. They accomplish their goal more often than not in each of those games.

Which has been success, success, success, success, failure. Successful and failure. It’s not a bad thing...lol. It’s just a true statement.

I’m not trying to pick on just your posts Craic to be clear. Just happens to be the two that sparked my thought...which isnt much...lol.

[Mojouw]

This is getting ludicrous. While I am no means arguing that the ultimate benchmark for success is something short of winning the SB; I would argue that making it a binary distinction and ALL other results are failure is just too extreme to be useful. There are many other factors to consider in evaluating the state of a franchise. Such as:

1. Is the roster in good shape? Is the team too old? Not talented enough? Staring cap trouble in the face? If any of these is not in a positive situation, the team has set itself up for being unable to even think about a SB, let alone win one. This could be the Dolphins who keep going all in on Tannehill and other not good players.

2. Is the coaching staff developing the roster talent, implementing a scheme that has a chance of being successful in the current NFL? I mean you could have Jeff "Perpetual 9-7" Fisher or something dumb like "exotic smash-mouth"...

3. Does the team appear to have a long-term plan, a stable system, and an ability to set a goal and achieve it? I mean there is a reason that every off-season a handful of teams discuss emulating the Steelers. Or the Steelers are listed as a model franchise, etc. Lurching from random plan to random plan or scheme to scheme every few years gets you the Cleveland Browns.

The Steelers stability and ability to identify/obtain players to fit a system and stabilize a roster year after year allows them the opportunity to realistically discuss competing the SB year in and year out. Honestly, since 2004 how many other NFL franchises can say that they have been legitimate SB contenders most of those seasons? Pats, maybe the Packers (want to talk about Successful failures...), perhaps the Seahawks?

You're talking about a team that has been one of the 3 most successful franchises for most of the last 15 years and people want to even whisper the word failure?

[SteelMember]

What if it were to say "The Steelers are tired of being the NFL’s biggest under achievers"...

If the hangup is the use of the word "failure", everyone who doesn't win the Superbowl is a failure. That's the goal.
So, saying "successful failure" just says to me that while they didn't win the Superbowl, they were better than most other 31 that didn't either.



If you're not first, you're last ~ Reese Bobby

[Mojouw]

What if it were to say "The Steelers are tired of being the NFL’s biggest under achievers"...

If the hangup is the use of the word "failure", everyone who doesn't win the Superbowl is a failure. That's the goal.
So, saying "successful failure" just says to me that while they didn't win the Superbowl, they were better than most other 31 that didn't either.



If you're not first, you're last ~ Reese Bobby

We can call it whatever but, for me, setting up a binary distinction between 1 "successful" SB winner and 31 other "failures" is not a useful basis for evaluating anything.

For instance, look around the AFC North. Which roster situation would you rather have going forward than Pittsburgh's? What coaching set-up? I honestly would not trade the Steelers roster for another in the North, nor would I trade their coaching situation.

Now, do the same thing across the NFL. I can come up with less than like 5 I would consider.

Imagine you worked for a company selling widgets. There are 3 dozen other sales people. Each year only one can sell the most widgets. Would you fire the rest of the sales force for failure?

[tom444]

Lets be honest. Most of us expected more than 2 SB wins from between 1981 to 2018.

[Mojouw]

Lets be honest. Most of us expected more than 2 SB wins from between 1981 to 2018.

Why? Because they had a dynasty in the pre-salary cap era of football?

https://www.patspulpit.com/2014/5/29...-party-poopers

Article is 3 years old, but MOST of the #'s still hold. Since the salary cap started in 1994 it is basically the Brady led Pats, the Favre/Rodgers Packers, the Manning Colts, and the Roethlisberger Steelers. Those teams in some order no matter how you slice the #'s.

My limited point is that as an emotional fan, this team does piss me off some times. But viewed in the context of their 31 competitors, the franchise I root for is far far more successful than most and is annually in the competition for a championship - basically making an AFCCG every other season for over a decade now.

I dunno, that's pretty darn successful to me.

