Vin vs. seanbrock: 70's Steelers vs. 80's 49ers

[SteVo+ 3,702]

1970's Pittsburgh Steelers vs. 1980's San Francisco 49ers

Which franchise had the better dynasty?

Vin will argue in favor of the Steelers, Sean in favor of the 49ers.

Vin will speak first, and then the two participants will debate the topic back and forth until both feel they have clearly made their point and responded to their opponent, at which point both players will give their closing statements; Sean gets the last say.

For now, there is no set minimum or maximum in terms of time, post count, or anything. Let's just have a good football debate and see what happens.

Spectators/Voters, please refrain from posting in this thread until both have posted their closing statement. You are, of course, free to use the rep system to +/- posts you find to be strong/weak arguments.

Vin, you have the first word...

Edited August 8, 2014 by SteVo

[Vin+ 3,121]

Who had the better dynasty? The answer to that question is simple. It's the 70s Steelers.

 

What're you looking for? Is it wins? They've got that. They posted a 99-44-1 record, winning only five fewer games than the 80s 49ers did, without the benefit of arguably the greatest QB and the greatest WR of all time and an offensive mastermind as an HC. Plus the Steelers spent all but two years of the decade playing 14 game seasons. Pretty impressive that it's so close. I mean, surely having the greatest QB and WR ever would cause the win gap to be wider. Sure, you could say that things would've been better had the '82 season not been strike-shortened, but the 49ers went 3-6 that season. Who knows what the result would've been had they played a full season.

 

Now, maybe it's not wins you're looking for. Maybe it's playoff appearances. Well, the Steelers have that too. They made the playoffs eight consecutive seasons (49ers went seven consecutive), going one-and-done only once over that time period (the 49ers had three one-and-dones). Yay consistency.

 

Perhaps regular season success and postseason appearances are not enough to sway your opinion. If that's the case, then maybe Super Bowl wins will. Well, once again, the Steelers have that too. The 70s Steelers would go on to win four Super Bowls in the span of six seasons, beating the Vikings, the Cowboys twice, and then closing out the decade against the Rams. One might be able to say something about the quality of opponents the Steelers faced, particularly since the Rams were 9-7, but then the 49ers beat up on a guy who couldn't win anything until he had a 2,000 yard rusher. So that argument is a push.

 

So there you have it. Kinda dry and more data driven than I really wanted; but with comparable numbers in wins despite less firepower and fewer games played, coupled with a better and more consistent postseason performance (fewer one-and-dones, four SBs in six seasons compared to four in nine for the 49ers), the 70s Steelers take this battle handily.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Here's why the 9ers are the greatest dynasty of the modern era. It's not so much Jerry Rice and Joe Montana imo. It's Bill Walsh. People who know football, know that Walsh didn't invent the WCO, but he did run it better than anyone before or after him. The NFL is a copy cat league and Bill Walsh's coaching tree is massive. People wanted their offense to run like his and it's evident that over 20 years of the NFL looked at Walsh and his 49ers offense as the Gold Standard.

 

Obviously the players he drafted and developed were key in the formation of the 9ers dynasty, but even after the greatest QB of all time left for Kansas City, the 49ers remained one of the best teams in the league for another decade plus under one man's blue print. Even after Walsh left the 49ers for the front office and eventually retirement, the foundation he built stood for many years after he left. San Fran boasted not only the best QB/WR combo both individually and as a tandem of all time, they also had a very underrated defense that you probably don't know about anyone other than Ronnie Lott, but throughout the decade the lowest ranking defense the 49ers had was 12th and 13th in 1980 and '81. They had a lower than top ten scoring defense once, also in 1980.

 

What the 49ers did in the 80's was truly impressive though was beat the best teams. Vin pointed out that the 49ers didn't have the best super bowl competition and there's some truth to that, but in the 80's the NFC was completely dominant of the AFC. Teams like The Bears, The Giants, The Redskins and the Rams were all power houses and the 49ers were the class of the conference that at the time, may have been the most dominant one conference has ever been over the other since the merger. The NFC won 12 straight super bowls from '84-'96.

Edited July 16, 2014 by seanbrock

[Vin+ 3,121]

Legacies are fun. George Seifert rode that legacy into becoming the 49ers winningest HC.

 

 

As for the 49ers facing stronger competition during the 80s, the strength of the Steelers and 49ers schedules over their respective decades are practically identical.

 

For the Steelers:

 

The win% of the opponents they faced during the 70s averaged to .472. (Their easiest season was '70, in which their opponents posted a .378. Their hardest was '77, where their opponents posted a .565)

 

Their average opponent win% during their four SB seasons was .463.

 

 

For the 49ers:

 

The win% of the opponents they faced during the 80 averaged to .479. (Their easiest season was '84, the year they went 15-1, in which their opponents posted a .409. For their hardest, they posted a .502 in both 85 and 88)

 

Their average opponent win% during the four SB seasons was.......

 

.463

 

 

So, really, neither team faces a huge advantage in that area. The Steelers had 3 seasons of .500+ competition, the 49ers only two. The Steelers did face a ridiculously easy '70 campaign, but it was just Noll's second season and Terry Bradshaw was absolutely awful as a rookie so they couldn't capitalize.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Vin

[seanbrock 1,684]

Legacies are fun. George Seifert rode that legacy into becoming the 49ers winningest HC.

