PDA

View Full Version : Just 17 Rushes???


tony hipchest
10-09-2006, 12:52 PM
and one bogus fake punt that counts as an 18th rushing attempt. we couldve had more with ben if he wasnt on his back. he tried to escape. but what happened to willie???

14 carries for 57 yds = 4 ypc

l. tomlinson 13 carries for 36 yds. in a game where parker looks like ladanian and lt is playing like what everyone perceives parker to be, i would expect more carries from willie.

why is duce staley on the roster? for note noah herron had 100+ yards and a td on 19 carries for green bay yesterday. green bay felt so good about him they traded s. gado and let davenport go.

v haynes had 1 carry for 13 yds. that means that every time he steps on the field the defense automatically knows its gonna be a pass. way to keep the opposing defenses on their toes and guessing. know why he had 13 yards on 1 carry? the defense had NO IDEA they would actually run the ball with him. no wonder ben has been throwing so many interceptions.

but go ahead coaches, keep resting willie and duce and limiting their carries that way they will be nice and fresh as they sit home and watch the playoffs.

in the meantime i will sit back and laugh at all those who still insist that willie cant run the ball against good defenses, yet LT is so great at it. and i will laugh at all those who insist he gets all his yeards by breaking 1 long run (his longest last night was 15 yards). i will laugh at those who say he cant take a hit, break a tackle, pound it inside, etc.

and i will wonder why we have our best weapon sitting on the bench as we play prevent defense and continue to be haunted by the ghost of jerome.

Livinginthe past
10-09-2006, 01:55 PM
I took a look at the game stats from last night - if you take away Parkers three biggest runs 15 ,11 and 14 yards then he has 10 carries for 17 yards which is less than 2 ypc.

Maybe you could do that to most RB's - take away a couple of their best runs and their average would plummet but the Steelers clearly arent able to cope with being in 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations.

I brought this up before the season started, but I said the Steelers success would depend on how well they adapted to having Willie as a feature back with no Bettis on the sidelines.

The facts are that Willie, on only 17 carries, run for a loss 4 times - that is almost 25% of the time.

Its great having a 4ypc avg, but you have to look at the holes his runs put the offense in.

I point this out not to say Willie isn't a good RB, just that the Steelers aren't utilising him properly.

NM

Black@Gold Forever32
10-09-2006, 02:07 PM
I took a look at the game stats from last night - if you take away Parkers three biggest runs 15 ,11 and 14 yards then he has 10 carries for 17 yards which is less than 2 ypc.

Maybe you could do that to most RB's - take away a couple of their best runs and their average would plummet but the Steelers clearly arent able to cope with being in 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations.

I brought this up before the season started, but I said the Steelers success would depend on how well they adapted to having Willie as a feature back with no Bettis on the sidelines.

The facts are that Willie, on only 17 carries, run for a loss 4 times - that is almost 25% of the time.

Its great having a 4ypc avg, but you have to look at the holes his runs put the offense in.

I point this out not to say Willie isn't a good RB, just that the Steelers aren't utilising him properly.

NM

LITP, Willie Parker had 14 carries for 57 yards and a TD. That good against a very tough Chargers defense. I think Cowher didn't give him the ball enough last night. Plus you have to think that no defense has any respect for the Steelers passing game right now. So Willie has no support from the passing game. I think Willie Parker is fine as the featured back and if Ben gets his act together then we will all see how good Willie Parker really is. I know you didn't knock Willie Parker. But alot of Steelers fans still don't think Willie Parker should be our starting RB.

Livinginthe past
10-09-2006, 02:23 PM
LITP, Willie Parker had 14 carries for 57 yards and a TD. That good against a very tough Chargers defense. I think Cowher didn't give him the ball enough last night. Plus you have to think that no defense has any respect for the Steelers passing game right now. So Willie has no support from the passing game. I think Willie Parker is fine as the featured back and if Ben gets his act together then we will all see how good Willie Parker really is. I know you didn't knock Willie Parker. But alot of Steelers fans still don't think Willie Parker should be our starting RB.

Im a fan of Willie Parker and have been since he broke into the team.

Its true what you say about the passing game, its often problems in one area that manifest in other statistics.

Teams who cant stay on the field offensively often have tired defenses who cant get the opposition off the field and so on and so on - its a vicious circle.

Cowher/Whiz is obviously a great fan of the ball retention running game, so its hard to imagine why he is failing to give Willie the carries he requires.

I can't think of many games where the Steelers went behind early and actually needed to go pass wacky.

The real problem lies in Cowhers (well deserved, in my opinion) inability to implement a plan B.

Of course his star QB is playing well short of 100% at this time for well documented reasons and has led to the Steelers having their hands tied offensively.

NM

Black@Gold Forever32
10-09-2006, 02:27 PM
Well its many problems from Bill Cowher (lame duck coach). He will retire after the year. I know it. I think the Steelers lack serious leadership right now. Of course Ben's horrible decision making.

Livinginthe past
10-09-2006, 02:38 PM
Well its many problems from Bill Cowher (lame duck coach). He will retire after the year. I know it. I think the Steelers lack serious leadership right now. Of course Ben's horrible decision making.

I can't really comment on the Cowher issue and how thats affecting the team - the D plays with intensity from what I can tell.

I am convinced that Bens decisons will improve when his fitness does - he is an impatient type of person who isn't willing to compromise due his change of circumstances (injury, lack of fitness).

This is just hard headed youth, in my opinion.

NM

tony hipchest
10-10-2006, 09:52 AM
LITP, Willie Parker had 14 carries for 57 yards and a TD. That good against a very tough Chargers defense. I think Cowher didn't give him the ball enough last night. Plus you have to think that no defense has any respect for the Steelers passing game right now. So Willie has no support from the passing game. I think Willie Parker is fine as the featured back and if Ben gets his act together then we will all see how good Willie Parker really is. I know you didn't knock Willie Parker. But alot of Steelers fans still don't think Willie Parker should be our starting RB.litp will try to spin this any way he can, to not be proven wrong once again. in his eyes barry sanders wasnt utilised properly or capable of being a featured back cause he was stopped for a loss.

but youre right litp. do that for any back and you will find all backs get stopped for loss. (he hasnt figured out that when a back AVERAGES 4 yards a carry it doesn mean they actually get 4 yards for every carry)

Livinginthe past
10-10-2006, 12:13 PM
litp will try to spin this any way he can, to not be proven wrong once again. in his eyes barry sanders wasnt utilised properly or capable of being a featured back cause he was stopped for a loss.

but youre right litp. do that for any back and you will find all backs get stopped for loss. (he hasnt figured out that when a back AVERAGES 4 yards a carry it doesn mean they actually get 4 yards for every carry)

You are such a d*ck most of time its unfunny.

You are totally shown up here by posters who actually want to talk football instead of propogating personal vendetta's - to say its tiresome is being generous.

You make a reference to my 'spin' and 'deceit' in just about every post in the last few months and it just makes you look as if you are incapable of anything above moronic repetition.

You will notice pretty much no-one agrees with this BS you spout continuously - take the hint and pack it in.

NM

sumo
10-10-2006, 01:02 PM
Im a fan of Willie Parker and have been since he broke into the team.

Its true what you say about the passing game, its often problems in one area that manifest in other statistics.

Teams who cant stay on the field offensively often have tired defenses who cant get the opposition off the field and so on and so on - its a vicious circle.



NM

I agree -- the defense could not get San Diego off the field -- I can't remember a game where I have seen a team convert so many 3rd and longs on a Steelers defense -- don't know if it was fatigue, bad scheming or what -- but we would crush them on first and second down -- and then drop into some weird prevent defense on every third down -- I think we panicked and went away from Willie too soon ....

Livinginthe past
10-10-2006, 02:21 PM
I agree -- the defense could not get San Diego off the field -- I can't remember a game where I have seen a team convert so many 3rd and longs on a Steelers defense -- don't know if it was fatigue, bad scheming or what -- but we would crush them on first and second down -- and then drop into some weird prevent defense on every third down -- I think we panicked and went away from Willie too soon ....

The 3rd and long conversions were a problem at periods last year if I remember rightly.

I think most of is down to a bend-dont-break philosophy on defense - im sure the rationale is that if they can keep the oppositions offense on the field for a larger series of small plays rather than giving up the one big play that their playmakers will eventually come up with the turnover.

When the team isn't getting it done - all areas tend to come under the microscope - if the Steelers can get some bigger, longer drives going then that should keep the defense rested and ready to give maximum effort into making big plays on D.

NM

steelcurtain09
10-10-2006, 03:20 PM
I took a look at the game stats from last night - if you take away Parkers three biggest runs 15 ,11 and 14 yards then he has 10 carries for 17 yards which is less than 2 ypc.

yes. tht has been brought up so many times.
tht happens to ne1. sorta like LT. he normally breaks one or 2 long ones a game. the steelers dint let him do tht on sunday so he had no yards.

The facts are that Willie, on only 17 carries, run for a loss 4 times - that is almost 25% of the time.

u can use the same logic as take away his longest runs and his ypc plummets.
take away his 4 carries for a loss and his stats fly up. just guessin he lost an average of 1 yard each time he lost yardage tht gives him 10 carries for 61 yards or 6.1 ypc

Livinginthe past
10-10-2006, 04:17 PM
yes. tht has been brought up so many times.
tht happens to ne1. sorta like LT. he normally breaks one or 2 long ones a game. the steelers dint let him do tht on sunday so he had no yards.



u can use the same logic as take away his longest runs and his ypc plummets.
take away his 4 carries for a loss and his stats fly up. just guessin he lost an average of 1 yard each time he lost yardage tht gives him 10 carries for 61 yards or 6.1 ypc

Valid points.

There are certainly different ways to look at the same stats - the thing is the Steelers havent adapted to having Willie in the backfield this year (you could argue the same for large parts of last year) - or at least dont appear to trust him to carry the load.

Maybe Cowher is getting too caught up in trying to play Ben back into form rather than doing whats best for the team.

NM

tony hipchest
10-11-2006, 10:21 AM
You are such a d*ck most of time its unfunny.

You are totally shown up here by posters who actually want to talk football instead of propogating personal vendetta's - to say its tiresome is being generous.

NM

:jawdrop: thats not very nice, and has nothing to do with (steelers) football. i guess when you say im shown up by posters who want to talk football youre talking about this guy:

and one bogus fake punt that counts as an 18th rushing attempt. we couldve had more with ben if he wasnt on his back. he tried to escape. but what happened to willie???

14 carries for 57 yds = 4 ypc

l. tomlinson 13 carries for 36 yds. in a game where parker looks like ladanian and lt is playing like what everyone perceives parker to be, i would expect more carries from willie.

why is duce staley on the roster? for note noah herron had 100+ yards and a td on 19 carries for green bay yesterday. green bay felt so good about him they traded s. gado and let davenport go.

v haynes had 1 carry for 13 yds. that means that every time he steps on the field the defense automatically knows its gonna be a pass. way to keep the opposing defenses on their toes and guessing. know why he had 13 yards on 1 carry? the defense had NO IDEA they would actually run the ball with him. no wonder ben has been throwing so many interceptions.

but go ahead coaches, keep resting willie and duce and limiting their carries that way they will be nice and fresh as they sit home and watch the playoffs.

in the meantime i will sit back and laugh at all those who still insist that willie cant run the ball against good defenses, yet LT is so great at it. and i will laugh at all those who insist he gets all his yeards by breaking 1 long run (his longest last night was 15 yards). i will laugh at those who say he cant take a hit, break a tackle, pound it inside, etc.

and i will wonder why we have our best weapon sitting on the bench as we play prevent defense and continue to be haunted by the ghost of jerome.

as a huge willie parker and steelers fan i have made many posts and several threads pointing out and praising his upside and positives, only to have them continuosly injected with litp "yeah buts..." claiming he cant be a real back in the nfl. just a novelty player who should only be broken out for the weakest of the weak defenses.

i am gonna defend my player. i have given dozens of examples showing that he can be a featured back. this weeks "yeah but..." is that he had 4 runs for loss. SO WHAT??? that is football my friend. it happens to EVERY back.

can he get hurt? sure. so can s. alexander and l. johnson.

can he struggle against a top rush defense? sure. but so can l. tomlinson.

willie has shown he can carry 30 times a game, pound it inside, break tackles, etc. so none of these "yeah buts..." are capable of holding water anymore.

you proclaim you have always been a fan of willie, but its more like a kid who is a fan of the clowns at a circus who are a mere sideshow to the main event.

willie IS the main event. i have shown this and willie has proven it. if you dont like it when i call you out on one of youre baseless and fabricated "yeah buts..." then maybe it is you who should pack it in. :banana: :poop:

Livinginthe past
10-11-2006, 11:04 AM
Yes, yes we all know what a huge Willie Parker fan you are.

Its a shame we can to go through the childishness of your previous post to get to one like this.

Here are some of my well documented thoughts on him.

The Bengals are going to be alot stronger offensively than the Jags were so that will make it tougher for the D to handle them.

However, it is far more likely that Willie parker will be able to move the ball on the ground tomorrow which should help the Steelers in their attempt to dominate the T.O.P battle.

The Steelers need to pass primarily and consistently at the beginning of the game to spread out the opponents D - thats gives Willie Parker room to manoevre.

By the same token I dont think anyone would mistake the Steelers WR corps for the Colts WR corps so its necessary for Willie to see plenty of the ball during the game in order to stop teams sitting back and forcing Ben to throw through them.

I really cant see Parker having any success going between the tackles against good teams - and even if he does pick up the yardage he is going to take an absolute pounding.

It remains to be seen whether Cowher persists with this Bettis type play calling - of course a helahty Ben will help him out a long way.

On the subject of Willie, I have already broken down his avg per carry against the dregs of the NFL that he faced in the early weeks (Houston, Tennesee etc) how he run riot against them, and how he was stopped in his tracks by better quality run D.

The results were pretty conclusive.

Im a fan of Willie - I love his upside.

But compared to Rudi he is just a flash in the pan - this season wil tell us alot more about Fast Willie.


Its already an excellent piece of business and scouting by the Steelers team, by the end of this year it could be phenomonal.

As long as parker remembers who picked him up UDFA when it comes to contract time everyone should be happy.

We definitely agree on the upside of Willie Parker.

And although he contributed to the team, I really think that the Pittsburgh success lies mainly with Ben Roethlisberger and his amazing playoff form and the return of the Blitzburgh defense - again mainly in the playoffs when it counted the most.

Its worth remembering that while 1200 yards is excellent rookie production and 4.7yds is very good also, alot of these stats were complied against very poor opposition.

If you break down his stats against teams with half decent run D, and those without, it tells a fairly significant tale.

Against the poor teams (Tenn, Houston, Cincy, Minnesota, Cleve, and Detroit) he ran for 820 yards at an average of 117yards per game and 6 yards per carry.

Against teams with decent run D (NE, SD, Jax, Balt, Denver etc...) he ran for 514 yards at just 64 yards per game and 3.1 yards per carry.

The fact is Willie made alot of his yardage against poor opposition and then put in a number of games with averages around 2.6ypc against good teams - this is why the Steelers have the upperhand in any negotiations this offseason.

I stick by my opinion, that he has alot of upside but also that his stats from last year flatter him a great deal.


They could have a similar set up to the Willie Parker/ Duce Staley duo in Pittsburgh, with Ronnie Brown in the Willie Parker mould (although I think Brown is the more complete back, Willie still has a huge amount of upside and learning to do)


As you can see there is no mention of Willie Parker 'not making it as an NFL back'.

Find me one would you Tony (I know you wont even try, what you will do is focus on another part of this post - dont worry i'll be sure to remind you)

What I am doing is giving Willie his due - last year he produced against poor defenses and got shut down gainst good ones - FACT.

Whereas you want everyone to agree when you draw comparisons to LT.

LT has been shut down against good run D's but he also produced many times against good ones - how many times can we say that about Willie?

Im afraid all this demonstrates is that you are the one who fabricates - just like you did earlier with that BS about Barry Sanders.

NM

tony hipchest
10-11-2006, 12:31 PM
What I am doing is giving Willie his due -

NM

i see.

...then he has 10 carries for 17 yards which is less than 2 ypc.


The facts are that Willie, on only 17 carries, run for a loss 4 times - that is almost 25% of the time.

...but you have to look at the holes his runs put the offense in.

:coffee:

Livinginthe past
10-11-2006, 01:55 PM
i see.








:coffee:

Well done Tony.

You have just shown everybody what you are - a troll on your own forum.

As expected, and predicted, you couldnt produce evidence that I ever said that Willie couldnt make it as an NFL back.

Thanks for being so boringly repetitive.

The bits you quoted are fact - 10 carries for 17 yards is les than 2 ypc.

4 runs for losses out of 17 is almost 25%.

You have absolutely nothing, as usual - even on a thread you started you can't produce anything resembling a decent argument.

NM

tony hipchest
10-11-2006, 03:09 PM
As you can see there is no mention of Willie Parker 'not making it as an NFL back'.


NM

you want me to dignify YET ANOTHER litp misquote with a response?

...claiming he cant be a real back in the nfl. just a novelty player who should only be broken out for the weakest of the weak defenses.
i condensed the jist of ALL your anti willie arguments and paraphrased what you were getting at.

so you can quit trying to convince all these fine sf posters that i accused you of typing the words 'not making it as an NFL back'.

misquoting me is becoming habitual. whats its purpose? why twist my words? its been evident all along you didnt think he could/ would hack it against a good defense and could only find success against the weak ones. hes proven the doubters wrong. you can just admit it or keep trying to worm your way out of it.

tony hipchest
10-11-2006, 03:20 PM
As expected, and predicted, you couldnt produce evidence that I ever said that Willie couldnt make it as an NFL back.



You have absolutely nothing, as usual - even on a thread you started you can't produce anything resembling a decent argument.

NMso you want me to prove you said something i didnt say you said? :confused:

this thread has nothing to do with the petty arguments you brought to it trying to prove willie is an inferior back. this thread addresses the point that willie had over 50 yds at 4 ypc about halfway into the game and cowher put him on the shelf without even the benefit of second half carries going to the other backs on the roster.

your analysis (if thats what you want to call it) that he had 4 carries for loss or no gain doesnt fly. no argument there.

Livinginthe past
10-11-2006, 04:28 PM
you want me to dignify YET ANOTHER litp misquote with a response?

i condensed the jist of ALL your anti willie arguments and paraphrased what you were getting at.

so you can quit trying to convince all these fine sf posters that i accused you of typing the words 'not making it as an NFL back'.

misquoting me is becoming habitual. whats its purpose? why twist my words? its been evident all along you didnt think he could/ would hack it against a good defense and could only find success against the weak ones. hes proven the doubters wrong. you can just admit it or keep trying to worm your way out of it.

Ha ha.

Hiding behind technicalities as usual..

Ok let me use the exact wording.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

You know you can't and all this BS regarding the 'fine posters of SF' shows how weak your position is.

Thats all I ask, for once, show me where I said that.

I have only ever commented on the fact he hasnt done it in the past against good run D on a consistent basis.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

If you can't it just makes you a troll, and a bad one at that.

Get your facts straight.

NM

tony hipchest
10-11-2006, 04:51 PM
Ha ha.

Hiding behind technicalities as usual..

Ok let me use the exact wording.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

You know you can't and all this BS regarding the 'fine posters of SF' shows how weak your position is.

Thats all I ask, for once, show me where I said that.

I have only ever commented on the fact he hasnt done it in the past against good run D on a consistent basis.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

If you can't it just makes you a troll, and a bad one at that.

Get your facts straight.

NM

reading comprehension is your friend:

i condensed the jist of ALL your anti willie arguments and paraphrased what you were getting at.


i have proven your assesment of willie is wrong. whats left to prove? now you can admit it and move along or keep trying to worm your way out of it.

its not gonna kill you to admit a mistake, ya know.

Livinginthe past
10-11-2006, 06:34 PM
reading comprehension is your friend:



i have proven your assesment of willie is wrong. whats left to prove? now you can admit it and move along or keep trying to worm your way out of it.

its not gonna kill you to admit a mistake, ya know.

Game over Tony.

You've just been made to look the two-faced liar that you are.

Condensed?.....gist?...fabricated and lied more like.

When I ask you to quote specifics you can't.

You seriously think people reading this are falling for your refusal to quote me saying things you attributed to me?

Have a nice day.

Im done proving my point.

I can feel my IQ leaking away just being involved in a thread I only joined becasue it was dying in its misconcepted ass.

You are a troll on your own teams forum - its doesnt get much worse than that.

NM

Elvis
10-11-2006, 10:11 PM
WE ARE NOW HOLDING A CHILD CARE CENTER HERE WESTERN N.C. IF YOU 2 WANT TO COME, I WILL SEE WHAT THE CHARGE IS FOR YOU OLE' GUYS... GET A GRIP AND IF YOU WANT TO BASH EACH OTHER GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND DO IT...

tony hipchest
10-12-2006, 10:44 AM
Game over Tony.

I can feel my IQ leaking away...

NM

thats just the air seeping from your swollen head. but wedosesteelers is right. the bashing and personal attacks i have suffered in this thread has no place in this forum. it is totally out of line:

You are such a d*ck
You are totally shown up here by posters
you are incapable of anything above moronic repetition.
no-one agrees with this BS you spout continuously - take the hint and pack it in.


we can to go through the childishness of your previous post


You have just shown everybody what you are - a troll on your own forum.

Thanks for being so boringly repetitive.


it just makes you a troll, and a bad one at that.

You've just been made to look the two-faced liar that you are.


misconcepted ass.
You are a troll on your own teams forum - its doesnt get much worse than that.

i would expect this type of uncontrolled behavior from bengalbrian.

anyways i will get this back to the threads purpose which was to point out that willie was having an effective game against a superb defense and was benched, it seemed, in the second half. a discussion of why the coach would do this is welcome. ive already tossed out the theory that it was because he had 4 carries for a loss, and the myth that he is incapable of rushing against a strong defense was proven bunk.

the broncos proved monday night that you can struggle in the running game yet stick to your guns, rely on your defense and still manage to put up 100 yards on the ground and win the game.

i have seen a lot of the blame fall on many different players for the last 3 losses, but this most recent one is showing me it has more to do with the coaches.

Atlanta Dan
10-12-2006, 10:55 AM
In another thread, I posted Jack Ham's thoughts in today's P-G that the running game is not what it has been and, unfortunately, that the running game now is more important than ever since the receivers are so poor.

I believe the problem is that Parker is not the sort of "move the pile" runner Bettis was and is less likely to be effective against the 8 in the box defenses the Steelers are more likely to face unless Ben and the receivers straighten up.