[Dwinsgames]

the goal should always be Hoisting a Lombardi , anything less is a failed effort but lets not lump all failures the same there are degrees of failure .


there is SB loser failure ( perhaps the biggest stinger of them all and that is reaching the pinnacle and failing to seize the win )

there is a deep playoff run failure while not as successful as making it to the SB and losing I think I would rather lose here as the sting is less but I digress

there is 1 and done in the playoffs ( these always suck )

there is barely not making the playoffs ..( this also sucks ass )

there is 8-8 or worse which really sucks ( makes for a long winter )

the 5-11 types that are down right embarrassing and you put your gear away in November ...

then there is Browns Bad ...............


excuse me if I do not complain

[tom444]

Why?

Because this is the Steelers. We're Harvard, the Yankees, Tiger Woods, Secretariat, the Canadians, Usain Bolt, the USMC, George Washinton, Muhamad Ali, Coca Cola, Porche, Mt. Everest, Wilt Chamberlain, Airborne Rangers, the champions:



And we won't accept anything less.

[SteelMember]

We can call it whatever but, for me, setting up a binary distinction between 1 "successful" SB winner and 31 other "failures" is not a useful basis for evaluating anything.

For instance, look around the AFC North. Which roster situation would you rather have going forward than Pittsburgh's? What coaching set-up? I honestly would not trade the Steelers roster for another in the North, nor would I trade their coaching situation.

Now, do the same thing across the NFL. I can come up with less than like 5 I would consider.

Imagine you worked for a company selling widgets. There are 3 dozen other sales people. Each year only one can sell the most widgets. Would you fire the rest of the sales force for failure?

It (the article) is about The Teams expectations. "Winning the Superbowl"... Which is the standard company line entering a new season. THEY are saying they need to do better. Not sure why this is such an issue.
It isn't about what you or I think.... fanboy homer-ism .vs the rest of the NFL teams accomplishments... or anything other than the Steelers ultimate goal and the expectations of getting there.

Sure, I'd agree we have been more successful than most (duh), but we've had more opportunities to close the deal based on that talent on board... and failed. That is their realization as well.

"We can not live in our fears."

[Butch]

And, the Steelers have won, on average, 10-12 games a years for several years. The main reason for them to take the field in September is not to win a game in February, it's to win a game in September. The main reason in November to take the field, is to win the games in November. The same with December and January. They accomplish their goal more often than not in each of those games.

Now if you were to say they should only look at the game that is at hand I would agree but I can not agree with this as it is written.

The reason you take the field in September and every other month is to hopefully get yourself a favorable seating for the playoffs. As I have previously stated not winning earlier in the season can and often does come back to bite you in the Butt.

I don't know about anybody else but Ben came in and didn't lose a game until the Championship game. He won a SuperBowl the very next year. Yes he play poorly in the game but we don't get there without the way he played leading up to that game. A few years later we were back in the SuperBowl and we won that in dramatic fashion. A few years after that we went again but this time lost. My point is that I expected a few more SuperBowls since then and maybe at least one more win or 2. I did not expect us to lose to lesser teams such as the Jags last year and the ravens a few years back. Those to me are wasted opportunities and I care about those because I don't know if we will get there again with Ben and that to me would be a shame. We cannot say if the next QB will be as successful as Ben and it may be a long day before we see a post Ben SuperBowl. Hopefully this is the year we get 7 if we don't then yes in my eyes it's a failure.

[Mojouw]

Serious and non confrontational question.

How does everyone define "lesser team"?

Apologies for the phrasing as I am not trying to call anyone out. Far from it. But it feels like there is a conversation taking place with folks using similar terms to mean different things.

[Dwinsgames]

Serious and non confrontational question.

How does everyone define "lesser team"?

Apologies for the phrasing as I am not trying to call anyone out. Far from it. But it feels like there is a conversation taking place with folks using similar terms to mean different things.

for me ... its any team with an inferior record

[Mojouw]

for me ... its any team with an inferior record

Okay. But what is inferior?

A 1st place team that goes 10-6 or 3rd place team that goes 12-4?

Again the use of inferior with no parameters.

As, I think, Teegre has pointed out repeatedly what if a team is 0-3 when the Steelers play them but then finishes 10-6?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojouw]

Put it this way. In 2005 the Steelers were a wildcard 11-5 team coming off a 1st place schedule from the previous year. Was that SB an overachievement and a failure for the teams they beat or an example of a parity focused league basically saying make the playoffs and then who the hell knows what can happen?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk