True Legacy of the 2010-2019 (10's) Steelers

[Mojouw]

Are the Drew Brees era New Orleans Saints a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Aaron Rodgers era Green Bay Packers a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Eli Manning era New York Giants a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Phillip Rivers era Chargers a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

I would argue that the first 2 are "NO" and the second two are "YES". I would further argue that Ben Roethlisberger era Pittsburgh Steelers are far closer to the first two than the second two.

[Fire Goodell]

Brees and the Saints should have made it last year (and probably would have won). The refs screwed them big time in the NFCCG. The fix was in for the Pats****** to win it and they weren't gonna beat the Saints

[steelreserve]

Fatally flawed? Personally, I think that goes for just about every team in the NFL going all the way back to the end of Plan B FA. IMO, the latter-day New England Patriots are the most overrated "dynasty" I've ever seen. Their BEST team would get crushed by pretty much any of the Cowboys/Niners teams of the early '90s.

But, whatever.

I meant the 2010-19 Steelers consistently had obvious disqualifying flaws even compared to other teams in the modern game and salary cap hell. The rest is spot-on.

Are the Drew Brees era New Orleans Saints a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Aaron Rodgers era Green Bay Packers a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Eli Manning era New York Giants a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

Are the Phillip Rivers era Chargers a failed franchise that has drastically underperformed?

I would argue that the first 2 are "NO" and the second two are "YES". I would further argue that Ben Roethlisberger era Pittsburgh Steelers are far closer to the first two than the second two.

The message I am hearing from many in this thread is "embrace mediocrity." It's not so bad, it happens to a lot of teams. This is also disappointing.

You know what I think when people argue that line - Steelers fans are spoiled, the fans have unrealistic expectations, etc.? I think the people saying those things are burying their heads in the sand.

The Steelers are the model franchise and do things the right way, and STILL didn't get the right results - well, that can only mean one thing, that the world is so punishing that doing things the right way isn't rewarded. It's the system's fault, not ours. The system let us down, not the team. It couldn't possibly be that the Steelers are not currently the model organization, but a regular team with problems and mistakes just like every other team. I mean, god damn, as soon as you question the effectiveness of what the Steelers are doing, you immediately get diverted into talking about what other teams are doing, not about the things WE are doing. Like, if I said "I think sales tax is too high, the state should lower the sales tax," and you replied with, "Well, sales tax in Mexico is just as high," is that relevant information to my point? Do I give a fuck about Mexico? Does it change the result of my own situation? No, it's the exact same.

Let me ask you this: What do you think of Sean Davis? Is he the kind of player you hoped for, given his draft status and talent and hype? Because Sean Davis is literally the 2010s Steelers personified.

High expectations, low results, doesn't win you shit, and in the end you're left arguing about why he was or wasn't "that" bad. What a bunch of horseshit.

[Mojouw]

Well, can't dispute that rigorously thought out and highly logical rebuttal.

I have never said or encouraged anyone to embrace mediocrity. What I have attempted to encourage is to set the parameters for evaluation/grading somewhere in the same universe as "reasonable". Attempting to recreate the 1970's in the current era of football is simple a fantasy expectation and is no basis for a realistic evaluation of performance.

I strongly believe that the best basis for developing realistic parameters for the evaluation of performance in any setting is to look at both the success and failure of other entities performing the same function. Conveniently, there are 31 other NFL franchises and several of them had similar roster pros and cons as the Steelers over the decade long evaluation period. Why using those comps as a measuring stick is seen as out of bounds is extremely difficult for me to understand. Setting arbitrary standards for achievement and results that are not tethered to any context or reality is not an evaluation of performance. It is just fan fiction.

FWIW, I do not believe the Steelers are a/the model franchise. They are a highly stable and successful one, but far from a model to be blindly copied and pasted. I do not like how they do contracts. I think their coaching staff is too small and trends far too old. I think their stubborn loyalty to players that went through camp rather than those that would have to "jump on a moving train" leads to an unnecessarily poor back-end of the roster. I think their refusal to push Ben out of his comfort zone on the back side of his career was/is a mistake -- adapt or die. There are others. But in an overall top to bottom comparison with their peers, it gets hard to put them outside the top 10 of the last decade and the top 5 of the last 20 years.