Since Staley is worthless the apparent option at this point is to play Davenport for a few series and see what he has. The Steelers will not win many games unless they re-commit to the run.

The 2003 disaster that emphasized the pass over the run was not that long ago - I am surprised Cowher is not forcing Whiz to get back to the play calling that emphasized the run in 2004 & 2005. Although the playoff games last season started off with passes, the Steelers ran it about 18 straight plays in the second half of the Colts game.

tony hipchest
10-12-2006, 11:23 AM
i just read that post. in the offseason there was so much talk about getting ben weapons, opening it up for ben, letting ben call audibles, and trying to turn ben into c. palmer or p. manning. it seems the coaches left steelers football on the sideline and became preoccupied with keeping the franchise player happy and focussing on being able to win games that were shootouts rather than smashmouth defensive ball.

drafting s. holmes over l. white was a huge mistake, especially when you see wr's like h. baskett and m. coulston (ufa and 7th rounder) doing what theyre doing. of course im biassed for unm's baskett, and taking a wr that late is risky. but i want to know what was seen in duce that allowed the steelers to pass on white if he hasnt even seen the field yet.

Atlanta Dan
10-12-2006, 12:15 PM
My cynical theory is that this year's draft was all about drafting for 1 more SB run before Cowher left a team with significant age on the OL and at LB, which meant drafting only to plug holes for this year.

Steelers knew they had WR issues (Ward is an all time Steeler but his reception numbers have been in decline for several years) and burned 2 of their first 3 picks on WRs. They guessed wrong that Staley would show some pride and be willing to come into camp in shape to replace Bettis in a back-up role and, as far as any long term alternative to Parker, apparently did not care enough to draft anyone.

For a team that emphasizes the run the Steelers have burned 3 #1 picks over the last 8 years (Edwards/Plax/Holmes) on WRs and have made no serious effort to draft a RB. So at RB we have a non-drafted starter backed up by a free agent bust and a RB who got cut by the Packers. You reap what you sow.

tony hipchest
10-12-2006, 12:40 PM
My cynical theory is that this year's draft was all about drafting for 1 more SB run before Cowher left a team with significant age on the OL and at LB, which meant drafting only to plug holes for this year.

Steelers knew they had WR issues (Ward is an all time Steeler but his reception numbers have been in decline for several years) and burned 2 of their first 3 picks on WRs. They guessed wrong that Staley would show some pride and be willing to come into camp in shape to replace Bettis in a back-up role and, as far as any long term alternative to Parker, apparently did not care enough to draft anyone.

For a team that emphasizes the run the Steelers have burned 3 #1 picks over the last 8 years (Edwards/Plax/Holmes) on WRs and have made no serious effort to draft a RB. So at RB we have a non-drafted starter backed up by a free agent bust and a RB who got cut by the Packers. You reap what you sow.i think they took for granted that they could just draft c. humes and plug him in also. if lendale white wasnt plan A, then i thought michael robinson shouldve been plan B.

i wonder if white was the initial plan A but the pre draft day rumors of him smoking pot scared them off and had them scrap their draftboard.

but to just take jeromes 10-12 carries a game and thin youre gonna give them to a rookie wr and the rest of the wr corp is just retarded and so anti-steelers.

when ben crashed his motorcycle i think he shouldve had his new toys taken away and the leash been put back on.

Atlanta Dan
10-12-2006, 12:51 PM
Of course the crash was after the draft. If that crash happened in March I think you would have seen a very different draft day approach.

After his playoff perfomances (he bombed in the SB but I attribute that to Ben realizing where he was at age 24). Ben appeared ready to a make the leap to 1 of the top 5 QBs in the NFL. This season is a bust so far - maybe it will teach him it always ain't easy and force him to take better care of himself and spend more time studying the game.

Big D
10-12-2006, 01:17 PM
I have to agree that willie parker isnt the running back for us. The steelers need a running back that runs consistently and that is not willie parker. I said it on draft day and i'll say it again drafting s holmes over lendale white was a big mistake. What i've seen this year is a lack of leadership and a lack of accountability.
Over the past 15 years i've been at times a critic of bill cowher. I will be widely bashed for this but I think Cowher has already quit on us and whisenhunt doesnt have what it takes to be our leader. This ladies and gentleman is not a 1-3 team. We havent seen leadership in the locker room from our players. This year has been made with major decisions. The biggest one bringing ben back before he was ready. Cowher has made selfish moves the past 6 months that benefit his last season with the steelers not looking out for the future of the steelers franchise
DJ

augustashark
10-12-2006, 01:19 PM
i just read that post. in the offseason there was so much talk about getting ben weapons, opening it up for ben, letting ben call audibles, and trying to turn ben into c. palmer or p. manning. it seems the coaches left steelers football on the sideline and became preoccupied with keeping the franchise player happy and focussing on being able to win games that were shootouts rather than smashmouth defensive ball.

drafting s. holmes over l. white was a huge mistake, especially when you see wr's like h. baskett and m. coulston (ufa and 7th rounder) doing what theyre doing. of course im biassed for unm's baskett, and taking a wr that late is risky. but i want to know what was seen in duce that allowed the steelers to pass on white if he hasnt even seen the field yet.