 

 

As for the 49ers facing stronger competition during the 80s, the strength of the Steelers and 49ers schedules over their respective decades are practically identical.

 

For the Steelers:

 

The win% of the opponents they faced during the 70s averaged to .472. (Their easiest season was '70, in which their opponents posted a .378. Their hardest was '77, where their opponents posted a .565)

 

Their average opponent win% during their four SB seasons was .463.

 

 

For the 49ers:

 

The win% of the opponents they faced during the 80 averaged to .479. (Their easiest season was '84, the year they went 15-1, in which their opponents posted a .409. For their hardest, they posted a .502 in both 85 and 88)

 

Their average opponent win% during the four SB seasons was.......

 

.463

 

 

So, really, neither team faces a huge advantage in that area. The Steelers had 3 seasons of .500+ competition, the 49ers only two. The Steelers did face a ridiculously easy '70 campaign, but it was just Noll's second season and Terry Bradshaw was absolutely awful as a rookie so they couldn't capitalize.

If those two teams played one another, that would be the difference imo. The 49ers defense wasn't as good as the Steelers but it was definitely good enough to feast off of Bradshaw, who's got to be one of the luckiest professional athletes in the history of the game. I think the 49ers would have a much better shot at scoring on the Steelers and if it became a defensive struggle, Bradshaw would throw the game away way before Joe Montana would.

 

As for the competition I think the winning percentage stats are nice, but numbers aside I still feel like the NFC in the 80's was still stronger. Chicago, Washington, and New York were all really, really great football teams. The Skins won 3 in the 80's too and people STILL talk about the '85 Bears as the best team ever. Bill Parcells and the Giants defense with LT and Harry Carson, the Skins and their Hogs. Maybe the opponents win %'s are identical, but in my personal opinion I just think making it through the NFC at that time was like going through the meat grinder.

 

As for George Seifert being the 49ers all time winningest coach...I think we all know Walsh built that franchise. Seifert is Walsh's Barry Switzer and it's just that simple.

[Vin+ 3,121]

A game between those two teams both in their primes would've been something. Instead, all we got was a game between the two in 81 that feature two teams on the opposite ends of the ascending/descending spectrum. The 49ers would win that game by three points, despite the Steelers turning the ball over six times.

 

I'll give you the Redskins and the Bears (even though they weren't very good from '80-'83), but the Giants, while they did win a SB, only had two seasons in the 80s where they won more than 10 games (four seasons where they won more than 9), and only three seasons where they had a top 10 O and D (in points scored/allowed).

 

And I don't think it was as lopsided as you might think. The 49ers and Redskins were the teams of the decade, but the Dolphins and Broncos, as well as the Raiders, were right behind the Redskins in terms of wins during the 80s. If you look at the top 10 in wins for each decade, the 80s featured 5 AFC teams and 5 NFC teams (or 2 and 3 if you want to go top 5) while the 70s featured 6 and 4 (or 3 and 2 if you're going top 5.)

[seanbrock 1,684]

Stats aside looking at the two teams and what they brought to the table, I just think the 9ers of the 80's were more dynamic. The 49ers had a defense that was capable of stopping Pittsburgh's offense, but offensively, the 70's Steelers played in a era where if you had a strong running game your offense would be fine. They could just bully teams and even though their receivers were awesome, again it comes back to Terry Bradshaw. He limited them offensively

 

The 49ers always had a good offensive line. They had a RB in Rodger Craig who could hurt you in a lot of ways and a full compliment of receivers for the best QB of all time to utilize. I think the 49ers by virtue of that would be much more effective in any era including this current era than the Steelers. The 49ers didn't have a blatant weakness like the Steelers would have against more modern teams. Bradshaw threw a ton of INT's. If it's a close game, who do you think is more likely the commit the fatal turn over? The most efficient QB of all time or the most overrated and extremely inefficient Bradshaw? That Steelers team would not be as dominant in era's where passing was more prevalent.

 

 

[Vin+ 3,121]

Woo, late responses. (I have broken SteVo's will to continue)

 

Last word:

 

In the end, this isn't about what these teams were comprised of, or how they would fare against each other if they played, or what the legacies of each team are; the only thing that matters is what they did in their respective decades and which one was better at it.

 

It all boils down to championships. Sure, both of these teams have the same amount of SB wins in their decades, but the Steelers would win four in six seasons. That kind of concentrated success hasn't been seen since (Keyword: success. Too bad the football gods smote the 90s Bills) and to me, that is what separates the 70s Steelers from the 80s 49ers. When two teams are equal, championships become the tiebreaker, and what the 70s Steelers did is just too much to overlook.

[seanbrock 1,684]

The 49ers created a blueprint for success, that's the foundation for the way the league is today with free agency and such. The Steelers did a great job at drafting a bunch of hall of famers and keeping them for a decade and winning championships, but the 49ers created a system where they could replenish their roster over not just one but two decades. It was a more long lasting dynasty. They were at their best during the 80's but they had a longer run that resulted in 5 championships. One of them wasn't in the 80's but it was still the same regime. It was more than about just having the best players.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Voting is (finally) open.

[Vin+ 3,121]

MOAR VOTES

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I'm going for Sean in this one. Both guys did really good, especially with opening statements but Sean did better in the back-and-forth comments and his argument was stronger overall, IMO.

Edited August 9, 2014 by SteVo