That was a legacy of the 5/5/4 division alignment.
Tomczak was a damned good QB…for a punter. 
That second Packer game was a wacky one. The Giant defense kept the GB offense to 4 FG while the Giant O scored 24 points. Sadly they committed 7 turn overs and let a punt and an INT get returned for TDs to lose 26-24.
I noticed a similar quirk for the Bears when I was searching. They played the Eagles twice in '83. We played the Eagles, 49ers and Redskins something like 7 times a piece in the 80s, the Giants once.
Heh, I wasn’t actually making excuses for that game. But the Bears had to trot out a backup QB in the playoffs in '84, '86, '88 and '90. In '87 and '88 McMahon started playoff games but was taking his first snaps since weeks 7 and 9 respectively. You cannot over state how badly the 80’s Bears were handicapped in the postseason by QB injuries. The poor '89 was the year they tired of McMahon’s injuries and traded him and entered the season with 2 QBs with 7 career starts and 2 years of experience between them.
I think that “NFL success” is, by and large, measured in Superbowls, and that makes “most successful” easily quantifiable in favor of the Steelers.
Pre-merger “championships” just don’t have the cache of Superbowls, nor were they as hard to get.
In terms of Superbowl success, the Packers are no better than the Patriots (actually the Pats have more appearances), and in the last 40 years, no better than the Rams (1-1).
That makes the Steelers’ inability to win even a single pre-merger “championship” in forty years an epic failure, which is a big mark against them.
I find it interesting that Pit has a SB appearance in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.
Not making a point really.
They did not make it to a Superbowl in the 80s, but even still making it in three different decades is nothing to sneeze at. It would be more impressive if they’d won their 90s appearance.
As a point of comparison, the Patriots made Superbowl appearances in the 80s (crushed by Bears) 90s (lost to Packers) and of course the rock solid 3-1 stretch in the 2000s. I’m not sure how much the two earlier Superbowl appearances impress me compared to their 2000s, but it doesn’t suck to make appearances in three straight decades. That’s the longest active streak, yes?
Steelers v Rams in January 1980
Oh, calendar years. Hard to credit the Superbowl of the 1979 season to the 80s, but I guess it’s technically correct.
I was thinking the Rams had a nice little streak of two decades with an appearance, but that wouldn’t be the case if you go by calendar years.
When you hear about Steelers winning four Superbowls in the 70s, do you correct the claim to 3?
In that time, the fifth place teams of the two divisions in each conference that had a fifth place team played each other twice. This made up for the fact that other teams in the matched divisions played two opponents from that other division. IIRC, the first and third place teams got matched (1 v 1, 1 v 3 both ways), and the 2nd and 4th place teams did too. The really funky schedule was the one that the teams in the four-team divisions had, since they only had 6 in division games, meaning they had to come up with two additional out of division games to have those teams play. It was all quite screwy.
In 1981, you will notice that the Jets also had the same situation: having finished 5th in the division in 1980, they played the Seahawks twice (the Seahawks having finished fifth in the AFC West in 1980).
I’m not a big football fan but I (use Super Bowl era) say Dallas Cowboys. They won almost as many SB as the Steelers and they had an extraordinary run of making the playoffs (with fewer teams eligible for much of it) from 1966 to 1983 (or so) in every year but one (where they went 8-6). Off the field they are the model for brand recognition/greed that the NFL revels in. I know they haven’t won a playoff game in a decade which hurts but that could change since Tony Romo has dumped the blonde Ono. Plus their cheerleaders have the best butts.
Someone mentioned in the 1950s the Steelers cut Johnny Unitas. Yes. And they also got rid of Lenny Dawson, Jack Kemp (two AFL titles) and in the 1980s failed to draft local hero Dan Marino. But I can understand arguments for them. Just don’t post clips of those dopey Steelers with kids and cola commercials.
You know, I would say that, if you’re correct about his skills, that Ditka certainly doesn’t get enough credit. Because you’re one of the first Bears’ fans in a long line of Bears fans I’ve known, who thinks so. Almost every one of them, and the Tribune I read, agree it was Jim Finks who built the '85 Bears, and Ditka is best remembered, as far as drafting, for his Ricky Williams fiasco with the Saints. But thanks for the fresh perspective on things. It’s interesting and something I’ll take a look at if I get some free time.
I’ll give you credit, at least you didn’t try to argue that the Vikings belong in the conversation.
Not yet. 
The Vikings have been seriously pwned by the Cowboys. They came into the league at the same time, they have been in the same league/conference all that time, and the Cowboys have more Super Bowl appearances, more Super Bowl wins (but hey, so do the N.Y. Jets! :p) and more playoff appearances than the Vikings. Viking lovers have to simply sigh, grin and bear it.
Drew Pearson pushed off.
::whiiiiiizzzzzzzzzzz… THUNK!!!:
Dear God, someone pegged DSYoung with a whiskey bottle!!!
Nah, I think that was a half-full can of Hamm’s. Or, maybe lutefisk packed into an ice-ball.
Doesn’t matter, they would’ve lost to the Steelers in the Super Bowl for the second year.
I was referring to the Vikings fans’ reaction to the no call, which included pelting the referee with a whiskey bottle, knocking him unconscious and sending him to the hospital for 11 stitches. Classy.