Media Savvy
Pats' Success Threatens Steelers
By Stan Savran

Are they or aren't they? Should the New England Patriots be considered a dynasty, taking their place alongside those dominant teams that have already been anointed? The Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49'ers of the 80's and the Cowboys of the 90's. Certainly if those Dallas teams won three out of four Super Bowls and qualify, why wouldn't the Patriots?

Possibly because the definition has changed.

The dictionary defines dynasty thusly: "A family or group that maintains power for generations."

For our purposes, let's alter the definition slightly, because in today's NFL, with the salary cap and free agency, five years qualifies as a generation. Which is why I consider the Patriots as deserving as much as those before them. They have not only dominated, but have done so despite a system designed to inhibit such accomplishments.

If my talk show callers--not to mention a media member or two-- are a legitimate barometer, most western Pennsylvanians seem reluctant to give the Pats their dynasty do. There may be a few items at play.

For openers, the fact that the Steelers proved to be steppingstones--or doormats--in two of New England's Super Bowl conquests, has not been lost on the local citizenry. There's an undercurrent of bitterness. Many believe that the Steelers should have won those games.

There also may be a strong element of provincial protectionism going on. Some fans believe that uttering the D-word and the Patriots in the same sentence somehow tarnishes the legacy of the 70's Steelers. That making space for the Pats on the dynasty pedestal would somehow diminish the Steelers' accomplishments. It doesn't and it won't. There may be many reasons to debate New England's place in history, but provincial paranoia isn't one of them.

Remember, we are not debating who was better. How many Hall of Famers those Steelers' teams produced versus the anticipated small number that may evolve from these New England teams is not germane. Nor are we trying to discern if the

04 Patriots could beat the '78 Steelers. We are merely trying to decide if winning three championships in four years qualifies for dynasty status.

If the Steelers had won three of the last four, which they were certainly in position to do, would we even be asking this question? If Chuck Noll had been forced to choose between keeping Jack Lambert or Jack Ham, or Bradshaw or Franco, would the Steelers have been able to win four out of six titles?

That shouldn't necessarily be used an additional reason to automatically include the Patriots in the pantheon of dynastic teams. A franchise must protect against free agency and the salary cap issues that weren't a factor even 10 years ago. By the same token, free agency is also an avenue for player procurement...with immediate gratification. If you lose a high profile guy, you can go right out and buy his replacement, who is generally ready to step right in. Would Bill Belichick have been so quick to dump Lawyer Malloy if Rodney Harrison hadn't been immediately available? The free agency door swings both ways.

If the Patriots win another Super Bowl in the next couple of years, there is no questioning their place in history. For me, they don't have to do anything more than they've done.

They may not deserve to sit at the head of the dynasty table alongside the Canadiens, Yankees, Celtics or Steelers. But they've earned a spot somewhere at that table.

Stan Savran hosts a sports talk show 3-6 pm weekdays on WBGG Fox Sports Radio 970.