PDA

View Full Version : steelers playbook vs. O-coords vs. personnel


tony hipchest
02-12-2007, 07:04 PM
so we hear bruce arians has streamlined an offensive playbook that has been a hogdgpoge of plays assembled over the past 15+ years and 7 or so coordinators.

today i hear that mike mularkey will be taking a demotion in miami from o-coord to TE coach (once again). look at erhardt, gailey, gilbride, sherman, mularkey, etc. they all have been quickly demoted after leaving the steelers, for higher or latteral positions.

we never had top notch offensive players but we always had a top offensive philosophy. was cowher the glue that held the offense together? it sure doesnt seem to be the coordinators, and plenty of players who left suggest it wasnt them.

i think keeping the playbook and someone familiar with the philosophy will be integral to future success.

polamalufan43
02-12-2007, 07:19 PM
I think we should keep some parts of the playbook. Some parts as brought us success in the past. But I also think that we should think of new ways to improve that. This will make our offensive play much better.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

tony hipchest
02-12-2007, 07:26 PM
I think we should keep some parts of the playbook. Some parts as brought us success in the past. But I also think that we should think of new ways to improve that. This will make our offensive play much better.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:thats what i think arians is doing, and with the mix of 15 years of plays to pick and chose from, our personnel, a strong defense, and a new head coach that has already given him the freedom to streamline, i think he could find good success.

the point is, regardless of the multitude of offensive changes, and cowher being primarily a defensive minded coach, him and that big old thick playbook seem to have been the glue that partially kept us with the best winning percentage during his tenure.

i can see where the offense got a bit obtuse and at times there was probably "paralysis by over analysis".

MACH1
02-12-2007, 07:27 PM
I think we need to change it to fit the players we have, such as Willie for example. A lot of the running plays were geared more to a Bettis type running game. And mix things up more so were not so predictable.

polamalufan43
02-12-2007, 07:29 PM
I think we need to change it to fit the players we have, such as Willie for example. A lot of the running plays were geared more to a Bettis type running game. And mix things up more so were not so predictable.

That's other point. Bettis was more of a back that plowed through people and all that was left of them were cleets and blood. Willie is more of a back that he his behind you one second, and the next he's in the endzone. I'm not a playbook expert, so I don't really know how to change that except to have the O-line open up more holes and get larger lanes to run.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Stlrs4Life
02-12-2007, 07:32 PM
Now that you look back, it makes us look pretty stupid.

MACH1
02-12-2007, 07:37 PM
That's other point. Bettis was more of a back that plowed through people and all that was left of them were cleets and blood. Willie is more of a back that he his behind you one second, and the next he's in the endzone. I'm not a playbook expert, so I don't really know how to change that except to have the O-line open up more holes and get larger lanes to run.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Not sure thats why I'm not the coach.:smile: But try to create more cut backs, get a better o-line(they didnt exactly over achieve this year). Block somebody and protect the qb, for starters.

tony hipchest
02-12-2007, 07:47 PM
Now that you look back, it makes us look pretty stupid.lol. makes you wonder huh? is it just a coincidence our o-line stinks when we put in a zeoroue or parker as the primary back? after all the philosophy and playbood was designed and built upon for a morris, foster, jerome, duce type of back. thats the scheme that is taught and thats what they mainly practice for 15 years.

blocking for maddox is way different than blocking for stewart (who could take it to the house on any given DESIGNED run).

so does our o-line personnel suddenly suck or do they just need the playbook to be stramlined and to be taught the adjusted techniques?

keep in mind players like ross, vincent, foster, thigpen, bruener, o'donnell, etc. who were supposed to leave for greener pastures and be better off for it.

also keep in mind we have always had a decent offense but not necessarily top players at many positions.

RoethlisBURGHer
02-12-2007, 08:16 PM
I like the idea of toning-down the playbook.

A huge,super-thick playbook can be more of a problem than a helping hand.There are so many plays to memorize,one can easily get confused and think a reciever is supposed to run such-and-such a route when it's a different play he runs that route.So you throw the ball to where you think a reciever is gonna be,and he's over somewhere else.Does this sound like O'Donnel in SB XXX?

If it's simplified,it will make it easier on the players.Yes,we will call some runs between the tackles...but I think BA is gonna thin out the power runs in the playbook and add or keep the runs that will use Parker's speed.

We will see a new offense in Pittsburgh this year.I think it will be more balanced than in year's past where we were either run-heavy or pass-heavy.

Dylan
02-13-2007, 08:10 PM
Whatever plays they make will work out. we have great talented players that can do any type of plays the coaches throw out to them

yinzer-inseattle
02-18-2007, 01:49 PM
First let me say to tony hipchest this is a great topic. I'm surprised it got buried below some of the other threads.

I'm shocked that Cowher let the play book get like that. If the philosophy is no nonsense smashed mouthed football (with a dash of gimmickery) one would think you would not need a huge play book for that.

Having guys focused, not over thinking and executing will hopefully lead to more wins and another shot at the SB.

tony hipchest
02-18-2007, 02:26 PM
First let me say to tony hipchest this is a great topic. I'm surprised it got buried below some of the other threads.

I'm shocked that Cowher let the play book get like that. If the philosophy is no nonsense smashed mouthed football (with a dash of gimmickery) one would think you would not need a huge play book for that.

Having guys focused, not over thinking and executing will hopefully lead to more wins and another shot at the SB.thanks yinzer. i thought it was a very conversation worthy, off season topic. kinda suprised it got buried myself.

i tend to agree that cowher didnt need a playbook busting at the seams. no wonder its so tough to get our rookies any playing time.

slashsteel
02-18-2007, 06:02 PM
I'm shocked that Cowher let the play book get like that.


Just because they are watering it down doesn't mean it won't be as complex. First even though the book was of good size. Who is to say they didn't grab plays from it and work on it over and over again. We hear that the book will get watered down, and we assume that it was too complex for our team. I am not thinking that they studyed the whole book on a week to week basis. But who knows. I do know that "complex" book won us a SB.

But with taking away I am sure they will add. They need to. Bottom line is they need to go with their bread and butter plays sprinkle in a few wrinkles and be proficient without the fumbling bumbling stumbling INT prone errors that made our year go down the tube.