I see your point, but I disagree. White is playing behind a burn out in Tenn and would be 3rd on the depth chart (where he started the year) if not for Chris Brown and all of his injuries. Parker IMO is good enough to carry the load (which you've pointed out earlier in this thread). Yes we need a power back to spell Willie and to pick up the 3rd and short, I think that Davenport can handle that spot. I think Holmes is going to be a very good WR and a great deep threat who could help Ben in his progression immensely.

Too me it comes down to Holmes vs. Wilson not Holmes vs. White.

Ward, Holmes, Parker, Davenport and Ben is better than Ward, Wilson, Paker, White and Ben.

tony hipchest
10-12-2006, 01:33 PM
I have to agree that willie parker isnt the running back for us. The steelers need a running back that runs consistently and that is not willie parker. DJ

its not willie parker who has been inconsistant. it the coaches and the rest of the running game. you have 2 games where willie runs the ball 30+ times himself and then 2 other games where the steelers rush it less than 20 times as a team. he cant change that sitting on the bench as the coaches try to keep him fresh for a playoff run that may never happen.

Big D
10-12-2006, 01:35 PM
its not willie parker who has been inconsistant. it the coaches and the rest of the running game. you have 2 games where willie runs the ball 30+ times himself and then 2 other games where the steelers rush it less than 20 times as a team. he cant change that sitting on the bench as the coaches try to keep him fresh for a playoff run that may never happen.

wasnt that the same problem we had in 2003 under mularkey? where we werent playing balanced football.

Atlanta Dan
10-12-2006, 02:21 PM
2003 was a train wreck that combined Cowher & Mularkey getting pass happy with Tommy turnover slinging away, Zeroue as the starting RB, and a banged up O-line that gave up run blocking (I recall one game in Denver where they were changing O-linemen play by play & Faneca played at tackle).

Whether it is poor WR quality or Ben's inconsistency, this team is passing when it simply is not there. With no credible power back (Parker has talent but not with regard to consistently running for positive yards between the tackles), the old option of going back to a smashmouth running game and then passing is not there.

The Chiefs defnse will not remind anyone of the '76 Steelers or '85 Bears. I look for a return to basics and a 60/40 run split with a lot more Davenport unless the Steelers go down by 14 points on Sunday.

tony hipchest
10-15-2006, 07:18 PM
can someone please tell me how bad willie parker wouldve sucked if you take away his 25 yd run against the chiefs?

parker- 21/109 2 td- 5 ypc (sounds good to me)

the "league best" LJ- 15/26 1td (he must only do good against weak defenses)

btw- 42 rushes vs 20 passes = 45-7 win (200+ passing yards before halftime)

MattsMe
10-15-2006, 11:11 PM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest;161659]can someone please tell me how bad willie parker wouldve sucked if you take away his 25 yd run against the chiefs?/QUOTE]

:sofunny: :sofunny: :sofunny: Bingo.

tony hipchest
10-17-2006, 02:00 PM
Here are some of my well documented thoughts on him.

As you can see there is no mention of Willie Parker 'not making it as an NFL back'.

Find me one would you Tony (I know you wont even try, what you will do is focus on another part of this post - dont worry i'll be sure to remind you)

Im afraid all this demonstrates is that you are the one who fabricates - just like you did earlier with that BS about Barry Sanders.

NM while perusing the "rudi johnson is soooo great" thread for a good laugh i stumbled across this gem that you conviniently left out of your "well documented" thoughts:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=8769&page=5

On the subject of Willie, I have already broken down his avg per carry against the dregs of the NFL that he faced in the early weeks (Houston, Tennesee etc) how he run riot against them, and how he was stopped in his tracks by better quality run D.

The results were pretty conclusive.

Im a fan of Willie - I love his upside.

But compared to Rudi he is just a flash in the pan - this season wil tell us alot more about Fast Willie.

a "flash in the pan", huh...?

Ha ha.

Hiding behind technicalities as usual..

Ok let me use the exact wording.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

You know you can't and all this BS regarding the 'fine posters of SF' shows how weak your position is.

Thats all I ask, for once, show me where I said that.

I have only ever commented on the fact he hasnt done it in the past against good run D on a consistent basis.

Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

If you can't it just makes you a troll, and a bad one at that.

Get your facts straight.

NM

so what you were really saying was that willie parker is:

Something which disappoints by failing to deliver anything of value, despite a showy beginning.
someone who enjoys transient success but then fails

An effort or person that promises great success but fails.
:busted: - you have clearly shown how you think willie will fail/has failed. if someone is failing or has failed then by definition they very well cant make it or be a real back in the nfl, correct?

another interesting phrase:
Petard: If someone is hoist with his own petard then he has been caught in his own trap; beaten with his own weapons; involved in danger he intended for others. The Petard was an ancient iron bell shaped engine of war which was filled with gun powder. It was hoisted, usually on a tripod, onto gates, barricades etc. to blow them up. The danger was that it would explode prematurely and involve the engineer who had fired it.

thanks though, for the "argument", the tirade, the accusations, and the name calling. i believe the "facts" are straight now. :jammin:



















[/QUOTE]

Livinginthe past
10-17-2006, 02:17 PM
Firstly, plenty of other posters expressed doubt whether Willie could carry the load this year for the Steelers - only it seems that, typically for you, you are obsessed with tracking down my every thought on the subject in the hope you can win some battle that takes place mostly in your own mind.

Now those bits you quoted, I stand by, up until this season Willie had to prove he could get the job done against decent opposition.

I dont want to have to drag up last years stats yet again - but they clearly demonstrate that a large percentage of Willie yards came against very poor opposition.

Maybe 'flash in the pan' wasn't strictly accurate - its pretty obvious from the rest of that very same post that I dont think he is a bust - instead of being so pedantic you probably need to apply a little context to my comments.

After all, if I dissected your every post like that; we would be here all day with your awful spelling, syntax and grammar.

I never said that Willie wouldnt make it, just that he hadn't proved to me (over last year and the early part of this) that he was elite because he put up big numbers against poor teams.

The desperation you demonstrate trying to make these points is pretty cringe-worthy - its pretty clear to everyone reading this thread that I haven't disrespected Willie.

NM

tony hipchest
10-17-2006, 02:30 PM
- its pretty clear to everyone reading this thread that I haven't disrespected Willie.

NM but that is not the point. it is me who you've disrespected.

but you were right. i wouldnt go through every one of your posts to show where you called willie a "flash in the pan" (to be precisely correct). that is why i paraphrased. like i said i stumbled across it reading through a thread in the blast furnace i have been actively posting in.

wasnt it you who desperately went through all your posts and listed your "well documented thoughts" on him, conviniently leaving 1 critical thought out (that he was a failure / "flash in the pan")?

anyways i provided you with what you asked for. something you said i couldnt do because i had fabricated it.

i wouldnt even bring it up but i was worried you might have everyone convinced i was a troll on my own forum. :rolleyes: :chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-17-2006, 04:20 PM
Firstly, plenty of other posters expressed doubt whether Willie could carry the load this year for the Steelers - only it seems that, typically for you, you are obsessed with tracking down my every thought on the subject in the hope you can win some battle that takes place mostly in your own mind.


I never said that Willie wouldnt make it, just that he hadn't proved to me (over last year and the early part of this) that he was elite because he put up big numbers against poor teams.

The desperation you demonstrate trying to make these points is pretty cringe-worthy

NM

how did i track down your every thought on the subject? i found one post you made. you know, the one you said didnt exist. the one you practically begged for? and now that its produced you wanna backtrack and blame it on "plenty of other posters [who] expressed doubt? you never said that willie wouldnt make it? oh, ok. you just called him a "flash in the pan" instead. same difference.

so anyways who's obsessed here?Find me one would you Tony (I know you wont even try, what you will do is focus on another part of this post - dont worry i'll be sure to remind you)
Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

You know you can't and all this BS regarding the 'fine posters of SF' shows how weak your position is.


Thats all I ask, for once, show me where I said that.
Show me where I said he cant be a real back in the nfl.

If you can't it just makes you a troll, and a bad one at that.

Get your facts straight.

You have just shown everybody what you are - a troll on your own forum.

As expected, and predicted, you couldnt produce evidence that I ever said that Willie couldnt make it as an NFL back.

You have absolutely nothing, as usual - even on a thread you started you can't produce anything resembling a decent argument.

When I ask you to quote specifics you can't.

You seriously think people reading this are falling for your refusal to quote me saying things you attributed to me?
You've just been made to look the two-faced liar that you are.


:screwy: yes, you are definitely obsessed and in denial. atleast ive cleared my name and concisely shown who the 2 faced liar really is. see what your repetitive goading got you? hoist with your own petard. :chuckle: