PDA

View Full Version : Bob Smizik: Parker is not the Steelers' No. 1 problem


83-Steelers-43
12-26-2006, 11:07 PM
Bob Smizik: Parker is not the Steelers' No. 1 problem
Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

An abundance of criticism has been directed at the Steelers this season, and understandably so considering their 7-8 record after winning the Super Bowl.

Somewhat strangely, though, that criticism has come to include the running back position. It's strange because running back would appear to be one of the team's strengths. Willie Parker is in his second year as a starter. He has run for 1,360 yards, the fourth-best season in Steelers history. If he runs for 72 yards Sunday against the Cincinnati Bengals, he'll own the third-best season in franchise history. What's more, he is sixth in the NFL in rushing and third in the AFC.

What's not to like about that?

It's the feast-or-famine approach that Parker brings to the Steelers' offense that spurs criticism. One week, he's running for 213 yards, the next week for 46. He has had two 200-yard games, one in which he set the team's all-time record. But he also has had games of 20, 26 and 49 yards. He doesn't consistently move the sticks like his predecessor, Jerome Bettis, did.

It is this lack of consistency, that his critics -- and this column has been one of them -- insist is Parker's drawback and, because he plays for a team that keys its success on controlling the ball, his downfall.

Here are some other numbers that might prove interesting in this discussion: 134, 8, 133, 39, 128, 42. Those figures represent the best and worst games for Bettis in 2000, his last great season with the Steelers.

Inconsistency does not belong solely to Parker.

That's not to say he is a Bettis is terms of consistency. He is not. It is to show few backs continually churn out one good game after another.

Bill Cowher, who may or may not be determining who will be the Steelers' lead running back in 2007, has no problem with Parker. Asked at his news conference yesterday about whether Parker's style fit the ball-control offense he has long adhered to, Cowher said, "I think he's a good back. I don't know if there's a prototype back you need for this offense. I don't look at that as being the issue. If you're going to look at this year and reflect, it still comes back to turning the ball over."

The main argument in favor of Parker continuing as the Steelers' lead runner is -- duh! -- they won the Super Bowl with him in that role.

Sure, Bettis was there to help. But Bettis' role in the Steelers' 2006 season is somewhat overrated. Yes, he was a big contributor, but nowhere near what Parker was. Parker ran for 1,202 yards, Bettis for 368. Much of Bettis' yardage came in the second half when he was on the field as the power back who could consistently move the sticks. It was Parker who was on the field most of the time in the first half when the Steelers were assuming those leads they could protect with conservative play in the second half.

One of the positives that Bettis brought to the team was the ability to spell Parker at various points in the game. Parker carried 255 times last season. He already has run 300 times this season. Najeh Davenport has performed adequately as Parker's backup, but he is not Bettis and not the answer in 2007.

"You do need to monitor him [Parker]," Cowher said, "and I think we were able to do that somewhat this season.''

But not enough. Parker is 5 feet 10, 209 pounds, and it's asking a lot of him to carry 300 times in a season. The only backs in Steelers history to do that are Bettis (four times), Franco Harris (twice), and Barry Foster (once). All were considerably bigger than Parker.

Parker's carries need to be reduced, which makes finding a suitable backup an offseason priority. The Steelers thought they had such a player in Duce Staley, but Cowher and his staff misjudged his ability. He showed in training camp he could not handle the job, and Davenport was brought in after the first game. Generally speaking, players available at that point in the season are not ideal replacements.

"I do believe you need more than one back in this business if you're going to run the football and do it through a 16-game schedule," Cowher said.

Bettis was the model guy in support of Parker. He was a future Hall of Famer, but one who was willing to accept a subordinate role at the end of his career. Finding someone so ideally suited to back up Parker will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

If such a player can't be found, the Steelers will have to struggle along with a fourth-year running back who already is one of the best in franchise history and a key performer in their Super Bowl season. Clearly, this team has larger problems than at running back.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06361/749138-194.stm

Preacher
12-27-2006, 12:31 AM
A sportscaster that makes sense?

:jawdrop:

MJ5150
12-27-2006, 01:03 AM
OK, all of the folks who think Willie is the problem get in line. That way, I can bop you all in the head at once!!

-Mike

klick81
12-27-2006, 02:42 AM
I don't know what this guy has to do. I mean...i guess he should be knocking down guys twice his size and passing as well.

Preacher
12-27-2006, 04:58 AM
I don't know what this guy has to do. I mean...i guess he should be knocking down guys twice his size and passing as well.

No silly rabbit... that is Bens job!

Oh wait... and blocking and running too. Cause after all, this season is all Ben's fault.

did you know he ran back kickoffs and was a DB too?

MJ5150
12-27-2006, 05:05 AM
did you know he ran back kickoffs and was a DB too?

As soon as Cowher gets out of here, let's make Willie the coach. :smile:

I think he would be the first player/coach in the modern era of football.

-Mike

stillers4me
12-27-2006, 05:24 AM
No, Coaching is Ben's job!

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-27-2006, 05:57 AM
No, Coaching is Ben's job!

Well..if the truth is told...Willie was directly involved in Bens accident and should have done more to prevent Bens appendectomy:flap:

clevestinks
12-27-2006, 08:03 AM
It's the feast-or-famine approach that Parker brings to the Steelers' offense that spurs criticism. One week, he's running for 213 yards, the next week for 46.

Wasn`t that our entire teams problem this season? It was feast or famine all year! In Parkers defense, he didnt run well at times, like against the ratbirds twice, but tose same games our defense couldnt stop anybody either. Some of his "famine" games we were playing catch up from the open whistle, so that takes our running game out of the picture anyway!

tony hipchest
12-27-2006, 09:00 AM
That's not to say he is a Bettis is terms of consistency. He is not. It is to show few backs continually churn out one good game after another.


ive been saying this for 2 seasons now. out of all backs drafted in the last 5 years i think i would only trade willie for l. johnson and s. jackson. maybe 1 or 2 more (like r. bush) but no one else really jumps out.

SteelCityMan786
12-27-2006, 10:33 AM
Parker definantly is not the no.1 problem.

Parker has had problems when trying to make the big runs because the O Line has had problems this year with their blocking and picking up some opposing schemes. Hopefully they figure something out and pull off a big win on Sunday that eventually leads to the great rise in 2007 for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Livinginthe past
12-27-2006, 10:43 AM
It's the feast-or-famine approach that Parker brings to the Steelers' offense that spurs criticism. One week, he's running for 213 yards, the next week for 46.

Wasn`t that our entire teams problem this season? It was feast or famine all year! In Parkers defense, he didnt run well at times, like against the ratbirds twice, but tose same games our defense couldnt stop anybody either. Some of his "famine" games we were playing catch up from the open whistle, so that takes our running game out of the picture anyway!

The way I see it you are going to face teams that are set out to stop the run - teams like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and New England.

When you face these teams you have to have a plan B to go to, and the players who can execute that secondary plan.

As an example i'll use the Patriots against Minnesota and Jacksonville.

The Patriots basic formation is 2WR, 2TE, 1RB - but against Jacksonville they played only 6 out of 67 offensive snaps (not including kneel downs) in this formation.

The offense spent most of the day in a spread formation with 3 or 4 WR's and sometimes no RB - and they moved the ball successfully against a very good defense.

Willie Parker isnt going to find success bashing up the middle against these teams, even if it is the Steeler way - they should find ways to get the ball to him but out in the flat or even lined up as a WR.

When you play a team as good as Baltimore you can stay with the run, but you have to offer a genuine threat of doing something else on 1st down, instead of leaving your QB in 3rd and long all day against a team with a reputation for sacking QB's.

NM

Stillers#1
12-27-2006, 10:47 AM
Parker definantly is not the no.1 problem.



Nor is Parker a problem at all. The problem with the running game is the O-line. Not even the Bus would be gaining yards if he was getting hit 2 yards deep every other run. People need to get off of this kids jock. Willie can be an every game 100 yard back, if he has an average O-line, but right now, our line is just hideous. Those 200 yard games, were all Willie, they were him breaking big runs, and getting into the open. Just think what his YPC would be if he was getting the 4 yard runs on a regular basis.

Black@Gold Forever32
12-27-2006, 02:20 PM
The way I see it you are going to face teams that are set out to stop the run - teams like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and New England.

When you face these teams you have to have a plan B to go to, and the players who can execute that secondary plan.

As an example i'll use the Patriots against Minnesota and Jacksonville.

The Patriots basic formation is 2WR, 2TE, 1RB - but against Jacksonville they played only 6 out of 67 offensive snaps (not including kneel downs) in this formation.

The offense spent most of the day in a spread formation with 3 or 4 WR's and sometimes no RB - and they moved the ball successfully against a very good defense.

Willie Parker isnt going to find success bashing up the middle against these teams, even if it is the Steeler way - they should find ways to get the ball to him but out in the flat or even lined up as a WR.

When you play a team as good as Baltimore you can stay with the run, but you have to offer a genuine threat of doing something else on 1st down, instead of leaving your QB in 3rd and long all day against a team with a reputation for sacking QB's.

NM

Great post LITP and I agree bigtime.

Preacher
12-27-2006, 04:11 PM
The way I see it you are going to face teams that are set out to stop the run - teams like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and New England.

When you face these teams you have to have a plan B to go to, and the players who can execute that secondary plan.

As an example i'll use the Patriots against Minnesota and Jacksonville.

The Patriots basic formation is 2WR, 2TE, 1RB - but against Jacksonville they played only 6 out of 67 offensive snaps (not including kneel downs) in this formation.

The offense spent most of the day in a spread formation with 3 or 4 WR's and sometimes no RB - and they moved the ball successfully against a very good defense.

Willie Parker isnt going to find success bashing up the middle against these teams, even if it is the Steeler way - they should find ways to get the ball to him but out in the flat or even lined up as a WR.

When you play a team as good as Baltimore you can stay with the run, but you have to offer a genuine threat of doing something else on 1st down, instead of leaving your QB in 3rd and long all day against a team with a reputation for sacking QB's.

NM


Excellent post. That is why I just shake my head when people are talking about expending a number one pick for a "Bettis type back" or a "Bruising Back."

People, we were able to run against teams that were set up to stop the pass. We were NOT able to run against teams that are set up to stop the run. Look back at Bettis' numbers. He had bad games too. We need to be able to go 3, 4, 5 wide against those teams. Run first, run always, will not win in the NFL. Want proof... look at the SB team last year... we passed just as much as ran in the first half... spread the Offense.

i

RoethlisBURGHer
12-28-2006, 01:26 PM
Parker is not the problem.

Who the hell can run if the line can't open up any holes?

Who the hell can run when we are down by 14 after 1 possesion?

I'm sorry,but Willie Parker doesn't also play QB,DB,OL,and OLB.

The only backs I would trade Willie P. for is Larry Johnson (just my kind of RB) and L.T. (he can do it all).

NV STEELERS 723
12-28-2006, 08:40 PM
The way I see it you are going to face teams that are set out to stop the run - teams like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and New England.

When you face these teams you have to have a plan B to go to, and the players who can execute that secondary plan.

As an example i'll use the Patriots against Minnesota and Jacksonville.

The Patriots basic formation is 2WR, 2TE, 1RB - but against Jacksonville they played only 6 out of 67 offensive snaps (not including kneel downs) in this formation.

The offense spent most of the day in a spread formation with 3 or 4 WR's and sometimes no RB - and they moved the ball successfully against a very good defense.

Willie Parker isnt going to find success bashing up the middle against these teams, even if it is the Steeler way - they should find ways to get the ball to him but out in the flat or even lined up as a WR.

When you play a team as good as Baltimore you can stay with the run, but you have to offer a genuine threat of doing something else on 1st down, instead of leaving your QB in 3rd and long all day against a team with a reputation for sacking QB's.

NM


Seems to me like we did that last year in the playoffs when we beat Indy and Denver... we passed, we passed, and we passed...on the first series w/ Indy we went down the field in 7 plays ? and scored...passing it the whole time....

I get frustrated w/ our pass defense.... it sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!