PDA

View Full Version : Steelers have "the look?"


I-Want-Troy's-Hair
10-17-2006, 11:31 AM
Uh-oh: Steelers had that look again against Chiefs
Oct. 16, 2006 - By Clark Judge

I know it's only one game, but I'd beware of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

They didn't just beat the Kansas City Chiefs, they humiliated them. And they did it the way they buried teams in the past: by pounding them with the run, then finishing them off with perfectly thrown passes.


Big Ben didn't do much vs. K.C., but he doesn't have to for Pittsburgh. (Getty Images)
Sure, quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was terrific, but he only threw 19 passes, for crying out loud. He was good when he had to be, which is how the Steelers like to play. They're not about Big Ben, they're about hammering you with a physical defense and a relentless rushing attack.

And that's how they destroyed Kansas City.

Of course, all the postgame talk was about Roethlisberger, his first win and his first touchdown passes of the year. OK fine, but the guy has showed improvement dating back to the second half of the club's loss to Cincinnati. I know there were a couple of hiccups in San Diego, but the Chargers are an aggressive, intimidating defense that make a lot of quarterbacks look bad.

"What I liked most is that he handled that little bit of adversity, stood up, didn't run away from it and was accountable," said offensive coordinator Ken Whisenhunt. "When you have a quarterback with an accountability factor, it's always good to see him weather the storm."

But it's not as if he hasn't done this before. Go back to last season when Roethlisberger bowed out with a knee injury, then returned for a Monday night road game and a Sunday afternoon follow up against Cincinnati at home. He wasn't sharp, and neither were the Steelers, losing both as Roethlisberger threw five interceptions.

Now, fast forward to this year when Roethlisberger returned for a Monday night loss in Jacksonville, followed by a Sunday matinee with Cincinnati in Pittsburgh. While he was better against the Bengals, he still wasn't himself, throwing -- you guessed it -- five interceptions in two losses.

Still, he pulled out of his funk -- just as he did a year ago when the Steelers waxed Chicago at home, with Roethlisberger completing 13 of 20 passes. This time he tried one fewer pass against the Chiefs, but the results were the same.

Pittsburgh picked itself off the mat.

Now we get to see what it means when the Steelers go to Atlanta, where the Falcons are wobbling after losing two of three. A year ago, Pittsburgh moved on to another indoor venue, Minnesota, and took care of the Vikings, with Roethlisberger throwing 15 times -- which may be this weekend's script.

Remember, he's not the lead actor here. The Steelers don't need him to be Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb to win. In fact, in Pittsburgh's four victories to close the 2005 regular season, Big Ben never threw more than 20 passes and only once threw for more than 173 yards.

No, this is more about the Steelers and what they can do as a team -- and what they did to Kansas City was shred it with an attack that has been the hallmark of Pittsburgh clubs for decades. That's why I'd be careful of these guys. They've been through this before and didn't just survive, they won a Super Bowl.

I'm not saying that happens here. What I am saying is that the Steelers aren't in as much trouble as people think. Let's just say Pittsburgh beats the Falcons to reach .500. Then what? Then they knock off Oakland on Oct. 29 and remain no worse than a loss behind Cincinnati and Baltimore in the AFC North when they face Denver at home on Nov. 5.

Advertisement


And that's where we find out about this club.

But forget about Denver. The subject is Pittsburgh, and the Steelers finally are out of their rut. So the Chiefs aren't one of the best clubs out there. They're not one of the worst, either. In fact, they had the league's third-ranked defense before they were ravaged for 457 yards by Pittsburgh.

Which is precisely the point: Pittsburgh won the way it's used to winning. It ran the ball. It controlled the line of scrimmage. It controlled the clock. It dominated on defense. It made few mistakes. And when it passed, it passed effectively.

I know there's a lot of talk about Roethlisberger, but this goes far beyond what he's able to do. There's the play of running back Willie Parker. And the defense. And, most important, an offensive line that protects Big Ben and opens the door for Parker.

In short, the line is back to where it should be after a dreadful performance against Jacksonville. The key for Pittsburgh is what happens up front, and what happened there Sunday was that the Steelers dominated their opponent so completely you wonder if this is the springboard they've been looking for.

All I know is that Pittsburgh's much-maligned offense was back on track and a defense that was missing one of its premier performers, linebacker Joey Porter, just scored as many touchdowns (one) as it allowed. So be careful, people, before writing this team off.

The Steelers do things in bunches, running the table after falling to 7-5 last season and winning 15 of 16 the year before. You don't want to play them when they're hot, and it's too soon to tell if they are -- but the signs aren't good for upcoming opponents.

"Hey, it's only one game," said Whisenhunt. "It was big for us, but the key will be if we can sustain it. One game doesn't mean anything."

But it could. It did a year ago.

Ohio Steeler
10-17-2006, 12:12 PM
I will say we looked alot better then we have however we where playing a bad KC team

SteelerFanInCA
10-17-2006, 12:16 PM
I will say we looked alot better then we have however we where playing a bad KC team

Bad KC team? I'm not really sure KC was all that bad. Yeah they were missing Treen Green on the O but I thought their Defense was still one of the better ones in the league.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
10-17-2006, 12:21 PM
Bad KC team? I'm not really sure KC was all that bad. Yeah they were missing Treen Green on the O but I thought their Defense was still one of the better ones in the league.