[DesertSteel]

The message I am hearing from many in this thread is "embrace mediocrity." It's not so bad, it happens to a lot of teams. This is also disappointing.

Tell me, as a fan, what position are you in to do anything about it? Do your rants improve the team's chances of winnng the Super Bowl? Does the GM read your personnel posts? The rest of us fans have no control over the product.

[steelreserve]

Well, can't dispute that rigorously thought out and highly logical rebuttal.

I have never said or encouraged anyone to embrace mediocrity. What I have attempted to encourage is to set the parameters for evaluation/grading somewhere in the same universe as "reasonable". Attempting to recreate the 1970's in the current era of football is simple a fantasy expectation and is no basis for a realistic evaluation of performance.

I strongly believe that the best basis for developing realistic parameters for the evaluation of performance in any setting is to look at both the success and failure of other entities performing the same function. Conveniently, there are 31 other NFL franchises and several of them had similar roster pros and cons as the Steelers over the decade long evaluation period. Why using those comps as a measuring stick is seen as out of bounds is extremely difficult for me to understand. Setting arbitrary standards for achievement and results that are not tethered to any context or reality is not an evaluation of performance. It is just fan fiction.

FWIW, I do not believe the Steelers are a/the model franchise. They are a highly stable and successful one, but far from a model to be blindly copied and pasted. I do not like how they do contracts. I think their coaching staff is too small and trends far too old. I think their stubborn loyalty to players that went through camp rather than those that would have to "jump on a moving train" leads to an unnecessarily poor back-end of the roster. I think their refusal to push Ben out of his comfort zone on the back side of his career was/is a mistake -- adapt or die. There are others. But in an overall top to bottom comparison with their peers, it gets hard to put them outside the top 10 of the last decade and the top 5 of the last 20 years.

Look, here's the state of things in the past decade.

Did we win anything? No.

Were we very close to winning anything for most of it? No.

How was our postseason success? Below average.

Did we live up to our potential? No.

Did we maintain any of our (recent) past success? No.

Could we have done better than all of the above? Yes.

Are we headed in the right direction now? I don't know.

Overall, are we better off in 2020 than we were in 2010? Almost universally no.

All this after coming into the decade with a HUGE advantage over most teams in the league, like all but maybe 3 or 4.

So, yeah, we probably were in the top 10 or so teams of the past decade, but that's still disappointing, given how much we had going for us. I saw a lot of churning and a lot of missed opportunities.

Tell me, as a fan, what position are you in to do anything about it? Do your rants improve the team's chances of winnng the Super Bowl? Does the GM read your personnel posts? The rest of us fans have no control over the product.

Holy shit, you're right. Why even have a message board? Why talk about sports at all? What the hell was I thinking? Guess I'd better leave the opinion-having strictly to those who have nothing different to say besides being in lockstep with what the team actually did.

[Mojouw]

I dunno an AFC championship and divisional round loses to the eventual SB champs seems close to success.

But keep using standards and benchmarks that are crafted arbitrarily from thin air. It represents a welcome change from the usual unhinged ranting on the subject.

I can't even say if I disagree or agree with you because nothing in your posts on the subject is defined in any way. If you don't define a thing and indicate the scale being used, how can you measure it?

Would 3 more playoff wins change things? Another SB appearance? If it was a loss? What about 2 consecutive losing seasons but a boatload of cap space and high draft picks?

I kind of think that the Saints, Packers, Patriots, Chargers, Giants, and Steelers all started the decade at roughly equal points in terms of roster talent and expectations. I also think at the tail end of the decade the Steelers are in a better spot than at least 3 teams on that list.

[steelreserve]

I dunno an AFC championship and divisional round loses to the eventual SB champs seems close to success.

But keep using standards and benchmarks that are crafted arbitrarily from thin air. It represents a welcome change from the usual unhinged ranting on the subject.

I can't even say if I disagree or agree with you because nothing in your posts on the subject is defined in any way. If you don't define a thing and indicate the scale being used, how can you measure it?

Would 3 more playoff wins change things? Another SB appearance? If it was a loss? What about 2 consecutive losing seasons but a boatload of cap space and high draft picks?

