PITTSBURGH — I didn't mean to bother Jack Ham on his birthday Monday, let alone with a question about whether the Kansas City Chiefs could surpass the 1970s Steelers as the NFL's greatest dynasty of the Super Bowl era.

From this vantage point, it's an easy call: A three-peat would absolutely vault the Chiefs past every Super Bowl-era dynasty on record, including the mighty Steelers.

That doesn't mean I believe the Chiefs are a better team. There has never been a better team than the '70s Steelers and might never be. But the sheer magnitude of the achievement would put the Chiefs above the rest.

Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Packers couldn't win three straight Super Bowls (although they won an NFL championship the year before winning the first two Super Bowls). Bill Belichick's New England Patriots couldn't do it. Neither could Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers or Chuck Noll's Steelers, although a lot of them will tell you their three-peat-seeking 1976 team — ruined by injuries that wiped out the running back room — was the best one of all.

Eight teams have tried for a three-peat. None made it as far as the Super Bowl. Only one even secured a No. 1 seed in their conference, and that was the 1990 49ers, who lost to the New York Giants in the NFC Championship Game.

As we sit here today, with Andy Reid's 14-1 Chiefs due for a Christmas Day visit, the Steelers dynasty still reigns supreme because it went back-to-back twice and won four Super Bowls in six years. No other team can claim those feats.

The Patriots rank second, but because they went nearly a decade between titles, it's almost like they had two dynasties since the turn of the millennium — one where they won three times in four years, another three in five.

But that's just one man's opinion, and I wasn't part of a dynastic NFL team. That's why I called Ham, who was an integral part of those '70s Steelers. He was, in fact, one of a handful of the greatest outside linebackers in NFL history. He spoke of the Chiefs' resilience, knack for winning close games and ability to "take everyone's best shot."

But what about the question at hand? Ham insisted he wasn't speaking through gritted teeth, but it sure sounded like it when he finally got around to this:

"To answer your question, yes, I think three in a row is better than four in six. Back-to-back is so difficult. I hold in high regard what ours was able to accomplish. We did that twice. But three in a row? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that's better." (For the record, it would also mark four Super Bowl titles in six years for the Chiefs.)

That led me to a few other members of those Steelers teams. And it seems no matter which one you find, you're talking to one of the greatest players in NFL history.

Mel Blount, maybe the best cornerback who has ever walked the planet, was next — and he wasn't biting.

"I have a lot of respect for what Kansas City has done, but even if they win three in a row, it'd be hard to say they're better than our teams or the Steelers are better than them," Blount said. "It's apples and oranges — and those are two different fruits."

By that, Blount meant the "the game is different, the rules are different. ... It's a different game. That's why I'm hesitant (to compare). If Terry Bradshaw had some of the protections these quarterbacks have today, there's no telling what we might have done."

Having said all that, Blount believes the Chiefs have a great chance to three-peat because of their quarterback, Patrick Mahomes.

"Everybody says you gotta have that quarterback, and they've got the quarterback — that Mahomes guy," Blount said with a laugh. "He's different."

Fair enough, but I'd say we're tied, 1-1, on the question at hand — and who better to break a tie than Mean Joe Greene?

I told Greene that Blount and Ham were split on the matter. He considered the question and finally came to the conclusion that if the Chiefs win three in a row, "They would be in the catbird's seat, with everybody chasing them. They would start the conversation."

Greene also believes it might be good for the Chiefs to lose one more game (the Steelers game would be nice, he said) before the playoffs.

"I think that's their best chance," he said. "There were times in my career when we had it going pretty good, and I didn't feel too badly if we lost a game going into the playoffs. It helped us feel refreshed, you could say, going into the playoffs."

The crazy part in all this is that the Chiefs, who have played more football than anybody in history over the past seven years, might be the freshest and healthiest team in the AFC when they begin their defense, likely in the divisional round.

By the way, regarding the '76 Steelers team — which lost to the Oakland Raiders in the AFC Championship — there was another difference of opinion. Ham and Blount, like Jack Lambert, believe that was the Steelers' greatest team of all.

Greene isn't buying it.

"Oh no, I never thought that," he said. "We didn't win. That settles it all for me."

(c)2024 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.