Both analysts and Bleacher Report writers have discussed this issue. I made the decision that it was time for me to address this issue and possibly reach my own conclusion in the process.
This is an unbiased, open, and honest examination of which team is the superior one. We’ll examine a number of stats, including those related to Super Bowl and Playoff appearances, franchise records, offensive and defensive productivity, and head-to-head outcomes.
This subject is unquestionably the simplest. Super Bowl XXXVI (2002), XXXVIII (2004), XXXIX (2005), and XLII all included the Patriots as participants (2008).
They won the first three games, losing the fourth 17-14 to the New York Giants. Ironically, they won the first three games by three points and lost the game against the Giants by three points while winning three out of four championships in seven years.
In Super Bowl XL (2006) and XLIII (2009), the Steelers participated and won both games.
Two victories in four years, then. They had a +15 point advantage over their opponents.
The Patriots have won more championships during that time period, I suppose. They also received their first two rings in a year less period of time. So the Patriots ought to triumph.
However, it is also possible to argue that because the Steelers (not Roethlisberger) played better than the NFC opposition, they were a superior team and deserved to win. Results: The Patriots narrowly prevail. There is no disputing that they have more titles.
Six times have both clubs advanced to the postseason. At that time, New England has an 11-2 postseason record and a 330-225 opponent advantage. The Steelers are 8-4 overall and have outscored their opponents 331-276.
Who would have guessed that the Patriots’ defense surpassed the Steelers’ and that the Steelers’ offense was only marginally more effective than the Patriots’? The Patriots have outperformed the Steelers with a superior overall record and bigger point difference.
Additionally, they twice defeated the Steelers in the playoffs.