I kind of think that the Saints, Packers, Patriots, Chargers, Giants, and Steelers all started the decade at roughly equal points in terms of roster talent and expectations. I also think at the tail end of the decade the Steelers are in a better spot than at least 3 teams on that list.

Basically, any time there were any kind of expectations going into the year, it was a dead lock for an 8-8 season. Any time we had actual success, it was the kind where you know it's extremely tenuous, cross your fingers wondering if this team is for real, and then it inevitably turned out they weren't.

Yes, that's nothing but a gut feeling, but the results pretty well bear that out. If we'd won 3 more playoff games and/or made it to a Super Bowl, chances are that feeling would be different ... because chances are it would have been no accident, the team itself would have had to be different.

It is easy to look back and see that, apart from the very beginning of the decade, this was always an incomplete team. We were never "one piece away," we were constantly plagued by some major problem that was going to prove too much to overcome when all the chips were down, and then it played out exactly like that. That we weren't the only team suffering from that is little consolation in my eyes.

If you squint hard enough, it's possible to see a 2020-21 run in which everything falls into place, that the moves from this year pay off when we have a healthy star QB, that the offense will actually be good enough - we will have no single exploitable problem that is killing us in a season-limiting fashion, and we will be "a force" that we haven't been for many years. I sure hope so. Or, maybe all we did was trade problems on defense for problems on offense. Hard to say.

But with the book closed on the 2010s, what were our signature accomplishments? We were always at arm's length from being a serious contender. Sean Davis. Mascot of the Steelers from 2010-19.

[Mojouw]

Basically, any time there were any kind of expectations going into the year, it was a dead lock for an 8-8 season. Any time we had actual success, it was the kind where you know it's extremely tenuous, cross your fingers wondering if this team is for real, and then it inevitably turned out they weren't.

Yes, that's nothing but a gut feeling, but the results pretty well bear that out. If we'd won 3 more playoff games and/or made it to a Super Bowl, chances are that feeling would be different ... because chances are it would have been no accident, the team itself would have had to be different.

It is easy to look back and see that, apart from the very beginning of the decade, this was always an incomplete team. We were never "one piece away," we were constantly plagued by some major problem that was going to prove too much to overcome when all the chips were down, and then it played out exactly like that. That we weren't the only team suffering from that is little consolation in my eyes.

If you squint hard enough, it's possible to see a 2020-21 run in which everything falls into place, that the moves from this year pay off when we have a healthy star QB, that the offense will actually be good enough - we will have no single exploitable problem that is killing us in a season-limiting fashion, and we will be "a force" that we haven't been for many years. I sure hope so. Or, maybe all we did was trade problems on defense for problems on offense. Hard to say.

But with the book closed on the 2010s, what were our signature accomplishments? We were always at arm's length from being a serious contender. Sean Davis. Mascot of the Steelers from 2010-19.

You're basically describing how fans experience every season regardless of outcome. I know fans of many teams that sweat out every second of every game. Except Warriors fans.

[steelreserve]

You're basically describing how fans experience every season regardless of outcome. I know fans of many teams that sweat out every second of every game. Except Warriors fans.

Nah, that's not the same. The experience of rooting for this team in the previous decade (00's) was a lot different from this one. You could tell they didn't have "it" this time. Hell, with the Cowher teams of the '90s, you always knew it was an uphill battle, but those teams fought tooth and nail, and overachieved if you ask me. Even in the '80s, there were no expectations at all, so it was like whatever, let's see if they can at least get headed in the right direction. This team was different, man. Woulda coulda shoulda. There hasn't been a prolonged stretch like that before. Left a really sour taste.

[Edman]

The 2010's Steelers were poised for success. Granted the 2000's core was beginning to age, but it was offset by Ben coming into his own as quarterback. He was only 28 and had many years left. Mike Wallace, Manny Sanders, and Antonio Brown emerged as the elite WR core of the league. The Offensive Line was still weak, but it was successfully patched up with the drafting of Pouncey and DeCastro in 2010 and 2012. The Colts fell apart, and Aside from New England and Baltimore, It looked like there was no real threat could stand in the way of the Steelers in the AFC that decade.

Except that didn't happen. Lamarr Woodley's quick and sudden plummet after his contract extension and Mike Wallace's holdout disrupted the team. The 2012 team underperformed and missed the playoffs, and a horrible 0-4 start in 2013 doomed that season. The Steelers salvaged 8-8 seasons from those years, but little did we know then there was something not quite right with the Steelers.