Don't remember if it was in this article or another I was reading but the KC defense was ranked 3rd in the league. So they can't be that bad.

BigJen
10-17-2006, 12:43 PM
KC is not a playoff caliber team without Green at QB and their defense is ranked 11th.

steelcurtain09
10-17-2006, 12:47 PM
KC is not a playoff caliber team without Green at QB and their defense is ranked 11th.

wht bout b4 the game
i thought they were ranked higher
after we picked them apart they r 11

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
10-17-2006, 03:16 PM
KC is not a playoff caliber team without Green at QB and their defense is ranked 11th.


Their defense was ranked 3rd pre-steeler game but is now ranked 11th post steeler game...quote from article....

"So the Chiefs aren't one of the best clubs out there. They're not one of the worst, either. In fact, they had the league's third-ranked defense before they were ravaged for 457 yards by Pittsburgh. "

Matter of fact that was all I heard before and at the beginning of the game on how good KC's defense was and how they were going to take advantage of Ben :blah: :blah: :blah:

Stlrs4Life
10-17-2006, 05:31 PM
I thought they had a pretty good defense also. I'd say they are hurting without Trent Green though.

HometownGal
10-17-2006, 07:01 PM
The KC D is a pretty good unit collectively, so I think the Steelers offensive domination of them is something to shout about. Their OL sucks, though, and that is one of their biggest weaknesses in addition to Trent not being in the lineup.

It's great to see that someone from the NFL media finally gets it...:jammin: :jammin:

No, this is more about the Steelers and what they can do as a team -- and what they did to Kansas City was shred it with an attack that has been the hallmark of Pittsburgh clubs for decades. That's why I'd be careful of these guys. They've been through this before and didn't just survive, they won a Super Bowl.

Black@Gold Forever32
10-17-2006, 07:03 PM
I'm just taking one game at a time. The Falcons are the only concern.

BirdKC
10-17-2006, 08:48 PM
You didn't face a "bad kc team". You faced a Decent KC team..who had a bad day. They were ranked 4th in total defense before that game. (and have played some good offenses.)

Not having trent makes the chiefs pretty limited.

I'm not saying the Steelers didn't play well, because they did... but don't assume the team is terrible based off of one game.

Black@Gold Forever32
10-17-2006, 08:54 PM
You didn't face a "bad kc team". You faced a Decent KC team..who had a bad day. They were ranked 4th in total defense before that game. (and have played some good offenses.)

Not having trent makes the chiefs pretty limited.

I'm not saying the Steelers didn't play well, because they did... but don't assume the team is terrible based off of one game.

I don't think the Chiefs are a terrible football team. The Chiefs are alot better with Trent Green starting at QB. But still the Chiefs are still a decent team without him. Alot better then the 45-7 score indicated. Plus the Steelers just came out and fired on all cylinders. The Steelers are the Super Bowl Champs for a reason.

BirdKC
10-17-2006, 08:59 PM
I don't think the Chiefs are a terrible football team. The Chiefs are alot better with Trent Green starting at QB. But still the Chiefs are still a decent team without him. Alot better then the 45-7 score indicated. Plus the Steelers just came out and fired on all cylinders. The Steelers are the Super Bowl Champs for a reason.

My name is BirdKC and I approve this message.
Paid for by the People Who Defend the Chiefs but Still Think the Steelers are Really Good Organization.

Preacher
10-18-2006, 01:18 AM
My name is BirdKC and I approve this message.
Paid for by the People Who Defend the Chiefs but Still Think the Steelers are Really Good Organization.

OH........ PLEASE...

I have had enough of election year already!! :dang:

Actually....I agree.. I wonder if KC overlooked Pitt a bit, seeing as how Pitt was 1-3 coming into the game.

Steel Pit
10-18-2006, 02:15 AM
Pittsburgh did exactly what they should have done to Kansas City. They soundly beat an inferior team. They scored a few more points than I expected them to score but the outcome of the game was no big suprise.

When the Steelers play up to their potential, I don't see anyone beating them as was evident by last seasons 8 game winning streak. Sure they're only 2-3 but the KC game was the first time this season that the Steelers actually played up to their potential.

Imagine if the Steelers would have lost to the Jaguars, Bengals and Chargers while playing at full potential. If that were the case then we would have to write them off based on the fact they they played their best game but it just wasn't good enough. I'm thrilled that they played like crap during their 3 losses. Hell they actually played like total crap and yet they still had opportunities to win each of the 3 games.

We all know that the bottom line is that when the Steelers play their game, NO ONE can beat them.:thumbsup:

SteelersWoman
10-18-2006, 02:31 AM
We all know that the bottom line is that when the Steelers play their game, NO ONE can beat them.:thumbsup:

That's for sure! :cheer:

Couldn't have said it better myself :tt02:

Tankus_Maximus
10-18-2006, 10:45 AM
I was watching KC's secondary, particularly Ty Law & Patrick Surtain...those guys made a career from picking off QB's, so it was encouraging to see Ben succeed against them. Plus, Damon Huard was getting alot of pub for leading the Chiefs to some victories..so I'll take what we can get.

Next up..Project: Dirty Bird.

sumo
10-18-2006, 11:51 AM
When the Steelers are healthy - they can beat anybody in the league -- they are very close right now ....