Enter 2014, the year in my eyes that perfectly set the tone and epitomized the rest of the Decade. The Steelers went back to their winning ways going 11-5 and winning the AFC North. Amidst the hoopla surrounding the Killer B's however, there were a lot of clunkers that season. A 26-6 embarrassment against rival Baltimore, horrible losses to lousy Bucs and Jets teams, blown out 31-10 by the Browns, and a disgraceful home performance against the 7-9 Saints. They also failed to win in the playoffs. Losing to the great Joe Flacco in Pittsburgh. Despite their great and flashy offensive talent, the Steelers ultimately accomplished nothing.

What summed up the 2010's Steelers to me is that when they were on, they were on, but when they were off, even a bit, they couldn't fight through the struggle and were losing the game or hanging on by the skin of the teeth. It was boom or bust. And for all the hype it got, the Offense was streaky and was shut down just as easily as it turned it on. Nearly every offseason They bragged about scoring 30 points a game, and would go on stretches barely breaking 20.

Overall, to me, the 2010's Steelers were talented, but were done in by their own arrogance, lack of focus, of just plain horrid luck.

They also could not beat the Raiders for the life of them or play on the road.

[Mojouw]

Nah, that's not the same. The experience of rooting for this team in the previous decade (00's) was a lot different from this one. You could tell they didn't have "it" this time. Hell, with the Cowher teams of the '90s, you always knew it was an uphill battle, but those teams fought tooth and nail, and overachieved if you ask me. Even in the '80s, there were no expectations at all, so it was like whatever, let's see if they can at least get headed in the right direction. This team was different, man. Woulda coulda shoulda. There hasn't been a prolonged stretch like that before. Left a really sour taste.

Fair enough. But now we've swerved really far into almost individual subjective opinion/experience. And that's more than fine. However it is much different than the concrete claims of objective fact that started the thread.

It's a weird fuzzy and imperfect line but I think it's important to separate subjective from objective evaluation.

Subjectively I feel the last decade represents a missed opportunity to add another SB victory. But objectively I understand that SBs are really hard to get to, much less win and the margin for error is zero. One small mistake or one unlucky event and it falls apart.

I believe that if Shazier doesn't get hurt that team gets to a SB.

If the offense had some of the walking wounded back against the Broncos, they make the SB that year.

I, of course, can't prove any of that.

[steelreserve]

Fair enough. But now we've swerved really far into almost individual subjective opinion/experience. And that's more than fine. However it is much different than the concrete claims of objective fact that started the thread.

It's a weird fuzzy and imperfect line but I think it's important to separate subjective from objective evaluation.

Subjectively I feel the last decade represents a missed opportunity to add another SB victory. But objectively I understand that SBs are really hard to get to, much less win and the margin for error is zero. One small mistake or one unlucky event and it falls apart.

I believe that if Shazier doesn't get hurt that team gets to a SB.

If the offense had some of the walking wounded back against the Broncos, they make the SB that year.

I, of course, can't prove any of that.

I think when you're talking about these big-picture things - what is the legacy of this team for a whole decade - a lot of it almost HAS to be subjective. What memorable things did they accomplish in ten years? How will they be remembered in the history of the game? Those are the kinds of things that define a whole decade.

A lot of that is championships, or at least being a strong contender for a championship year in and year out, and unfortunately we had neither of those things going for us. Part of it is especially memorable players, games, or individual seasons, but usually that also goes along with some kind of sustained success.

Objectively, the L.A. Rams were one of the strongest teams of the 1980s, and the Browns were top 10 in wins and made the playoffs seven times. But you don't remember them, you remember the 49ers, the '85 Bears, the Giants and Redskins, maybe the Raiders, maybe the Dolphins. The Vikings and Chiefs were arguably both among the top 5 teams of the 1990s, but you hardly think of them at all. You don't have any defining accomplishments, and that's just what happens, you become a footnote.

It is mentioned often that getting to the Super Bowl is hard. Yes, it definitely IS hard. However, from the perspective of history, you don't get any slack because making the Super Bowl is hard. Did you or didn't you, that's the question. Or at worst, how close were you. Did you accomplish anything else important? The 2010s Steelers just don't check those boxes. Won a lot of regular-season games, but ultimately were like a slightly worse version of the 1990s Vikings. Which is disappointing when you are coming off a run of multiple championships with several all-time great players, and you replaced many of them with other players who were arguably generational talents themselves, but didn't get anything to show for it.

If you asked a random fan whether they'd like their team to be as good as the '90s Vikings or the '80s Rams, you might get some who say "Sure, I'd take that in a second" ... but I bet if you asked a Vikings fan or a Rams fan (are there any Rams fans?) what they thought of those years, I bet it would be a "yeah BUT" with a strong undertone of disappointment. You can get a lot of wins and "objective" success and still have it be disappointing.

[pczach]

I think when you're talking about these big-picture things - what is the legacy of this team for a whole decade - a lot of it almost HAS to be subjective. What memorable things did they accomplish in ten years? How will they be remembered in the history of the game? Those are the kinds of things that define a whole decade.

A lot of that is championships, or at least being a strong contender for a championship year in and year out, and unfortunately we had neither of those things going for us. Part of it is especially memorable players, games, or individual seasons, but usually that also goes along with some kind of sustained success.

Objectively, the L.A. Rams were one of the strongest teams of the 1980s, and the Browns were top 10 in wins and made the playoffs seven times. But you don't remember them, you remember the 49ers, the '85 Bears, the Giants and Redskins, maybe the Raiders, maybe the Dolphins. The Vikings and Chiefs were arguably both among the top 5 teams of the 1990s, but you hardly think of them at all. You don't have any defining accomplishments, and that's just what happens, you become a footnote.

It is mentioned often that getting to the Super Bowl is hard. Yes, it definitely IS hard. However, from the perspective of history, you don't get any slack because making the Super Bowl is hard. Did you or didn't you, that's the question. Or at worst, how close were you. Did you accomplish anything else important? The 2010s Steelers just don't check those boxes. Won a lot of regular-season games, but ultimately were like a slightly worse version of the 1990s Vikings. Which is disappointing when you are coming off a run of multiple championships with several all-time great players, and you replaced many of them with other players who were arguably generational talents themselves, but didn't get anything to show for it.

If you asked a random fan whether they'd like their team to be as good as the '90s Vikings or the '80s Rams, you might get some who say "Sure, I'd take that in a second" ... but I bet if you asked a Vikings fan or a Rams fan (are there any Rams fans?) what they thought of those years, I bet it would be a "yeah BUT" with a strong undertone of disappointment. You can get a lot of wins and "objective" success and still have it be disappointing.

Unfortunately, some of the things that will be remembered by people about the Steelers of the last decade are some of the bad things that happened to them. Many of those things are injuries.

AB getting knocked out by Burfict in the playoff game with the Bengals and Ben being knocked out of that game. Then the following week playing without AB, Bell, and Ben banged up against the Broncos. They were really the better team even without those players, but a fumble sealed their fate or they go to another super bowl.

Ryan Shazier suffering paralysis near the end of a season was a killer. The player they built the defense around and their best playmaker, leader, and a man that was loved by the entire team and organization was lost not just for the season, but possibly forever. It didn't just hurt them for one year. It weakened the current team, plus it gave them more holes to fill. They didn't fully recover defensively until this year. That was a huge and memorable moment for this team. Unfortunately, it was a very bad moment.

As much as it sucks, much of the defining moments of this decade were injuries to the key players. The fact that the killer B's were never on the field at the same time in the playoffs is memorable....and sad. That's all the media used to talk about every year.

AB losing his mind and quitting on the team.

Bell holding out for an entire season.

Their WR coach passes away just as the season is about to start.

That's a whole lot of memorable crappy stuff that is beyond anyone's control. It sucks, and I understand the disappointment...but sometimes shit happens and you're on the wrong end of it at key moments.

I think that is the stuff that derailed this team, and I think that's what people will remember.

[Hawkman]

It’s sad to say, but in this time frame we have had lightening in a bottle on both sides of the line.....just not at the same time. Even a kicker who was either hurt or off at the wrong time......It’s like a conparacy.

[teegre]

Oh... I will forever blame the 2017 on Al Riveron.

Jesse Caught It!!!