PDA

View Full Version : Onside Kick... Makes sense?


Pages : [1] 2

Preacher
12-20-2009, 06:36 PM
Ok, think about it.

2 minutes left. With the way the offense and defense have been playing today.

Do you want the Defense to be on the field trying not to lose the game (Which they have repeatedly failed at)

Or the Offense on the field trying to win it... ?


Onside kick makes a little more sense when you are thinking of time.

Bobby_Walden
12-20-2009, 06:42 PM
No. Retarded call.

Simply amazing.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 06:45 PM
No. Retarded call.

Simply amazing.

So.

We have the ball, driving for the win, instead of being driven ON for the loss....


you would REALLY want our defense out there righ tnow? Really?

Preacher
12-20-2009, 06:48 PM
AHEM

RoethlisBURGHer
12-20-2009, 06:48 PM
So.

We have the ball, driving for the win, instead of being driven ON for the loss....


you would REALLY want our defense out there righ tnow? Really?

Not really. Not with the way our secondary has played today (and most of the season).

But they ended up on the field anyways, with a short field, and gave up the TD.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 06:52 PM
Not really. Not with the way our secondary has played today (and most of the season).

But they ended up on the field anyways, with a short field, and gave up the TD.

Yes, and then gave our Offense the chance to win it.

I was willing to take that chance. . . I think that was a very smart call.


And lo and behold...IT WAS

Sharkissle29
12-20-2009, 06:54 PM
I dont think it was a terrible call to be honest....almost worked

and why not?

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 06:54 PM
No. Retarded call.

Simply amazing.

Our defense sucks and would've probably given up the winning points to GB with about 5 seconds on the clock ala the Raiders game. Right call under the circumstances.

Atranox
12-20-2009, 06:56 PM
That call may have saved our ass. Pretty much every loss this year was due to the defense allowing opposing teams to methodically move down the field & score with no time for our offense. At least this way, it gave our offense a chance.

HometownGal
12-20-2009, 06:57 PM
I totally agreed with the call when it was attempted and I still agree with it wholeheartedly. Our secondary smells like rotten eggs and Tomlin took a risk. Besides - some of you have been B & M all season about Tomlin not taking risks so I don't want to hear your boo-hooing.

sharkweek
12-20-2009, 06:57 PM
It was an amazing call. When your D consistently collapses in the 4th Q all season long (including in this very game) if GB had the entire length of the field to drive they would have used up all 4 minutes and at least kicked a game winning FG instead of leaving the Steelers with 2 minutes to mount their own drive.

The biggest difference between this year and last was that last year we were the team with the ball at the end of the game. This game was much more like last season.

Besides, the onside was like a half yard short from actually working to true perfection, catching GB completely off guard.

fordfan485
12-20-2009, 06:58 PM
I thought the onside was a gutsy call. The one benefit is with our defense giving green bay a short field they cant milk the clock and thus not give us enough time to make that game winning drive. Without that onside kick the offense wouldnt have had 2:00 to work with

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 06:58 PM
Our defense sucks and would've probably given up the winning points to GB with about 5 seconds on the clock ala Raiders, Chiefs, Bengals, Bears, etc. game. Right call under the circumstances.

Had to add to your post...and I agree.

The on-side was gutsy, neary worked and is the ONLY way we had enough time to win it in the end, because our secondary wasn't stopping anyone, especially Aaron Rodgers who was just beginning to get hot in that game.

Godfather
12-20-2009, 06:58 PM
That call may have saved our ass. Pretty much every loss this year was due to the defense allowing opposing teams to methodically move down the field & score with no time for our offense. At least this way, it gave our offense a chance.

Exactly. I was hoping we'd do a surprise onside kick for exactly that reason.

We get the kick and we keep our defense off the field.

We don't get the kick and the inevitable Packers score happens with enough time on the clock for Ben to lead the game winning drive.

We kick away and the Packers march down the field and kick the game winner as time expires.

JCPsteelers
12-20-2009, 06:59 PM
I like it.. Anyone here who believes we would have stopped the Packers with this defense if we would have kicked off is lying through their teeth..




BTW, so if Reed kicks off and the way he's been kicking, the Packers would have gotten the ball at the 40..



Tomlin spotted them 20 yards.. Meant nothing.

steelwalls
12-20-2009, 06:59 PM
Our defense sucks and would've probably given up the winning points to GB with about 5 seconds on the clock ala the Raiders game. Right call under the circumstances.

Yeap, 22 given up in the 4th, with no inkling of slowing them down, send a message to the D.

Jaquila
12-20-2009, 07:00 PM
onside kick...makes sense?

with this embarrising Defense? YES

man those guys on the D should be ashamed!!:shake02:

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:01 PM
Oh yeah, and we won because we didn't leave ANYTHING in the bag. Including a gutsy on-side kick call.

GodofGridiron
12-20-2009, 07:02 PM
Onside kick attempt.....the 3rd most key play of the game. It was the smartest call after reviewing how porous our secondary was. Tomlin hedged his bet that if we could stop em theyd kick with a short field and if they did score which they did at least we'd have a chance in the end like some others have stated.

It worked out...all that matters and the losing streak is over. Thank you Mike Wallace.

Glace
12-20-2009, 07:02 PM
I'm sorry....in the scheme of things, I STILL say that was a horrible decision to go for the onside kick with the lead....

BUT....it worked out to the point that it looked like it was planned that way all along.

7SteelGal43
12-20-2009, 07:04 PM
No, that call didn't make sense to me at all. But, we got the "W" in a fanfreakintastic fashion, so, no harm done, eh ? :tt03:

Bobby_Walden
12-20-2009, 07:05 PM
That is funny. Up by 2 with 4 min. left. You call for the onside kick.

Wow. So you give them the ball virtually in field goal range - to take the lead.

Were only up 2.

Nice.

Okay there...

Sharkissle29
12-20-2009, 07:06 PM
Im gonna go out on a limb and actually say i liked the call......
:couch:

FacemeIke
12-20-2009, 07:07 PM
That call may have saved our ass. Pretty much every loss this year was due to the defense allowing opposing teams to methodically move down the field & score with no time for our offense. At least this way, it gave our offense a chance.


Exactly. You wont hear that from the analysts who can't see beyond their hand, but Tomlin was thinking to the final 2 minutes of the game. It allowed us to get the ball last with enough time to win the game.

Franco32Harris
12-20-2009, 07:07 PM
I thought the call made sense we either get the ball back and take time off the clock and score or we let them score quick and put our offense on the field to win the game.

Dino 6 Rings
12-20-2009, 07:07 PM
It makes as much sense as Bellicheck going for it on 4th and 2 in his own territory against the Colts.

So there you go. I argued actually that it made sense for BB to make that call in the game against the Colts...so I guess that means...

no...it was a dumb call in this game...almost worked...but still....bad call....worked out though...if we kick it deep, they get more time off the clock on their scoring drive, which then means we don't have the time at the end to score with 00:00 on the clock...so like...yeah...it is what it is...

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:08 PM
I'm sorry....in the scheme of things, I STILL say that was a horrible decision to go for the onside kick with the lead....

BUT....it worked out to the point that it looked like it was planned that way all along.


I'm convinced that if we don't do that we lose the game. No doubt in my mind that our D gives up 6+ in a drive and leave Ben and Co. no time to come back.

Glace
12-20-2009, 07:11 PM
I'm convinced that if we don't do that we lose the game. No doubt in my mind that our D gives up 6+ in a drive and leave Ben and Co. no time to come back.

I just don't think it was planned that way. Tomlin didn't come out and say "ok, onside kick, let them score, and have 2 minutes left to win"

I DO think he wanted to get the ball back into Ben's hands....but I think what happened tonight was a miracle he wasn't expecting.

It worked out though....and I'm feeling great!

BlastFurnace
12-20-2009, 07:13 PM
I totally agreed with the call when it was attempted and I still agree with it wholeheartedly. Our secondary smells like rotten eggs and Tomlin took a risk. Besides - some of you have been B & M all season about Tomlin not taking risks so I don't want to hear your boo-hooing.

Perhaps the answer is then to take all our secondary guys off the ST's :noidea:

steeltheone
12-20-2009, 07:16 PM
Terrible call..Might be the worst call i can remember a Steeler coach making. What 1st and 10 at the Steeler 39?

zulater
12-20-2009, 07:18 PM
I loved the call. It caught the Packers completely by surprise and the only reason it didn't work is because Ike inexplicably fielded the ball a foot short of the yard marker. this with the closest Packer in a backpeddle. so it was completly unneccassary.

In the end it did work anyway, because the short field was proably the only reason the Steelers were able to get the ball back with enough clock preserved to score.

Bluedust
12-20-2009, 07:19 PM
Ok, think about it.

2 minutes left. With the way the offense and defense have been playing today.

Do you want the Defense to be on the field trying not to lose the game (Which they have repeatedly failed at)

Or the Offense on the field trying to win it... ?


Onside kick makes a little more sense when you are thinking of time.

We aren't fielding a defense anymore, so I agree it was a good call.

Texasteel
12-20-2009, 07:20 PM
I'm convinced that if we don't do that we lose the game. No doubt in my mind that our D gives up 6+ in a drive and leave Ben and Co. no time to come back.

Tomlin has lost all faith in the defense.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:20 PM
I just don't think it was planned that way. Tomlin didn't come out and say "ok, onside kick, let them score, and have 2 minutes left to win"

I DO think he wanted to get the ball back into Ben's hands....but I think what happened tonight was a miracle he wasn't expecting.

It worked out though....and I'm feeling great!

No, but it was done knowing that our defense could not stop them. And I'm sure when they weighed the consequences for not getting it, they realized, well at least there'd be more time on the clock for the offense to work with.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:20 PM
Tomlin has lost all faith in the defense.

Can't say I blame him.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:20 PM
Perhaps the answer is then to take all our secondary guys off the ST's :noidea:


So your point is that the defense screwed up the Special teams too? :rofl:

BlastFurnace
12-20-2009, 07:22 PM
So your point is that the defense screwed up the Special teams too? :rofl:

I was being sarcastic with my response....but....it was a defensive starter on the ST's that screwed up that onside kick. :noidea:

supa_fly_steeler
12-20-2009, 07:24 PM
it can go either way if it worked or didn't.

was it right now, yes but i didnt like the call.

7/39/43
12-20-2009, 07:24 PM
squib kick then onside what an idiot

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:25 PM
I just don't think it was planned that way. Tomlin didn't come out and say "ok, onside kick, let them score, and have 2 minutes left to win"

I DO think he wanted to get the ball back into Ben's hands....but I think what happened tonight was a miracle he wasn't expecting.

It worked out though....and I'm feeling great!

I do, in the sense that he said. "Look. If we the ball. GREAT. If not, we hold them to a field goal. Worse case scenario, they score a TD, then we put the ball in the hands of the best player on the field today... and let them play."

I think it was a risk that he decided was worth taking. It gives us the best chance of winning... we get the ball back, hold them, or they score and we get the ball back in our hands with 2 minutes left.

X-Terminator
12-20-2009, 07:26 PM
Tony Dungy said that he thought Tomlin made the call because he didn't have confidence in his defense. A Steelers player was just interviewed on the post-game show and said the same thing. I didn't like the call and still don't, but I'm going to go with the ex-coach and the player's view on why he did it. And really, I can't blame Tomlin for doing it either.

madtowndrunkard
12-20-2009, 07:26 PM
Ok, think about it.

2 minutes left. With the way the offense and defense have been playing today.

Do you want the Defense to be on the field trying not to lose the game (Which they have repeatedly failed at)

Or the Offense on the field trying to win it... ?


Onside kick makes a little more sense when you are thinking of time.

I don't think so funny guy.

That quite possibly might be the worst play call I've ever seen.

VegasStlrFan
12-20-2009, 07:26 PM
Very risky, I'd like to think it was as calculated as some here have said, but I think we got lucky.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:26 PM
I was being sarcastic with my response....but....it was a defensive starter on the ST's that screwed up that onside kick. :noidea:

I was throwing in a bit of sarcasm too... It is interesting though that our D. is mentally making a LOT of mistakes.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:27 PM
I don't think so funny guy.

That quite possibly might be the worst play call I've ever seen.


Bet you liked the one Cowher called in the SB though. Or were you not a Steeler fan then?

GodofGridiron
12-20-2009, 07:28 PM
Tomlin was all over his coaching staff the whole game Offense and Defense. Then he steps in Special teams and Blows it. If letting teams score 'fast' makes him feel good. Then maybe hes not the right coach.

Whatever........this just shows how important Troy is to this unit. Understand one thing, with Troy in the lineup playing a FULL GAME, we are undefeated. A healthy #43 and its us vying for a first round bye instead of the Bolts. With Troy healthy the losses to Chicago, Cincy, KC, Oak, Baltimore and Cleveland are non existent and we sit at 13-1.

If we had Troy the philosophy to call that onside never enters Tomlins mind.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:28 PM
it can go either way if it worked or didn't.

was it right now, yes but i didnt like the call.


You made that abundantly clear with all of your incessant whining and "Tomlin is an idiot" crap.

Sorry your Bengals lost today.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:29 PM
I don't think so funny guy.

That quite possibly might be the worst play call I've ever seen.


Really? Did you say the same thing when Cowher did about the same with a second half kickoff in teh SB in SB XXX?

Our defense was a failure for a large part today. i think that call, in the end, probably is why we won the game.

We needed EVERY SECOND to score the TD... and I am sorry, but there is NO WAY you can tell me our defense would have stopped the Packers.

zulater
12-20-2009, 07:29 PM
So your point is that the defense screwed up the Special teams too? :rofl:

Yep Ike sure did. :doh: The Packers were so off guard the only way they get possession other than what happened is if the ball goes out of bounds.

Poor Ike is in a bad slump.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:29 PM
You made that abundantly clear with all of your incessant whining and "Tomlin is an idiot" crap.

Sorry your Bengals lost today.

Don't forget his wishing death by a truck hitting one of our players :rolleyes:

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:30 PM
Whatever........this just shows how important Troy is to this unit. Understand one thing, with Troy in the lineup playing a FULL GAME, we are undefeated. A healthy #43 and its us vying for a first round bye instead of the Bolts. With Troy healthy the losses to Chicago, Cincy, KC, Oak, Baltimore and Cleveland are non existent and we sit at 13-1.

If we had Troy the philosophy to call that onside never enters Tomlins mind.


Probably not. And why? Because there'd be no need to make any risky/drastic decisions. Nothing risked/Nothing gained.

You don't believe that was the reason G.B. scored a TD on that drive do you?

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:31 PM
Don't forget his wishing death by a truck hitting one of our players :rolleyes:


Oh that was him too? :rolleyes:

I'm thinking of a word for him and it rhymes with Jackass. ....oh wait, it was jackass. oops. :doh:

The_WARDen
12-20-2009, 07:37 PM
Ok, think about it.

2 minutes left. With the way the offense and defense have been playing today.

Do you want the Defense to be on the field trying not to lose the game (Which they have repeatedly failed at)

Or the Offense on the field trying to win it... ?


Onside kick makes a little more sense when you are thinking of time.

Nope. Stupidest call ever...well, next to Belicheat going for it on his own 29. Sends the same message though...Tomlin knows his defense blows.

theplatypus
12-20-2009, 07:39 PM
It pains me to admit that we can't count on our D to shut a game down with 3 minutes to play.

steelbad@50
12-20-2009, 07:41 PM
Yes, and then gave our Offense the chance to win it.

I was willing to take that chance. . . I think that was a very smart call.


And lo and behold...IT WAS

No one on this board is going to make me believe that if we lost this game you would all be saying it was a great call, no one!

AllD
12-20-2009, 07:42 PM
With all the convoluted logic for that play call and the fact that it resulted in a short TD for the Packers makes it a poor call. It did not cost us the game fortunately, but almost.

I guarantee that if the same situation arises again, Reed kicks that ball to the 10 yard line.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:47 PM
No one on this board is going to make me believe that if we lost this game you would all be saying it was a great call, no one!

With all the convoluted logic for that play call and the fact that it resulted in a short TD for the Packers makes it a poor call. It did not cost us the game fortunately, but almost.

I guarantee that if the same situation arises again, Reed kicks that ball to the 10 yard line.


That call was made because our defense ssssssucks! Attempting to keep it was their best option. Not getting STILL put us in better position to win because it IS like conceding the inevitable TD by G.B.

That call was made because SOMETHING had to be done differently and I applaud Tomlin and Co. for not leaving any tricks in the bag while trying to break a 5 game losing streak.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 07:50 PM
I guarantee that if the same situation arises again, Reed kicks that ball to the 10 yard line.

And I guarantee you in the same situation next time, our D allows a 90-yard scoring drive which saps all but 3 to 5 seconds off the clock and we lose (see Raiders game). Our D has been a sieve in the 4th quarter all season and today was no exception.

steelerchad
12-20-2009, 07:52 PM
Everyone would have loved the call if it had worked. I jumped out of my seat and cheered when it looked like we recovered it. But, when you realize we put them inside of our 40 only needing 3 to win. Wow, it really doesn't make alot of sense. Our defense could have held 3 and out and they may have still been able to try a 47 yarder to take the lead with around 2 minutes left.

I almost think Tomlin was thinking that if we got the ball, great maybe we can run some clock and put another score on the board and end this thing now. But, if we don't get it and they score there will still be time on the clock because they would have started the drive from the 39 with 4 minutes left. It sure seemed that the last team with the ball was going to win this game and that's what happened.

Now, I don't agree with this call. But honestly had we kicked deep (deep meaning to the 25 yard line) and they started at their own 35 or so. I kind of think we lose that game. I've seen our secondary allow TD after TD in that situation. And we did again tonight, but because of the short field we had 2 minutes left. Had they started further back, they may have scored inside 30 seconds for another crushing loss at the end.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:53 PM
No one on this board is going to make me believe that if we lost this game you would all be saying it was a great call, no one!


Really? May I suggest you check the time at the beginning of this post? I started this thread just after the Packers scored their TD.

Steeldude
12-20-2009, 07:54 PM
No. Retarded call.

Simply amazing.

not when you consider how poorly the steelers cover kicks.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:55 PM
And I guarantee you in the same situation next time, our D allows a 90-yard scoring drive which saps all but 3 to 5 seconds off the clock and we lose (see Raiders game). Our D has been a sieve in the 4th quarter all season and today was no exception.


http://aura0.gaia.com/photos/51/505644/large/bowing_figures.jpg

steelerchad
12-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Another thing about the surprise onsides. I didn't realize that the illegal touching gave them the ball. I was thinking a rekick 5 yards back. That kind of makes the execution of that play crucial.
I'm actaully surprised that play is not tried a little more often, like midgame. Receiving teams are almost never set for it.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Really? May I suggest you check the time at the beginning of this post? I started this thread just after the Packers scored their TD.


Plus a few of us were applauding it even as the Refs called it back in the Game Day thread.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 07:57 PM
not when you consider how poorly the steelers cover kicks.

Too true.

Then again, THAT would have meant we would have had MORE time to win the game!

BUT WAIT, I think that would have really meant that we would have more time, and would have had to play defense again, so we would have lost.

So the onsides was great for that reason too :rofl:

stlrtruck
12-20-2009, 08:00 PM
I loved the call. I don't think, as they tried to point out after the game, that it meant that Tomlin didn't trust his defense. I believe he wanted to control the game and that was the best way of doing it.

Problem is that if the play works, then everyone in the studio will be calling him a genius and a wizard. It didn't work but it takes balls to make that type of call. I think he was trying to spark the team and show them that he will do something, anything to get the W!

I say Great Call Coach!

HometownGal
12-20-2009, 08:00 PM
Tomlin has lost all faith in the defense.

And rightfully so. It's been a very long time since I've seen such a pourous Steelers secondary. I know, I know - Troy. While he is a dynamic playmaker and the gut of our D, I'm a firm believer in one or two players a team/unit does not make.

Vincent
12-20-2009, 08:02 PM
Everything else being "equal", football is field position. The game had been firmly established as a shoot out between the offenses. Both Ds were being moved around.

If the decision was made just because the HC has no confidence in the D, then by itself, that could be rationalized. But, the OSK was executed by a special teams unit that had long since vacated all reason to "trust" in them. In the context of THIS game it would have made more sense to let Reed do another of his half-ass kick offs and start at their 35 or 40.

Upside v downside? Stupid call. We got the downside. But we also got a barn burner for the ages that probably wouldn't have played out that way otherwise.

No, that wasn't a back door agreement with a colossally stupid decision.

NV STEELERS 723
12-20-2009, 08:03 PM
I totally agreed with the call when it was attempted and I still agree with it wholeheartedly. Our secondary smells like rotten eggs and Tomlin took a risk. Besides - some of you have been B & M all season about Tomlin not taking risks so I don't want to hear your boo-hooing.

I agee too.. if we get the ball its over.. if GB scores then we have enough time to score ...oh wait.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................ we did .................................................. ............ yea........................................... GO STEELERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

steelbad@50
12-20-2009, 08:04 PM
Really? May I suggest you check the time at the beginning of this post? I started this thread just after the Packers scored their TD.The only good I hope this will do is light a fire under our defenses ass. When your own coach doesnt trust your game, its time to do something about it.:mad:

klick81
12-20-2009, 08:12 PM
I thought it was a "WTF" call at the moment, with the only real reason I was pissed off was because of Taylor.

Had he waited 1/32nd of a second more, that ball would have been ours.

I wasn't sure if that was the right or wrong call, but the argument that the defense would have lost the game makes this 100% the correct call.

steelers7807
12-20-2009, 08:29 PM
It was the right call. Just like most of our losses, the other team drives on our defense and wins with seconds left. At least this way our offense can do it to them.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 08:32 PM
Everything else being "equal", football is field position. The game had been firmly established as a shoot out between the offenses. Both Ds were being moved around.

If the decision was made just because the HC has no confidence in the D, then by itself, that could be rationalized. But, the OSK was executed by a special teams unit that had long since vacated all reason to "trust" in them. In the context of THIS game it would have made more sense to let Reed do another of his half-ass kick offs and start at their 35 or 40.

Upside v downside? Stupid call. We got the downside. But we also got a barn burner for the ages that probably wouldn't have played out that way otherwise.

No, that wasn't a back door agreement with a colossally stupid decision.

Upside v. downside? We have our best part of the team on the field with enough time to win the game.

MUCH better than having our worst part of the team on the field with enough time to lose the game.

Stupid call--would have been to find a way to have our defense on the field in the last minute and a half trying to do what they havent' done most of the year.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 08:34 PM
Everything else being "equal", football is field position. The game had been firmly established as a shoot out between the offenses. Both Ds were being moved around.

If the decision was made just because the HC has no confidence in the D, then by itself, that could be rationalized. But, the OSK was executed by a special teams unit that had long since vacated all reason to "trust" in them. In the context of THIS game it would have made more sense to let Reed do another of his half-ass kick offs and start at their 35 or 40.

Upside v downside? Stupid call. We got the downside. But we also got a barn burner for the ages that probably wouldn't have played out that way otherwise.

No, that wasn't a back door agreement with a colossally stupid decision.

OK, so you would have been content with yet another game where we let them methodically drive the field, drain the clock and kick a game-winning FG with seconds left? Can almost guarantee that's what would've happened.

Vincent
12-20-2009, 08:39 PM
We have our best part of the team on the field with enough time to win the game.

Assuming that the play succeeded. My disagreement is in relying on STs to execute anything that matters. The result of the play validated that position. Statistically, putting the ball on GBs side of the field, regardless of the D's calamities, is the better play.

OK, so you would have been content with yet another game where we let them methodically drive the field, drain the clock and kick a game-winning FG with seconds left? Can almost guarantee that's what would've happened.

Content? Are you serious?

However discontenting that specter is, it is a far better decision than putting the game in the hands of a unit that has played a spectacular role in out pathetic title defense. For the opposition.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 08:45 PM
My disagreement is in relying on STs to execute anything that matters. The result of the play validated that position. Statistically, putting the ball on GBs side of the field, regardless of the D's calamities, is the better play.


Well, that's a valid point but Tomlin still thought the risk vs. gain was warranted and judging by the way the game unfolded (not just the outcome), I'd say he nailed it.

Kicking deep gives probably one chance to win: A defensive stop.

Getting the ball back via onside kick gives us 2-3 chances: actually recovering it; A defensive stop; enough time on the clock if we can't achieve the first two.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 08:47 PM
Content? Are you serious?

However discontenting that specter is, it is a far better decision than putting the game in the hands of a unit that has played a spectacular role in out pathetic title defense. For the opposition.

And of course you're referring to our defense right? Which means you agree with the call afterall?

Preacher
12-20-2009, 08:50 PM
My disagreement is in relying on STs to execute anything that matters. The result of the play validated that position. Statistically, putting the ball on GBs side of the field, regardless of the D's calamities, is the better play.

I hear what you are saying, but I completely disagree. Statistically, our defense loses the game. Period. Sounds like Tomlin was thinking the same thing, that the issue wasn't whether the ST's would get it or not, but the fact that IF they did not, we STILL have a better chance of winning by virtue of time on the clock and trusting the offense instead of the defense.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 08:50 PM
However discontenting that specter is, it is a far better decision than putting the game in the hands of a unit that has played a spectacular role in out pathetic title defense. For the opposition.

Ummm, hate to break it to you, but you described our defensive performance this season in a nutshell. A unit that gives up 300+ yards and 3 TDs in a losing effort to the likes of a scrub like Gradkowski and spent the 4th quarter today hemorrhaging points (again) doesn't engender a shitload of confidence, you know?

Vincent
12-20-2009, 08:55 PM
Well, that's a valid point but Tomlin still thought the risk vs. gain was warranted and judging by the way the game unfolded (not just the outcome), I'd say he nailed it.

He didn't nail anything. Had our $100M franchise QB and stellar rookie receiver not pulled off that remarkable final play, everybody on this board, in Pittsburgh, and throughout Steeler Nation would have been preparing rails on which to ride MT out of town.

By any measure it was an amazingly stupid call.

And of course you're referring to our defense right? Which means you agree with the call afterall?

No. Run that play 100 times with the same personnel in the same circumstance and you'll get the same results. They weren't prepared to pull it off. The result speaks for itself. 7 points for GB.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 08:58 PM
No. Run that play 100 times with the same personnel in the same circumstance and you'll get the same results. They weren't prepared to pull it off. The result speaks for itself. 7 points for GB.

Like I said (and FS76 said, and everyone else here will tell you): You described our defense.

I'll point this out one more time just for you:

Kicking deep gives you probably one chance to win: A defensive stop.

Getting the ball back via onside kick gives us 2-3 chances: actually recovering it; A defensive stop and/or enough time on the clock if we can't achieve the first two.

SteelerEmpire
12-20-2009, 09:08 PM
ABSOLUTELY A GOOD CALL...!!! We' ve been losing games because team's have been 1- getting the final drive with 3 plus minutes left. 2- they score a TD or FG. 3-We get the ball with TOO little time left for a meaningful drive.... so we lose.

Like Tomlin said when Fitzgerald made the TD to put the Cardinals ahead in the Super Bowl, "IF THEIR GONNA SCORE, WE RATHER THEM SCORE QUICK ".

That gave us enough time to pull off the famous "Ben-2-Holmes" TD !!! :tt02::tt02::tt02:

Vincent
12-20-2009, 09:11 PM
Like I said (and FS76 said, and everyone else here will tell you): You described our defense.

I'll point this out one more time just for you:

Kicking deep gives you probably one chance to win: A defensive stop.

Getting the ball back via onside kick gives us 2-3 chances: actually recovering it; A defensive stop and/or enough time on the clock if we can't achieve the first two.

This discussion comes down to more elementary terms than this play. We disagree.

I would rather have the chances our defense affords us from their 40 than ours, because I have a great deal less confidence in our STs than our D.

Again, the results speak for themselves.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 09:14 PM
This discussion comes down to more elementary terms than this play. We disagree.

I would rather have the chances our defense affords us from their 40 than ours, because I have a great deal less confidence in our STs than our D.

Again, the results speak for themselves.

It's kicking deep where our ST's have failed us. and it's long game winning drives where our defense has failed us. We avoided both.
Like you said, the results speak for themselves.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 09:16 PM
He didn't nail anything. Had our $100M franchise QB and stellar rookie receiver not pulled off that remarkable final play, everybody on this board, in Pittsburgh, and throughout Steeler Nation would have been preparing rails on which to ride MT out of town.

By any measure it was an amazingly stupid call.



.

BS. Folks like you would have been bitching, but the rest of us understand the need to do SOMETHING to stop losing the same way week in and week out. Had we lost, I would have felt as though Tomlin at least TRIED to avoid a defensive failure. Turns out, we won.

Had we kicked deep and our defense fail us a left no time on the clock I'd be pissed because it would have been the same damn thing we've been doing.

ricksteelers55
12-20-2009, 09:20 PM
Looks like our D confirmed why we went for the onside kick instead of kicking it deep.

1st they only have to do half of the field which gave us more time to comeback to score back

2nd if we recovered it it's game over


we won...that's the only thing that matter

Vincent
12-20-2009, 09:22 PM
It's kicking deep where our ST's have failed us. and it's long game winning drives where our defense has failed us. We avoided both.
Like you said, the results speak for themselves.

It doesn't matter what STs has been asked to do. They are incapable. Asking them to execute an OSK is ridiculous. They validated that.

The really scary thing is that if that play had been successful we might be looking at another year of Ligeshesky.

I'm hopeful that this W won't damn us to another year of arians.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 09:23 PM
This discussion comes down to more elementary terms than this play. We disagree.

I would rather have the chances our defense affords us from their 40 than ours, because I have a great deal less confidence in our STs than our D.

Again, the results speak for themselves.

Well, the problem is, the bet wasn't on the Special teams. The bet was on the offense's chance to come back and score with a bout two minutes left.

THAT, was a correct bet.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 09:25 PM
It doesn't matter what STs has been asked to do. They are incapable. Asking them to execute an OSK is ridiculous. They validated that.

The really scary thing is that if that play had been successful we might be looking at another year of Ligeshesky.

I'm hopeful that this W won't damn us to another year of arians.

:toofunny:

Why not? We are going to have another year of this defense. Oh wait, LeBeau and his defense is untouchable.

xvdougl
12-20-2009, 09:29 PM
I liked it, and said so at the time! We couldn't get them off the field unless they dropped a pass! What do we have to lose? We still need a lot of help for this win to mean anything other then dropping a place or 2 in next years draft. I can't believe how bad our secondary suffers without Troy out there.

Psyychoward86
12-20-2009, 09:32 PM
if we picked up the onside, a good number of people would be calling it a brilliant to decent call. but we didnt and this is the flaming that Tomlin gets. Personally, our ST wasnt getting torn apart, so i wouldnt have done that.

gmfibes
12-20-2009, 09:33 PM
Had to add to your post...and I agree.

The on-side was gutsy, neary worked and is the ONLY way we had enough time to win it in the end, because our secondary wasn't stopping anyone, especially Aaron Rodgers who was just beginning to get hot in that game.

Everyone knew GB would score as our defense has been completely impotent at the end of games, The OS kick gave us an opportunity to get the ball back for a final drive.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 09:35 PM
if we picked up the onside, a good number of people would be calling it a brilliant to decent call. but we didnt and this is the flaming that Tomlin gets. Personally, our ST wasnt getting torn apart, so i wouldnt have done that.

Like said before, it wasn't about whether the ST's could get it. It was about saving enough time for our offense at the end.

Vincent
12-20-2009, 09:37 PM
Well, the problem is, the bet wasn't on the Special teams. The bet was on the offense's chance to come back and score with a bout two minutes left.

THAT, was a correct bet.

No, it was the wrong bet because STs has done nothing to inspire that confidence. That is the core of my point.

Everybody on this side of the Moon can speculate all they want as to what might have happened. STs failed. Period.

Lets look at this from another perspective. If MT is the "great coach" many imagine him to be, why are we in the position that we need to rely on this pathetic STs unit? Why hasn't that been fixed? He was a secondary coach (the Achilles Heel of the 2009 D) and a "brilliant" young DC, . Why hasn't that been fixed? I'm not seeing it. I'm looking for it but I'm not seeing it.

The OSK was a desperate young man in way over his head hoping to get lucky. If we had lost this game, it would have been another big log on the fire. He did get lucky.

xbroughneck
12-20-2009, 09:38 PM
I do, in the sense that he said. "Look. If we the ball. GREAT. If not, we hold them to a field goal. Worse case scenario, they score a TD, then we put the ball in the hands of the best player on the field today... and let them play."

I think it was a risk that he decided was worth taking. It gives us the best chance of winning... we get the ball back, hold them, or they score and we get the ball back in our hands with 2 minutes left.
+1

I don't agree with the call but I can see why he did it. I think he over thought the situation though and it almost bit him in the ^$%##.

Almost all the other pieces of Pittsburgh slim playoff hopes came to life today (except Chicago winning) and a loss would have essentially made all the other good things moot. Bad call, but we lived to fight another day.

hammy36
12-20-2009, 09:38 PM
I honestly thought of an onside before it happended but then was like "no way". The call was questionable for sure but I can definitely see the reasoning. Anywho, it gave us time at the end and the rest is history so who really cares? IT SURE FEELS GOOD TO SEE A WIN!!

Nadroj 20
12-20-2009, 09:39 PM
First off i wish i was able to post on here sooner but after the game i went out for awhile....so i want to say how freaking awesome that TD was!!!! lol

Second of all i DID NOT agree with the call of an onside kick but Ike Taylor sure did screw it up, he has to be more aware of were he is on the field and have the knowledge to let the ball go 10 yards which he could have done

On another note IMO if they would have got it some people would have talked about how great of a call it was just because it was successful! lol


Great game all around im really excited to get a W against a tough team.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 09:39 PM
Wow I am surprised there is so much support for it, I thought I would be in the minority. I like it for all the reasons you all have stated. The D wasn't stopping them in the 4th quarter anyway. Even if we lost the game I thought it gave us a better chance of winning the game even if the scored and it did work out.

I hate Aikeman and especially Buck going on and on and on about it in the game. Buck must have talked about it for 20 minutes straight. I hope I don't have to listen to those two biased blathering idiots the rest of the year.

NJarhead
12-20-2009, 09:40 PM
No, it was the wrong bet because STs has done nothing to inspire that confidence. That is the core of my point.

Everybody on this side of the Moon can speculate all they want as to what might have happened. STs failed. Period.

Lets look at this from another perspective. If MT is the "great coach" many imagine him to be, why are we in the position that we need to rely on this pathetic STs unit? Why hasn't that been fixed? He was a secondary coach (the Achilles Heel of the 2009 D) and a "brilliant" young DC, . Why hasn't that been fixed? I'm not seeing it. I'm looking for it but I'm not seeing it.

The OSK was a desperate young man in way over his head hoping to get lucky. If we had lost this game, it would have been another big log on the fire. He did get lucky.


I don't agree with anything you said or what you're implying. In fact, IMO you are dead wrong.

Some fans are just impossible to please I guess. :noidea:

Preacher
12-20-2009, 09:41 PM
No, it was the wrong bet because STs has done nothing to inspire that confidence. That is the core of my point.

Everybody on this side of the Moon can speculate all they want as to what might have happened. STs failed. Period.

Lets look at this from another perspective. If MT is the "great coach" many imagine him to be, why are we in the position that we need to rely on this pathetic STs unit? Why hasn't that been fixed? He was a secondary coach (the Achilles Heel of the 2009 D) and a "brilliant" young DC, . Why hasn't that been fixed? I'm not seeing it. I'm looking for it but I'm not seeing it.

The OSK was a desperate young man in way over his head hoping to get lucky. If we had lost this game, it would have been another big log on the fire. He did get lucky.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that we were "depending" on the ST's.

he was BETTING that EVEN by losing the OSK, we'd be in a better position to win the game then by giving the defense the chance to win the game. He was dead right on.

We weren't dependent on ST's. We knew the ST's couldn't hurt us as bad as our defense could have.

Vincent
12-20-2009, 09:44 PM
I have no idea where you are getting the idea that we were "depending" on the ST's.

he was BETTING that EVEN by losing the OSK, we'd be in a better position to win the game then by giving the defense the chance to win the game. He was dead right on.

We weren't dependent on ST's. We knew the ST's couldn't hurt us as bad as our defense could have.

The only thing we're going to establish here is that we disagree.

I am thankful for the W.

steelreserve
12-20-2009, 09:49 PM
I didn't like it at all, because if the Packers had been sticklers for clock management, they could've run down the clock all the way to zero and kicked a field goal to beat us. We actually got "lucky" that we couldn't tackle their guy on that last play, because if they'd gotten a first down instead of a touchdown, that was the ball game there.

But whatever. WE won the damn game, and after a month and a half of situations like that turning against us, I don't really care how we got it as long as it's a win. Suck my dick, I'm going to go drink a lot of beer now.

:drink:

Steely McSmash
12-20-2009, 09:52 PM
I don't like the call.

I can see the reasoning that it's gutsy and unexpected. Still...

This team needs to win straight up by competing and responding to adversity. This is kick is basically avoiding the opportunity to do so. Until the 4th quarter GB drives ended with punts roughly 50% of the time. In the 4th quarter the defense did not stop them. I think we almost have more to gain by risking the win on closing the game out in the 4th on defense than by winning by a surprise onsides kick.

Until the defense can close a game we don't belong in the playoffs. Whats the point? I'd rather not make it than collapse to the Bengals or Patsies in a wildcard game.

tony hipchest
12-20-2009, 09:57 PM
basically the same call as belichick going for it on 4th and 2 in his own territory vs. the colts.

im a bit stumped that tomlin put as much faith in his ST, offense, and defense, as belichick did his offense, but we won and they didnt. i will take it.

Steely McSmash
12-20-2009, 09:57 PM
. Buck must have talked about it for 20 minutes straight. I hope I don't have to listen to those two biased blathering idiots the rest of the year.

Buck is the worst. Aikman is just a hater.

My favorite is the line that "the refs are 0-1 so far on challenges" even though any idiot can see BB's arm moving forward on that hit.

I have no clue how the networks think Buck is good and put him on all the biggest viewership games, world series etc.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 09:59 PM
I didn't like it at all, because if the Packers had been sticklers for clock management, they could've run down the clock all the way to zero and kicked a field goal to beat us. We actually got "lucky" that we couldn't tackle their guy on that last play, because if they'd gotten a first down instead of a touchdown, that was the ball game there.

But whatever. WE won the damn game, and after a month and a half of situations like that turning against us, I don't really care how we got it as long as it's a win. Suck my dick, I'm going to go drink a lot of beer now.

:drink:

I would agree if they had a dependable kicker but they were having some problems with that part of their game Thank Goodness!!! They were out to score a Touchdown and would have been sweating it out on the sidelines if they had to kick to take the lead. So again I think it made sense and I stated that when it took place on another site's game thread.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 09:59 PM
I have no clue how the networks think Buck is good and put him on all the biggest viewership games, world series etc.

Politics/Good Old Boy Network - look who his old man was. He's had the plum broadcasting jobs handed to him on a silver platter since he graduated from college.

Steely McSmash
12-20-2009, 10:02 PM
Politics/Good Old Boy Network - look who his old man was.
Just googled it -- didn't know that before.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 10:03 PM
Buck is the worst. Aikman is just a hater.

My favorite is the line that "the refs are 0-1 so far on challenges" even though any idiot can see BB's arm moving forward on that hit.

I have no clue how the networks think Buck is good and put him on all the biggest viewership games, world series etc.

LOL yeah I heard that too...my ears are still bleeding for listening to that garbage. I puked every time they showed those ugly mugs on the T. V.

Yes Franchise it is politics I hate politics

Jmat
12-20-2009, 10:06 PM
Since we pulled the game out many people are justifying the on-side kick or flat out agreeing with the decision.
If we had lost the same people would have been calling it stupid .

I like Mike Tomlin and have since he was named HC but in my opinion that was a terrible decision given the circumstances.

My first thought was he has no faith in this defense and justifiably so. If we would've had a 7 point lead I could have understood his decision better but I still would disagree with it. But having only a 2 point lead you are pretty much handing them a FG to take the lead.

And I'm not buying the reason that he wanted to give the our offense time to score.

He got away with an awful decision. He has huge balls to try it but it was a dumb move.

The poor play of Steelers defense made Tomlin reckless today.

devilsdancefloor
12-20-2009, 10:07 PM
Honestly i thought it was a great call. 1 Coach was showing that he believed in the ST & the defense. 2 if ike waited a second longer im sure there would be 0 debate , but great a call it was.

tyler289
12-20-2009, 10:12 PM
I don't have an issue with the call, if it was executed correctly (and it was .5 yards away from being so) , we win the game without the drive.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Since we pulled the game out many people are justifying the on-side kick or flat out agreeing with the decision.
If we had lost the same people would have been calling it stupid .

I like Mike Tomlin and have since he was named HC but in my opinion that was a terrible decision given the circumstances.

My first thought was he has no faith in this defense and justifiably so. If we would've had a 7 point lead I could have understood his decision better but I still would disagree with it. But having only a 2 point lead you are pretty much handing them a FG to take the lead.

And I'm not buying the reason that he wanted to give the our offense time to score.

He got away with an awful decision. He has huge balls to try it but it was a dumb move.

The poor play of Steelers defense made Tomlin reckless today.

So you are calling me a liar? Check the time of the OP. I posted it SPECIFICALLY for that reason.

You are calling Tomlin a liar? Cause that is what he is saying as well. He simply did not trust the defense.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Since we pulled the game out many people are justifying the on-side kick or flat out agreeing with the decision.
If we had lost the same people would have been calling it stupid .

I like Mike Tomlin and have since he was named HC but in my opinion that was a terrible decision given the circumstances.

My first thought was he has no faith in this defense and justifiably so. If we would've had a 7 point lead I could have understood his decision better but I still would disagree with it. But having only a 2 point lead you are pretty much handing them a FG to take the lead.

And I'm not buying the reason that he wanted to give the our offense time to score.

He got away with an awful decision. He has huge balls to try it but it was a dumb move.

The poor play of Steelers defense made Tomlin reckless today.

That 1st line is Bull crap pure conjecture on your part. I was on a different site and stated that I liked the call on the game thread.

The 2nd line was no guarentee that they make a feild goal their kicker has not been al that dependable so they were going for the T.D.

Nadroj 20
12-20-2009, 10:14 PM
Even if the Steelers would have gotten the onside kick i would have been very happy but would said "wow idk about that call."

but hey they won and thats what matters

Steelers17
12-20-2009, 10:19 PM
My first thought was he has no faith in this defense and justifiably so. If we would've had a 7 point lead I could have understood his decision better but I still would disagree with it. But having only a 2 point lead you are pretty much handing them a FG to take the lead.

Coach Tomlin never worries about LITTLE issues as this!:tt:

Hayeksheroes
12-20-2009, 10:23 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this but Tomlin makes Belichek look good. Ben saved Tomlin from looking like an NFL clown.

Hayeksheroes
12-20-2009, 10:25 PM
Onside kick scenario. It did catch the Packers off guard. The two point lead was not enough to justify such a call.

7 Pt. lead. demonstrates trust in your D.
3 Pt. Gutsy Call
2 Pt. Lead, - dumb calls

rich4eagle
12-20-2009, 10:27 PM
Ok, think about it.

2 minutes left. With the way the offense and defense have been playing today.

Do you want the Defense to be on the field trying not to lose the game (Which they have repeatedly failed at)

Or the Offense on the field trying to win it... ?


Onside kick makes a little more sense when you are thinking of time.

Sorry Preacher, it was a bonehead call. Even if they got the ball which is less than 50/50 they needed to make two first downs at least to run out the game. Because there was 4 1/2 minutes left in the game at that point. Green Bay took two minutes to score and the Steelers had two minutes when they got the ball back..

If there was two minutes left in the game the call would have made more sense.

Mike Tomlin has repeatedly disappointing in me in game day coaching this year especially at end game.

The finish was fabulous however:drink:

Preacher
12-20-2009, 10:36 PM
Sorry Preacher, it was a bonehead call. Even if they got the ball which is less than 50/50 they needed to make two first downs at least to run out the game. Because there was 4 1/2 minutes left in the game at that point. Green Bay took two minutes to score and the Steelers had two minutes when they got the ball back..

If there was two minutes left in the game the call would have made more sense.

Mike Tomlin has repeatedly disappointing in me in game day coaching this year especially at end game.

The finish was fabulous however:drink:

I think you miss the point.

It is all about the fact that there WAS 4 minutes left. We kick the ball off, and the Packers take 3 and a half minutes to drive down the field and score, winning the game. Don't think they wouldn't, because we have NOT stopped a team in the fourth quarter yet, have we? Maybe Vikes.

So we either end the game there, or give them the ball short, knowing that they will either score, or we will stop them. EITHER WAY, we get the ball back with enough time to win the game.

But yes, the finish was FABULOUS!

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 10:37 PM
Sorry Preacher, it was a bonehead call. Even if they got the ball which is less than 50/50 they needed to make two first downs at least to run out the game. Because there was 4 1/2 minutes left in the game at that point. Green Bay took two minutes to score and the Steelers had two minutes when they got the ball back..

If there was two minutes left in the game the call would have made more sense.

Mike Tomlin has repeatedly disappointing in me in game day coaching this year especially at end game.

The finish was fabulous however:drink:

Nobody was stopping the other teams offense from scoring in the 4th quarter so I personally like the onside. Add to the fact that their kicker had already missed a short field goal and has been having problems they were not going to be real comfortable with kicking a field goal so if our D stops em short it was no guarentee that we lose.

Now they scored a Touchdown but look at how much time is still on the clock slightly more than 2 minutes with Ben leading the way and Santonio and Hines on the field whats not to like?

I know we agree to disagree but these are my thoughts on it.

casteeler
12-20-2009, 10:37 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this but Tomlin makes Belichek look good. Ben saved Tomlin from looking like an NFL clown.

exactly.If not for a couple of penelties and one of the best throw/ catches i have ever seen that call would have looked foolish however desperate times call for desperate measures. your welcome Tomin

SteelersGirlTN7
12-20-2009, 10:38 PM
the onside kick call, win or lose, i did not mind ... in and of itself .. now going for the onside kick immediately after on the previous possession doing a pooch kick..... I HATED the pooch kick .. who the heck called for that? At least the onside kick was an attempt to spark something that needed a spark. Yes, we had just scored and were up by 2....however, the way our D had been playing, you just knew that the Packers were going to score wherever they were on the field .. so why not not give them a short field and then put the ball in Ben's hands... he had a career day.. and ended w/ 503 passing yards.. if he cant do it .. no one could ..

I am SO glad we came out on the WINNING side of a close game for once ...

Aussie_steeler
12-20-2009, 10:44 PM
Tomlin has lost all faith in the defense.

and I think the call sent this message loud and clear to the defence.

This call will have a longer lasting effect on the D unit. They have been called out by their coach as not being good enough.

If there is any dissention in the locker room this is only going to add to it.

I think this call will create a huge divide between the O and D units.

Didnt like the call when it was made and still dont like the call. It shows ZERO faith in the D

steelreserve
12-20-2009, 10:50 PM
I think you miss the point.

It is all about the fact that there WAS 4 minutes left. We kick the ball off, and the Packers take 3 and a half minutes to drive down the field and score, winning the game. Don't think they wouldn't, because we have NOT stopped a team in the fourth quarter yet, have we? Maybe Vikes.

So we either end the game there, or give them the ball short, knowing that they will either score, or we will stop them. EITHER WAY, we get the ball back with enough time to win the game.

You're forgetting one thing ... if their RB did the smart thing and took a knee at the 1-yard line - like Maurice Jones-Drew did a couple weeks ago - we were completely screwed. They still could've run down the clock if they wanted to.

I think the only way you go with an onside kick in that situation is if you think you can fool them, and in that respect, we were right on the money. If only our guy had waited a half-second longer to grab out at the ball, we probably would've recovered it and looked like geniuses.

However, the one thing I do NOT think is that any coach would use that strategy because he's saying, OK, I basically have completely given up on my defense."

rich4eagle
12-20-2009, 10:54 PM
I think you miss the point.

It is all about the fact that there WAS 4 minutes left. We kick the ball off, and the Packers take 3 and a half minutes to drive down the field and score, winning the game. Don't think they wouldn't, because we have NOT stopped a team in the fourth quarter yet, have we? Maybe Vikes.

So we either end the game there, or give them the ball short, knowing that they will either score, or we will stop them. EITHER WAY, we get the ball back with enough time to win the game.

But yes, the finish was FABULOUS!

my point once again is we have less 50/50 to get the ball. If we do get the ball we need to make two first downs by running the ball at least to run the clock down. Considering GB had a time out and two minute warning was two plus minutes away. Were the Steelers going to try to score a TD? That is the only scenario that remotely makes the choice wise. Because if GB gets the ball less than seven down with two minutes to go they have plenty of time to score.

Like I said if there was two minutes go I could buy into the strategy barely.

the only way it would really make sense is if we were up by more than 3 and the two minute warning was expired. Then you recover and it is game over.........:tt::tt:

Bad call and we were lucky to win. Bigger problem is the defense has collapsed every end game all year. Playing soft at end is a losing prop and they keep doing it:drink:

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:01 PM
and I think the call sent this message loud and clear to the defence.

This call will have a longer lasting effect on the D unit. They have been called out by their coach as not being good enough.

If there is any dissention in the locker room this is only going to add to it.

I think this call will create a huge divide between the O and D units.

Didnt like the call when it was made and still dont like the call. It shows ZERO faith in the D

It showed the immaturity of the HC. The call itself was laughable. The result spoke for itself.

If speculation that the HC has "lost the team" is valid to this point, it has been on the O side of the ball. The last thing he needed to do was lose the defense.

It did indeed send a message. The HC doesn't realize that he has lost the team, hasn't a clue how to fix that, and will be in the way going forward.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 11:03 PM
It showed the immaturity of the HC. The call itself was laughable. The result spoke for itself.

If speculation that the HC has "lost the team" is valid to this point, it has been on the O side of the ball. The last thing he needed to do was lose the defense.

It did indeed send a message. The HC doesn't realize that he has lost the team, hasn't a clue how to fix that, and will be in the way going forward.

Didn't the almighty genius Belichick kinda send the same message by going for it on 4th and 2? :coffee:

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:11 PM
Didn't the almighty genius Belichick kinda send the same message by going for it on 4th and 2? :coffee:

@#$% belicheat. I care about this team.

Our HC's "body of work" hasn't entered the parking lot of résumés to be considered when arguing "did he make the right decision?".

The only thing that decision did was alienate the other side of the locker room.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 11:12 PM
Whatever. I give up.

JEFF4i
12-20-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm torn.

But I'll say it's the same as Belicheat's 4&2. If it succeeds, like it did, he deserves due credit. If he doesn't, we rip him like some have anyway.

Yes, he's sent a statement that he doesn't believe in his defense. Who's to blame for that?

Everyone wants a W, well, as Tomlin said, the status quo ain't winning.

Dino 6 Rings
12-20-2009, 11:15 PM
best call I saw all day by the head coach was the Time out call at the 2:18 mark in the 4th while we were still on defense.

MasterOfPuppets
12-20-2009, 11:16 PM
at first i was like...WTF :doh: .....then i thought about if for about 3 seconds and realized this will give the steelers final possesion...:thumbsup: there's no doubt in my mind the D would have given up at least 3 and they probably woulda used up the clock.. ...i thought they'd hold them to 3 though....

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:17 PM
Whatever. I give up.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb136/garyb12001/sign11_23981.gif

On this we can agree. :wave:

Dino 6 Rings
12-20-2009, 11:18 PM
Didn't the almighty genius Belichick kinda send the same message by going for it on 4th and 2? :coffee:

yes he did, think I pointed that out on page one.

And as for Cowher's call in the Super Bowl, we had just scored a FG, and were still losing by 10 at that point. So we hit the surprise onside, got the ball, scored a TD on that drive and cut the lead to 3...then our D did shut down the Cowboys, we got the ball back again...and then...Effing Neil.

Also, I'm digging, but I'm pretty sure that Noll actually called an onside in a Super Bowl as well...trying to find which one...hard to find play by play of those games...so hold on...

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:18 PM
@#$% belicheat. I care about this team.

Our HC's "body of work" hasn't entered the parking lot of résumés to be considered when arguing "did he make the right decision?".

The only thing that decision did was alienate the other side of the locker room.

Alienate the "other side"?

You mean that side that has lost more games than they have won over this year? The side that lost us the game against the Bengals.... twice, and oakland, and the Cheifs, and ALMOST LOST OUR GAME AGAINTS THE LIONS.. and DID lose us the game against Oakland.

Excuse me if I ain't crying tears about "losing the defense" this year.

They discussion about "Losing" the defense is the fact that they have often gotten lost on the way to the stadium this year.

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:20 PM
Alienate the "other side"?

You mean that side that has lost more games than they have won over this year? The side that lost us the game against the Bengals.... twice, and oakland, and the Cheifs, and ALMOST LOST OUR GAME AGAINTS THE LIONS.. and DID lose us the game against Oakland.

Excuse me if I ain't crying tears about "losing the defense" this year.

They discussion about "Losing" the defense is the fact that they have often gotten lost on the way to the stadium this year.

What do the Rooneys pay this kid to do?

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 11:21 PM
Also, I'm digging, but I'm pretty sure that Noll actually called an onside in a Super Bowl as well...trying to find which one...hard to find play by play of those games...so hold on...

No, in SB X, Noll went for it on 4th and long late in the 4th due to Walden having one punt blocked in that game and another one nearly blocked. Difference is, we had a defense that could actually, you know, get a stop....

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:26 PM
What do the Rooneys pay this kid to do?

:huh:

Dino 6 Rings
12-20-2009, 11:28 PM
No, in SB X, Noll went for it on 4th and long late in the 4th due to Walden having one punt blocked in that game and another one nearly blocked. Difference is, we had a defense that could actually, you know, get a stop....

Yeah, I know that situation well...have watched that game a lot over the years...but I could have sworn Noll also called an onside kick in one superbowl...but I guess not...can't find it...think I may have to watch 9,10, 13 and 14 again to be sure...sounds like good holiday watching this week as a family.

lardlad
12-20-2009, 11:29 PM
It was the right call. As soon as I saw the clock after the FG, I thought we can't leave it up to the defense again. Honestly, if they lost, I still like the call - really.

X-Terminator
12-20-2009, 11:30 PM
and I think the call sent this message loud and clear to the defence.

This call will have a longer lasting effect on the D unit. They have been called out by their coach as not being good enough.

If there is any dissention in the locker room this is only going to add to it.

I think this call will create a huge divide between the O and D units.

Didnt like the call when it was made and still dont like the call. It shows ZERO faith in the D

To be fair, the D didn't exactly give him a reason to have faith in them, what with Rodgers and Co. making them look like a pee-wee league team. If he kicks it deep, chances are the D still gives up the TD, but it uses more time off the clock. I still would have taken that chance over giving the Packers the ball at the Steelers' 39, however.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 11:32 PM
There was a kick that looked like an onside kick but the kicker fell down and the ball went to the cowboy with a cast on his arm he fumbled and we got the ball back.

yes Franchise he went for it because our punter was hurt and was not kicking very well if i remember right.

BigBen'sSwagger
12-20-2009, 11:34 PM
Yeah, I know that situation well...have watched that game a lot over the years...but I could have sworn Noll also called an onside kick in one superbowl...but I guess not...can't find it...think I may have to watch 9,10, 13 and 14 again to be sure...sounds like good holiday watching this week as a family.

That would be a great weekend plan. What time should I show up??? :popcorn: :tt03:

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:36 PM
:huh:

They pay him to return value on the $127M investment they have made in the talent on the roster. In this case it is a Super Bowl roster.

Personally...

I think that if the D was called out tonight, GREAT.

They NEED to be called out.

They have thrown away so many games in the fourth quarter, WHY TRUST THEM?

They should be sent home in a different bus. A shorter bus.

That'll get us ready for the rats.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:36 PM
Personally...

I think that if the D was called out tonight, GREAT.

They NEED to be called out.

They have thrown away so many games in the fourth quarter, WHY TRUST THEM?

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 11:37 PM
There was a kick that looked like an onside kick but the kicker fell down and the ball went to the cowboy with a cast on his arm he fumbled and we got the ball back.

yes Franchise he went for it because our punter was hurt and was not kicking very well if i remember right.

Oh, yeah - forgot the squib kick by Gerela in XIII that Randy White fumbled.

Dino 6 Rings
12-20-2009, 11:38 PM
That would be a great weekend plan. What time should I show up??? :popcorn: :tt03:

sad thing...I only have them on VHS...maybe I can run them through a projecter and we can pretend we are actually watching "game film" LOL

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:38 PM
They pay him to return value on the $127M investment they have made in the talent on the roster. In this case it is a Super Bowl roster.

Oh I don't know. Last year he returned a SB.

This year, after seeing how half the team called the Defense can't shut down even the worst teams in the fourth quarter, he returned the value by putting the better half of the team on the field, and letting them win the game for him.

I think that is a great value on the dollar. If you don't, then what starters on D do you want to see gone, or what D coaches?

X-Terminator
12-20-2009, 11:39 PM
Oh I don't know. Last year he returned a SB.

This year, after seeing how half the team called the Defense can't shut down even the worst teams in the fourth quarter, he returned the value by putting the better half of the team on the field, and letting them win the game for him.

I think that is a great value on the dollar. If you don't, then what starters on D do you want to see gone, or what D coaches?

Preacher, he has made it very clear that he hates Tomlin and wants to see him gone. You cannot reason or argue with him. Best to just cut your losses and move on, otherwise you'll just give yourself a headache.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:39 PM
sad thing...I only have them on VHS...maybe I can run them through a projecter and we can pretend we are actually watching "game film" LOL


Get a computer projecter... you can project VHS through there.

Let me know when its on and I'll bring the pepsi and homemade popcorn!

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:40 PM
Preacher, he has made it very clear that he hates Tomlin and wants to see him gone. You cannot reason or argue with him. Best to just cut your losses and move on, otherwise you'll just give yourself a headache.


LOL.

X-term. Don't you know? This is how I :pw: :rofl:

lambertlunaticfan
12-20-2009, 11:41 PM
Just my 2 cents on this.I hated the call,even though i now understand it.I guess he (the coach mr tomlin) was tired of losing games where the other team offense takes the ball down the field and scores the winning points leaving no time left on the clock.And just leaving our offense on the sidleline to watch this.I am not in his head so i don't know for sure what he was thinking.But i assume he figured this way even if we lose the ball.That they would score faster being a shorter field.And leaving us to get the ball with some time left to win the game.I don't know why more teams don't do this.Just lay down and let the other team score so you can get the ball back.So that way they don't run the clock out and win the game.I just think it was bad call to do it.Have some faith in your defense to step up when it matters most.It's steelers football and we have got to have faith in what made it that.The running game and -DEFENSE.

tony hipchest
12-20-2009, 11:43 PM
I think that is a great value on the dollar. If you don't, then what starters on D do you want to see gone, or what D coaches?


i would just like to see polamalu and smith back in the lineup and that will simplyu solve EVERY defensive problem we have seen this season.

they matter.

those who think otherwise....

well, i laugh at them. :laughing:

Preacher
12-20-2009, 11:46 PM
i would just like to see polamalu and smith back in the lineup and that will simplyu solve EVERY defensive problem we have seen this season.

they matter.

those who think otherwise....

well, i laugh at them. :laughing:

So whose fault was it last year in the playoffs Tony?

Vincent
12-20-2009, 11:51 PM
Preacher, he has made it very clear that he hates Tomlin and wants to see him gone. You cannot reason or argue with him. Best to just cut your losses and move on, otherwise you'll just give yourself a headache.

Whoa there Podnuh. I don't hate anybody except terrorists, as I've stated in other threads.

The only thing I've have stated in this thread is my disagreement with the decision, the reasons for making it, and the collateral damage of making it. Its still America and I can make a point, right?

Lock Down
12-21-2009, 12:02 AM
I had no problem with the call. Rodgers had been sacked once all game? and with the way the secondary has been playing, i wouldn't feel too confident with sending out the D. The call shows a lack of confidence in the D? how about when they watch film later this week, do they get a shot of confidence seeing 30+ points being posted up? i am sure it was a bitter taste to see the coach not have a little faith but he was put in the situation to make that sort of decision due to the performance of the D. A self respecting and accountable player would be able to see as much & a competitor would want to come out and maybe stick to the coach a bit next week and make a few plays.

X-Terminator
12-21-2009, 12:04 AM
Whoa there Podnuh. I don't hate anybody except terrorists, as I've stated in other threads.

The only thing I've have stated in this thread is my disagreement with the decision, the reasons for making it, and the collateral damage of making it. Its still America and I can make a point, right?

Sure. But there is an underlying bias in your opinion, given that you have called for Tomlin's resignation in other threads. You've also made it a point to mention his "lack of experience" and that he's "in over his head," which you have used to support your call for his resignation in said threads. That's why it's impossible to debate you on this subject - your mind is already made up.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 12:12 AM
That call may have saved our ass. Pretty much every loss this year was due to the defense allowing opposing teams to methodically move down the field & score with no time for our offense. At least this way, it gave our offense a chance.

IMO, this may have been the smartest post in this thread.

Steelers24/7
12-21-2009, 12:16 AM
Hey guys new to the forums but not to loving the Steelers, was reading and decided to join... My opinion is that I loved the call. The reason why is because to just kick it off to or have it returned to about midfield (because that's what we appear to be capable of) then wait for our secondary to screw it up, is, quite literally, the definition of insanity. For weeks, Tomlin has been a lot of talk. Going on about changes he will make that never happen. He went out on a limb and tried something that, to me, was a slap in the face to the defense and rightly so. It was, in my opinion, a given that Green Bay would score again. When we went in the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead, I was worried. When we went up by 6 from a Jeff Reed field goal, as people celebrated I sat down and worried some more. When we went up by 2 again off of a Jeff Reed field goal, as people celebrated, I couldn't eat the fries my uncle had bought because I was worried to the point where I felt sick. I knew our defense couldn't stop them. So I told my dad "Let's hope they make it quick." They did that and it worked out.

Merchant
12-21-2009, 12:27 AM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

What has happened all season long? we've had the lead in the 4th quarter, and our defense has been driven on for the game winning score with seconds remaining.

If they would've kicked it off normally, with the way the GB offense was playing, and the way our D was playing, I have little doubt that that's what would've been the case AGAIN.

Tomlin recognized the situation and made the call that just might have saved our season...

Preacher
12-21-2009, 02:02 AM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

What has happened all season long? we've had the lead in the 4th quarter, and our defense has been driven on for the game winning score with seconds remaining.

If they would've kicked it off normally, with the way the GB offense was playing, and the way our D was playing, I have little doubt that that's what would've been the case AGAIN.

Tomlin recognized the situation and made the call that just might have saved our season...

That's how I see it.

Now, I am not going to say that he KNEW it would happen that way. It WAS a calculated risk. But I think most people don't agree with the "calculated" part.

iloveben7
12-21-2009, 02:49 AM
I completely agree with Tomlin's decision and I felt like he should have at least tried it in the past couple of games. When your best player is #7, you've got to put the ball in his hands when the game is on the line. Just give Ben enough time and he'll work his magic.

solardave
12-21-2009, 03:02 AM
So.

We have the ball, driving for the win, instead of being driven ON for the loss....


you would REALLY want our defense out there righ tnow? Really?

We didn't recover the ball and game them 10 more yards. You think this was the right call? Really? If we recovered the ball Tomlin looks like a genius but we know what happened. While we're on the subject WTH was that short kickoff all about? That was simply stupid too.

Vincent
12-21-2009, 06:16 AM
Preacher, he has made it very clear that he hates Tomlin and wants to see him gone. You cannot reason or argue with him. Best to just cut your losses and move on, otherwise you'll just give yourself a headache.

Sure. But there is an underlying bias in your opinion, given that you have called for Tomlin's resignation in other threads. You've also made it a point to mention his "lack of experience" and that he's "in over his head," which you have used to support your call for his resignation in said threads. That's why it's impossible to debate you on this subject - your mind is already made up.

I take issue with the terms "hate" and "bias". I've never met MT. I don't know him. I don't even mildly dislike him, much less hate him.

He demonstrates his "lack of experience" and that he's "in over his head," on a weekly basis. Does pointing that out constitute hatred?

Why, in these modern times, does disagreement paint "some" people as "haters"? I disagree with his selection, some of his staff choices, his mismanagement of Super Bowl caliber talent, his apparent inability to correct correctable problems, and his recent colossally stupid statements. As a lifelong fan, I would prefer that he not be the HC of the Pittsburgh Steelers. In stating that, how have I expressed "hate"?

"Coaching - F

Not certain who Roethlisberger bailed out more with the final drive -- the defense that gave up 22 points in the final quarter or coach Mike Tomlin for his decision to try an onside kick leading by two in the fourth quarter? Give him credit for successfully challenging the Roethlisberger sack/fumble that would have given the Packers possession at the Steelers' 27. But give that grudgingly."

Is Dulac expressing "hate" too?:chuckle:

"Green Bay's offense already was on one heck of a roll, and the last thing it needed was a boost of confidence.

Still, the Packers got a boost when Steelers coach Mike Tomlin called for an onside kick with his team winning by two points and less than four minutes remaining in Sunday's game.

"The onside kick just showed that they really couldn't stop our offense," Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers said."

OMG the "hatred".

Then there's John Harris, of all people...

"What the heck was Mike Tomlin thinking when he ordered an onside kick with the Steelers leading 30-28 late in the fourth quarter of Sunday's game against Green Bay?

Answer: He wasn't thinking. He was coaching from the seat of his pants.

"I was just trying to win a football game," Tomlin said after quarterback Ben Roethlisberger pulled his coach's fat out of the fire with the 19-yard, game-winning touchdown pass to rookie Mike Wallace on the final play of the game.

Without Roethlisberger's and Wallace's heroics being directly responsible for the Steelers' incredible 37-36 victory over the Packers at Heinz Field, Tomlin's approval rating this morning would be lower than Pirates manager John Russell's.

Tomlin would be the object of scorn and ridicule far worse than anything he experienced during the Steelers' five-game losing streak that mercifully ended under the cloak of early-evening darkness."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4VfHCLeck7c/SVhZNZNp2OI/AAAAAAAAAHs/g0t0C41Qc3c/s320/Flaming_Head_800+cut.bmp

Jmat
12-21-2009, 09:19 AM
Winning the game or not that on-side kick at that point of the game was a bad call, period.

If we had lost the game nobody would be saying it was a good call. You'd all be calling for Tomlins head and you damn well know it.

Ben bailed Mike out big time.

Steel_12
12-21-2009, 09:25 AM
Winning the game or not that on-side kick at that point of the game was a bad call, period.

If we had lost the game nobody would be saying it was a good call. You'd all be calling for Tomlins head and you damn well know it.

Ben bailed Mike out big time.

Again...how do ya'll not understand that our defense was going to give the game away if we had kicked the ball deep? All they needed was a FG and they would've drove down the field and kicked the FG with NO TIME REMAINING!!! It is just unbelievable that people still think our defense is good.

Mike Tomlin won the game for us with that call...Ben bailed out the DEFENSE!

steel9guy
12-21-2009, 09:26 AM
Winning the game or not that on-side kick at that point of the game was a bad call, period.

If we had lost the game nobody would be saying it was a good call. You'd all be calling for Tomlins head and you damn well know it.

Ben bailed Mike out big time.

I agree. We need to take more risks and gambles but if it didn't work I wouldn't wanna here it on here lol.:chuckle:

Bluedust
12-21-2009, 09:29 AM
People are so quick to forget how we lost every game this season.

Just admit it, our defense sucks, and when you lose 5 games in a row you have to try something different.

We could throw the ball at will on them all game, I'm not trusting my defense at all in that situation.

plenewken
12-21-2009, 09:49 AM
Again...how do ya'll not understand that our defense was going to give the game away if we had kicked the ball deep? All they needed was a FG and they would've drove down the field and kicked the FG with NO TIME REMAINING!!! It is just unbelievable that people still think our defense is good.

Mike Tomlin won the game for us with that call...Ben bailed out the DEFENSE!

It was a crazy call and Ben/Wallace saved his @ss. Puhleeze don't try to tell us Tomlin predicted we'd score a TD with 0 sec left on the clock when during our last 2 possessions, we could only score 2 FGs.
More importantly, the onside kick clearly establishes that Tomlin doesn't believe in the Steelers defense and this doesn't bode well for the rest of the season. We will not go very far if we don't trust our own defense. What's next? Reed to kick a field goal against us instead of kicking-off the ball, so that we'll give up 3 points instead of 7?

fansince'76
12-21-2009, 09:54 AM
More importantly, the onside kick clearly establishes that Tomlin doesn't believe in the Steelers defense and this doesn't bode well for the rest of the season. We will not go very far if we don't trust our own defense.

Please. With the D playing the way it has been, we're not going anywhere anyway. If they can't stop the likes of the Raiders and Chiefs from scoring in the high 20s, they'll be lucky to keep a team like the Colts out of the 50-point range.

Fire Haley
12-21-2009, 09:56 AM
Tomlin finally realized we have the worst 4th qtr defense in the league and smacked LeBeau on the nose with a rolled up newspaper by thankfully taking the game out of his defense's hands and putting it in Ben's.

Steel_12
12-21-2009, 10:03 AM
It was a crazy call and Ben/Wallace saved his @ss. Puhleeze don't try to tell us Tomlin predicted we'd score a TD with 0 sec left on the clock when during our last 2 possessions, we could only score 2 FGs.
More importantly, the onside kick clearly establishes that Tomlin doesn't believe in the Steelers defense and this doesn't bode well for the rest of the season. We will not go very far if we don't trust our own defense. What's next? Reed to kick a field goal against us instead of kicking-off the ball, so that we'll give up 3 points instead of 7?

OMG lol...Of course he couldn't have predicted the outcome but HE GAVE US A CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME!!!! Who cares how the defense feels!!! Are you serious? This is a business and if they aren't doing their job, they need to know about it. The defense knows they have lost plenty of games for us this year. Whether or not the quotes frome the defense after the game were PC, I don't know but they believe the call was the right one considering the outcome of games the past 5 Sundays.

Tomlin did what was in the best interest of this team.

plenewken
12-21-2009, 10:06 AM
Please. With the D playing the way it has been, we're not going anywhere anyway. If they can't stop the likes of the Raiders and Chiefs from scoring in the high 20s, they'll be lucky to keep a team like the Colts out of the 50-point range.

Apparently, the Broncos couldn't stop the Raiders from scoring 20 points either and KC scored 30pts against Cleveland when we could only put 6 on the board.
Biggest error at this point would be to let the team implode. Our offense alone will not carry the team against Baltimore, much less against anyone in the playoffs, if we make them.

fansince'76
12-21-2009, 10:38 AM
Apparently, the Broncos couldn't stop the Raiders from scoring 20 points either and KC scored 30pts against Cleveland when we could only put 6 on the board.
Biggest error at this point would be to let the team implode. Our offense alone will not carry the team against Baltimore, much less against anyone in the playoffs, if we make them.

If everything falls right and we actually make the postseason, we will have to rely on our offense to win games, unless our D SERIOUSLY steps it up. Did you see the misfires by Rodgers on several occasions yesterday where he had a receiver open? Manning and Brady won't misfire on those.

plenewken
12-21-2009, 10:41 AM
People are so quick to forget how we lost every game this season.

Just admit it, our defense sucks, and when you lose 5 games in a row you have to try something different.

We could throw the ball at will on them all game, I'm not trusting my defense at all in that situation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try something different but I don't think an onside kick in this situation was the smartest decision. Like I said before, why not ask Reed to score a FG against us so that we get the ball back with only 3 pts scored? LOL

Let's be realistic here, the probability for Wallace to score at the last second was pretty much slim to none. I'm glad we did it but I'm still very worried about our solidity on both sides of the ball.

I'll take the win but I'm looking at the forest, not one tree. Sounds to me like the surgery was a success but unfortunately the patient died.

NJarhead
12-21-2009, 12:16 PM
Apparently, the Broncos couldn't stop the Raiders from scoring 20 points either and KC scored 30pts against Cleveland when we could only put 6 on the board.
Biggest error at this point would be to let the team implode. Our offense alone will not carry the team against Baltimore, much less against anyone in the playoffs, if we make them.

Pull your head out of your (posterior).

:banging:

I CAN'T STAND THESE IDIOT FANS ANYMORE!!!!!

Go root for Dallas! :mad:

BlastFurnace
12-21-2009, 12:19 PM
If everything falls right and we actually make the postseason, we will have to rely on our offense to win games, unless our D SERIOUSLY steps it up. Did you see the misfires by Rodgers on several occasions yesterday where he had a receiver open? Manning and Brady won't misfire on those.

If we make the playoffs, I will look at this season as a success considering the peaks and valleys that this team has experienced. This has been one crazy year.

If only Troy had not been on the field for that FG attempt......

steelcity1974
12-21-2009, 12:23 PM
Tony Dungy said that he thought Tomlin made the call because he didn't have confidence in his defense. A Steelers player was just interviewed on the post-game show and said the same thing. I didn't like the call and still don't, but I'm going to go with the ex-coach and the player's view on why he did it. And really, I can't blame Tomlin for doing it either.

Perfectly said. Everyone on Earth knows this was a terrible call...but when your defense is playing the way it was (and has all year) how can you blame Tomlin?

Steelers24/7
12-21-2009, 01:00 PM
Pretty bad call when you consider how well our defense was playing and the fact that when it counts, they have played so well all year. Oh, wait...

plenewken
12-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Pull your head out of your (posterior).

:banging:

I CAN'T STAND THESE IDIOT FANS ANYMORE!!!!!

Go root for Dallas! :mad:

Besides hyperboles and name calling, do you have anything of substance to dispute the facts I presented?

Bluedust
12-21-2009, 01:13 PM
Pretty bad call when you consider how well our defense was playing and the fact that when it counts, they have played so well all year. Oh, wait...

:rofl: You had me for a second. You're absolutely right.

DoubleYoi
12-21-2009, 01:31 PM
[QUOTE=Steely McSmash;736519]Buck is the worst. Aikman is just a hater.

My favorite is the line that "the refs are 0-1 so far on challenges" even though any idiot can see BB's arm moving forward on that hit.QUOTE]

I think Buck was saying "the booth" as in the broadcaster's booth was 0-1 in challenges at that point. He missed Big Ben's arm moving forward which meant he was 0-1. But yes, I agree that Aikman is a tool. One too many shots to the head I guess. I just don't know who's worse, him or Colinsworth.

SteelMember
12-21-2009, 01:45 PM
I didn't like the call.

It was an all or nothing call at the time, imo.

Sure, you can argue that the D couldn't stop them, so that's what sealed the decision, but you can no way know that it was going to give us another chance to score if we didn't recover. As stated earlier, they could have easily drained the 3+ minutes just as easy with a shorter field. They only needed a fieldgoal to win. Better clock management by them, and we're done.

We got lucky.

It took a lot of things to happen to even give us the chance we had with no time left... but to finally walk away with a win, after everything "bad" that's happened to us over the past five weeks or so... feels pretty good.

Thanks Ben. You da man!

zulater
12-21-2009, 01:57 PM
Pretty bad call when you consider how well our defense was playing and the fact that when it counts, they have played so well all year. Oh, wait...

:rofl:

NJarhead
12-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Besides hyperboles and name calling, do you have anything of substance to dispute the facts I presented?


Yeah, all over this forum. Go look.

Tomlin confirmed what the rest of us have been trying to tell ignoramuses such as your self: 3 Chances to win with an onside: 1). Recovering it. 2). Defensive Stop. 3). Getting the ball back with enough time to attempt a game winning drive.

Seem that it played out exactly how he predicted: Defense can't stop anyone and at least we had enough time left to try and win it on offense.

If you think for a second that the defense was going to get a stop there, you're kidding yourself.

zulater
12-21-2009, 02:22 PM
Yeah, all over this forum. Go look.

Tomlin confirmed what the rest of us have been trying to tell ignoramuses such as your self: 3 Chances to win with an onside: 1). Recovering it. 2). Defensive Stop. 3). Getting the ball back with enough time to attempt a game winning drive.

Seem that it played out exactly how he predicted: Defense can't stop anyone and at least we had enough time left to try and win it on offense.

If you think for a second that the defense was going to get a stop there, you're kidding yourself.

Oh I don't know, given 5 or 6 more possessions I'm almost certain the Steelers defense could have created a turnover. :wink02:


I've got a serious question I haven't seen anyone ask. Why did the Packers go for a 2 point conversion on their last TD? They gained nothing ( as far as I can figure) and risk losing the possiblity of a go ahead fg if the Steelers score the TD with time remaining.

NJarhead
12-21-2009, 02:39 PM
Oh I don't know, given 5 or 6 more possessions I'm almost certain the Steelers defense could have created a turnover. :wink02:


I've got a serious question I haven't seen anyone ask. Why did the Packers go for a 2 point conversion on their last TD? They gained nothing ( as far as I can figure) and risk losing the possiblity of a go ahead fg if the Steelers score the TD with time remaining.

They had nothing to lose by going for it, but could have at least had one more chance with blocking the XP if we scored.

d2609j
12-21-2009, 02:44 PM
You can't blame him for calling it. What doesn't make sense is the idiot Ike Taylor grabbing the ball when 3 steelers are blocking the only packer around the ball. It goes back to a horrible play by our special teams, not so much a horrible call by our coach.

NJarhead
12-21-2009, 02:47 PM
You can't blame him for calling it. What doesn't make sense is the idiot Ike Taylor grabbing the ball when 3 steelers are blocking the only packer around the ball. It goes back to a horrible play by our special teams, not so much a horrible call by our coach.

I'm sure it was because it bounced right to him and there was a bit of a pucker factor as well.

I'm pissed at Ike for a couple other reasons; I'm willing to cut him some slack on that one.

rich4eagle
12-21-2009, 03:07 PM
I made a few statements against Tomlin and poor judgement.........if indeed his statements are what he was thinking when he made Onside decision...........

I relent on htis.............albeit............I would have NOT Done.............at that particular time............

unless steelers going belly up for a TD..........which I am sure if they got the kick they would have NOT

GodfatherofSoul
12-21-2009, 03:12 PM
I won't call it stupid because it almost worked. Had Ike been paying attention to where he was on the field, he would have easily gained possession.

HometownGal
12-21-2009, 03:29 PM
I won't call it stupid because it almost worked.

Tomlin would have been the hero of the game had that play worked and we wouldn't even be having this discussion now. :chuckle:

BlastFurnace
12-21-2009, 03:37 PM
Tomlin would have been the hero of the game had that play worked and we wouldn't even be having this discussion now. :chuckle:

LOL... the difference in this league between "Gutsy, Gritty" and "Stupid" is a very fine line.

HometownGal
12-21-2009, 03:40 PM
LOL... the difference in this league between "Gutsy, Gritty" and "Stupid" is a very fine line.

:laughing: True dat. :thumbsup:

Preacher
12-21-2009, 04:24 PM
I won't call it stupid because it almost worked. Had Ike been paying attention to where he was on the field, he would have easily gained possession.

But the point is... IT DID WORK.

It gave them a short field to work with... and they scored quickly (which we all knew they would score.. when HASNT a team scored in teh 4th quarter on us?)

THEN, we actually had the ball in Ben's arms hands with time to drive for a win.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 04:25 PM
LOL... the difference in this league between "Gutsy, Gritty" and "Stupid" is a very fine line.

That is absolutely true.

KitsapSteve
12-21-2009, 05:31 PM
unless someone has actually heard Tomlins reason for that playcall, Bottom line is if Taylor looks and see's if hasnt gone 10 yds, why in heck are you doing touching from what it appeared on TV you still would or made the play and if not you didnt give them the Penalty Yards for your stupidity. Considering you cant tackle or make an INT I guess Im asking 2 much!

stillers4me
12-21-2009, 05:38 PM
THEN, we actually had the ball in Ben's arms hands with time to drive for a win.

..barely. :chuckle:

Preacher
12-21-2009, 05:53 PM
..barely. :chuckle:
Yeah...

but how many times have we seen that EXACT same thing happen to us? "Oh looked, they scored....and Oh look, there is no more time on the clock?"

I'll take the gamble, because it put us in the position of winning the game, instead of trying to defend an win with our defense.

No way, no how, no thankyou.

Not this year.

Aussie_steeler
12-21-2009, 06:19 PM
To be fair, the D didn't exactly give him a reason to have faith in them, what with Rodgers and Co. making them look like a pee-wee league team. If he kicks it deep, chances are the D still gives up the TD, but it uses more time off the clock. I still would have taken that chance over giving the Packers the ball at the Steelers' 39, however.

I guess I am stuck in a timewarp here. I love it when the steeler D has a swagger about it and as a unit it truly intimidates its foes.

the only swagger it has now is when Ike claims he is from "swaggin"

As an outsider to the game (and country) I probably have a different set of football views and philosophies that are forged from watching and playing a lot of other football codes (rugby union, soccer, Rugby league and Aussie Rules). I see a team that is beginning to fracture slowly.

I still hold hope of a playoff run. To be successful in that playoff run the steelers are going to need a "balls and all" D to go with a O unit that keeps going off like a new years eve fireworks display.

The psyche of the D unit must be at an all time low. They are unable to stop the air game, the passrush is continually mugged and flags arent thrown, they can control the run but when one rusher breaks past the LBers its a free pass past the safeties and finally they have lost their two cornerstones that bring greatness.

For managing a game it was probably the right call ( i am not qualified to state anymore other than I didnt like it personally)

From a managing players confidence point of view it may work one of two ways
1. P*ss the players off and light a fire under them
2. Erode confidence of some struggling players.

Lets hope is lights a fire.

rich4eagle
12-21-2009, 06:44 PM
Yeah...

but how many times have we seen that EXACT same thing happen to us? "Oh looked, they scored....and Oh look, there is no more time on the clock?"

I'll take the gamble, because it put us in the position of winning the game, instead of trying to defend an win with our defense.

No way, no how, no thankyou.

Not this year.

I listened to Tomlin's explanation today saying he wanted to have time to get the ball back in the hands of the O. Problem with that logic is that if we had recovered there was a good chance the other O would have gotten the ball with 2 minutes.

I agree with his thinking because of past performance but I disagree with the logic because we would have needed two first downs like I said to run the clock. Chances are we have had to punt if we recovered the ball............beacause they would have run twice and passed incomplete and punted giving GB the ball with 2 plus minutes.

I still cannot put the scenario together that makes this a good thing except the one that happened and that was a aberration as well:tt03:

Preacher
12-21-2009, 07:03 PM
I listened to Tomlin's explanation today saying he wanted to have time to get the ball back in the hands of the O. Problem with that logic is that if we had recovered there was a good chance the other O would have gotten the ball with 2 minutes.

I agree with his thinking because of past performance but I disagree with the logic because we would have needed two first downs like I said to run the clock. Chances are we have had to punt if we recovered the ball............beacause they would have run twice and passed incomplete and punted giving GB the ball with 2 plus minutes.

I still cannot put the scenario together that makes this a good thing except the one that happened and that was a aberration as well:tt03:

Had we recovered, then we have the ability to eat up all that time on the clock.. AND drive for more points. We were up by 2 points. So we needed a field goal to make it a 5 point game... and we have lost on a couple last minute field goals. So that DOES make sense.

Furthermore, if we get a TD, then we are up by 9 points, and it takes TWO scores in under 2 minutes or so. That AGAIN puts us in a great place.

We have been driving on them all half.

You play the odds, and the odds said our offense had a better chance of winning the game than the defense. Either up front, by putting the game out of reach, or by making them score a TD instead of a field goal, or by getting the ball back to our offense with enough time to drive.

Everyone of those makes a lot more sense then depending on teh defense to stop an offense driving for a win, ESPECIALLY when they will only have to kick a field goal to do it.

steelergirl07
12-21-2009, 07:19 PM
With the way the defense has been playing, I thought it was a good call. Risky no doubt, but I trust our offense more than our defense.

rich4eagle
12-21-2009, 07:23 PM
:drink:Had we recovered, then we have the ability to eat up all that time on the clock.. AND drive for more points. We were up by 2 points. So we needed a field goal to make it a 5 point game... and we have lost on a couple last minute field goals. So that DOES make sense.

Furthermore, if we get a TD, then we are up by 9 points, and it takes TWO scores in under 2 minutes or so. That AGAIN puts us in a great place.

We have been driving on them all half.

You play the odds, and the odds said our offense had a better chance of winning the game than the defense. Either up front, by putting the game out of reach, or by making them score a TD instead of a field goal, or by getting the ball back to our offense with enough time to drive.

Everyone of those makes a lot more sense then depending on teh defense to stop an offense driving for a win, ESPECIALLY when they will only have to kick a field goal to do it.

Why are you so confident that we would recover the kick (less than 50%) and then make the requisite two first downs or three as required to run the clock or score a TD.

again it there were two minutes, maybe, four minutes, wrong call unless totally confident in recovery which proved to fail

NJarhead
12-21-2009, 07:33 PM
:drink:

Why are you so confident that we would recover the kick (less than 50%) and then make the requisite two first downs or three as required to run the clock or score a TD.

again it there were two minutes, maybe, four minutes, wrong call unless totally confident in recovery which proved to fail

roughly 60%.

The Advanced NFL Stats computation was based on a 60 percent success rate for "surprise on-side kicks (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html)," vs. a 20 percent success rate for all on-side kicks.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/79841767.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUgOy9cP3DieyckcUsI

We would have lost had we kicked it deep. I'm convinced of that. In fact, history has proven that. I don't see how anyone could fault Tomlin for any drastic measure he'd take. He took a chance and it worked out. Call it luck if ya want, but what it wasn't, was us losing again in the same ole' fashion.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 07:48 PM
:drink:

Why are you so confident that we would recover the kick (less than 50%) and then make the requisite two first downs or three as required to run the clock or score a TD.

again it there were two minutes, maybe, four minutes, wrong call unless totally confident in recovery which proved to fail

I'm not. I am just answering your question.

I listened to Tomlin's explanation today saying he wanted to have time to get the ball back in the hands of the O. Problem with that logic is that if we had recovered there was a good chance the other O would have gotten the ball with 2 minutes.

I agree with his thinking because of past performance but I disagree with the logic because we would have needed two first downs like I said to run the clock. Chances are we have had to punt if we recovered the ball............beacause they would have run twice and passed incomplete and punted giving GB the ball with 2 plus minutes.

I still cannot put the scenario together that makes this a good thing except the one that happened and that was a aberration as wel


The way it played out... either we recover and up our chances of winning greatly, or they recover, and we have a 50/50 chance of them scoring and giving our offense enough time to win the game in the end.

The WORST decision, is to give their offense a whole field to work with, 4 minutes to do it, with only 2 points needed, against the most horrid 4th quarter defense in the NFL (except for maybe 2).

Preacher
12-21-2009, 07:49 PM
We would have lost had we kicked it deep. I'm convinced of that. In fact, history has proven that. I don't see how anyone could fault Tomlin for any drastic measure he'd take. He took a chance and it worked out. Call it luck if ya want, but what it wasn't, was us losing again in the same ole' fashion.

Exactly. The sure way to lose the game is to put it in the hands of our defense with 4 minutes left and 2 points between.

X-Terminator
12-21-2009, 11:16 PM
I take issue with the terms "hate" and "bias". I've never met MT. I don't know him. I don't even mildly dislike him, much less hate him.

He demonstrates his "lack of experience" and that he's "in over his head," on a weekly basis. Does pointing that out constitute hatred?

Why, in these modern times, does disagreement paint "some" people as "haters"? I disagree with his selection, some of his staff choices, his mismanagement of Super Bowl caliber talent, his apparent inability to correct correctable problems, and his recent colossally stupid statements. As a lifelong fan, I would prefer that he not be the HC of the Pittsburgh Steelers. In stating that, how have I expressed "hate"?

Sorry, but these statements right here prove my point. There is no way anyone could realistically think you'd have any objectivity when it comes to Tomlin. Not when you've come right out and said you didn't even want him to be hired in the first place. And yes, that does make you a "hater" whether you like the term or not. You have every opportunity to prove me wrong, of course.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Sorry, but these statements right here prove my point. There is no way anyone could realistically think you'd have any objectivity when it comes to Tomlin. Not when you've come right out and said you didn't even want him to be hired in the first place. And yes, that does make you a "hater" whether you like the term or not. You have every opportunity to prove me wrong, of course.


I've gotta wonder, did he feel the same way about Cowher, who had about the same experience Tomlin had. If he did, how long did it take him to get over it?

If not, then what is the difference between the two? Because I can't really see one, except Cowher was too conservative.

Shea
12-21-2009, 11:25 PM
Whoa there Podnuh. I don't hate anybody except terrorists, as I've stated in other threads.

The only thing I've have stated in this thread is my disagreement with the decision, the reasons for making it, and the collateral damage of making it. Its still America and I can make a point, right?

You sure about that? Or maybe it's just hate within your heart that your mind doesn't register. Remember your little message you left me?

Where's that thread about celebrities that have died, and something about wishing Obama was on that list as well, but then again you probably view him as a terrorist.
Hmmmmm, not hating .... sorry, but I call the ole BS on this one. :bs:

X-Terminator
12-21-2009, 11:40 PM
I've got a serious question I haven't seen anyone ask. Why did the Packers go for a 2 point conversion on their last TD? They gained nothing ( as far as I can figure) and risk losing the possiblity of a go ahead fg if the Steelers score the TD with time remaining.

I scratched my head at that one too. If they kick the extra point, they still would have been able to win the game with a FG had the Steelers scored a TD and there was some time left. The only reason I can think of is that Mason Crosby came close to missing 2 PATs, and they didn't want to risk it, so they went for 2 instead.

I guess I am stuck in a timewarp here. I love it when the steeler D has a swagger about it and as a unit it truly intimidates its foes.

the only swagger it has now is when Ike claims he is from "swaggin"

As an outsider to the game (and country) I probably have a different set of football views and philosophies that are forged from watching and playing a lot of other football codes (rugby union, soccer, Rugby league and Aussie Rules). I see a team that is beginning to fracture slowly.

I still hold hope of a playoff run. To be successful in that playoff run the steelers are going to need a "balls and all" D to go with a O unit that keeps going off like a new years eve fireworks display.

The psyche of the D unit must be at an all time low. They are unable to stop the air game, the passrush is continually mugged and flags arent thrown, they can control the run but when one rusher breaks past the LBers its a free pass past the safeties and finally they have lost their two cornerstones that bring greatness.

For managing a game it was probably the right call ( i am not qualified to state anymore other than I didnt like it personally)

From a managing players confidence point of view it may work one of two ways
1. P*ss the players off and light a fire under them
2. Erode confidence of some struggling players.

Lets hope is lights a fire.

It depends on how they decide to take it. If they're professionals, it'll be option 1. If they're just whiny babies who don't like being told that they aren't getting the job done, something that happens millions of times a day in every walk of life, then it'll be option 2. We'll see Sunday afternoon.

I've gotta wonder, did he feel the same way about Cowher, who had about the same experience Tomlin had. If he did, how long did it take him to get over it?

If not, then what is the difference between the two? Because I can't really see one, except Cowher was too conservative.

I've been wondering this myself.

Preacher
12-21-2009, 11:47 PM
I scratched my head at that one too. If they kick the extra point, they still would have been able to win the game with a FG had the Steelers scored a TD and there was some time left. The only reason I can think of is that Mason Crosby came close to missing 2 PATs, and they didn't want to risk it, so they went for 2 instead.

Maybe he was thinking that if we scored a TD, they would have a last ditch shot at a tie by blocking the XP?

devilsdancefloor
12-22-2009, 12:15 AM
the most important thing is a W i dont care if we onside it al lthe time as long as at the end of the day it is a W. As for then Defense i see the front 5 working their asses off

ytsan2q
12-22-2009, 12:19 AM
If you watched our D play this game and all the other games we lost in the last few seconds of the game it did.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 06:16 AM
Sorry, but these statements right here prove my point. There is no way anyone could realistically think you'd have any objectivity when it comes to Tomlin. Not when you've come right out and said you didn't even want him to be hired in the first place. And yes, that does make you a "hater" whether you like the term or not. You have every opportunity to prove me wrong, of course.

OK. Put the apparent emotion surrounding MT aside for a moment.

I don't think Wade Phillips was a very good choice to coach the cowpies. Does that make me a "hater"?

mesaSteeler
12-22-2009, 06:22 AM
(Mods I should have put this on the other thread about this topic. Feel free to move it. Sorry about that. - mesa)

Reviewing Steelers’ Decision to Try Onside Kick
By TONI MONKOVIC
Pittsburg Steelers
Green Bay Packers
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/reviewing-steelers-decision-to-try-onside-kick/?emc=eta1

“I don’t live in my fear. I just play to win, and I don’t worry about being judged.”
Mike Tomlin, Steelers coach

Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats sent us an e-mail on the Steelers’ unorthodox decision to try an onside kick in their victory over the Packers. He gave us permission to re-run his blog post, and here it is:

Up by 2 points with 3:58 left against the Packers, Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin called for an onside kick. Was it a good decision?

When onside kicks are expected, they are successful only about 20% of the time. But unexpected onside kicks are successful a surprising 60% of the time. I think we can say this particular kick was certainly unexpected. And surprise onside kicks can be most beneficial when a team is ahead late in the game. Possession is critical.

In this case, had the Steelers recovered the kick, they would have had a first down at about their 40, which is good for about a 0.76 win probability (WP). An unsuccessful onside kick gives the ball to the Packers at the Steelers’ 40, worth 0.58 WP for the Packers (which is 0.42 WP for the Steelers.) With a 60% success rate, the overall WP for the onside kick would be:

0.60 * 0.76 + (1-0.60) * 0.42 = 0.64 WP

A conventional kickoff gives the Packers a 1st and 10 at their own 30 or so (28 is the average, 33 is the median). This gives the Packers a 0.46 WP, which is 0.54 WP for the Steelers.

The onside kick is the better decision by 0.64 to 0.54 WP. These estimates are only league baselines, but they suggest it was probably a good call. What’s most interesting to me is that a failed onside kick is hardly certain death — a 0.42 WP. There was plenty of time for anything to happen — a stop, a turnover, a score. And sure enough the Steelers gave up a touchdown but came back with one of their own.

Also, a successful onside recovery doesn’t seal the game. The Steelers would still need at least two first downs to clinch the win. Essentially, the Steelers traded 30 yards of field position for the chance to keep the ball out of the Packers’ hands.

X-Terminator
12-22-2009, 09:11 AM
OK. Put the apparent emotion surrounding MT aside for a moment.

I don't think Wade Phillips was a very good choice to coach the cowpies. Does that make me a "hater"?

Good try. But you see, the 2 situations aren't the same. Phillips is an experienced HC, which means somewhere down the line, someone gave him his very first chance at being a HC...the very thing you apparently wanted to - and still want to - deny MT. On top of that, MT has done the one thing that the Son of the Bum hasn't done, and that is coach a team to a championship. You'd think that would give MT a little bit more leeway, but obviously not with you. No. He should resign immediately in your eyes just because the team underachieved this season and should not be given a chance next season to rectify the problem.

My opinion stands.

fansince'76
12-22-2009, 09:35 AM
On top of that, MT has done the one thing that the Son of the Bum hasn't done, and that is coach a team to a championship.

Yep, and the tired argument "well, Tomlin was given a loaded team" doesn't wash here. SO WAS PHILLIPS.

NJarhead
12-22-2009, 09:40 AM
Yep, and the tired argument "well, Tomlin was given a loaded team" doesn't wash here. SO WAS PHILLIPS.


Bu, Bu, Bu, Bu Cowher? :chuckle:

LukesDad88
12-22-2009, 09:55 AM
(Mods I should have put this on the other thread about this topic. Feel free to move it. Sorry about that. - mesa)

Reviewing Steelers’ Decision to Try Onside Kick
By TONI MONKOVIC
Pittsburg Steelers
Green Bay Packers
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/reviewing-steelers-decision-to-try-onside-kick/?emc=eta1

“I don’t live in my fear. I just play to win, and I don’t worry about being judged.”
Mike Tomlin, Steelers coach

Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats sent us an e-mail on the Steelers’ unorthodox decision to try an onside kick in their victory over the Packers. He gave us permission to re-run his blog post, and here it is:

Up by 2 points with 3:58 left against the Packers, Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin called for an onside kick. Was it a good decision?

When onside kicks are expected, they are successful only about 20% of the time. But unexpected onside kicks are successful a surprising 60% of the time. I think we can say this particular kick was certainly unexpected. And surprise onside kicks can be most beneficial when a team is ahead late in the game. Possession is critical.

In this case, had the Steelers recovered the kick, they would have had a first down at about their 40, which is good for about a 0.76 win probability (WP). An unsuccessful onside kick gives the ball to the Packers at the Steelers’ 40, worth 0.58 WP for the Packers (which is 0.42 WP for the Steelers.) With a 60% success rate, the overall WP for the onside kick would be:

0.60 * 0.76 + (1-0.60) * 0.42 = 0.64 WP

A conventional kickoff gives the Packers a 1st and 10 at their own 30 or so (28 is the average, 33 is the median). This gives the Packers a 0.46 WP, which is 0.54 WP for the Steelers.

The onside kick is the better decision by 0.64 to 0.54 WP. These estimates are only league baselines, but they suggest it was probably a good call. What’s most interesting to me is that a failed onside kick is hardly certain death — a 0.42 WP. There was plenty of time for anything to happen — a stop, a turnover, a score. And sure enough the Steelers gave up a touchdown but came back with one of their own.

Also, a successful onside recovery doesn’t seal the game. The Steelers would still need at least two first downs to clinch the win. Essentially, the Steelers traded 30 yards of field position for the chance to keep the ball out of the Packers’ hands.

And there it is. I agreed with the call at the time, too.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Good try. But you see, the 2 situations aren't the same. Phillips is an experienced HC, which means somewhere down the line, someone gave him his very first chance at being a HC...the very thing you apparently wanted to - and still want to - deny MT. On top of that, MT has done the one thing that the Son of the Bum hasn't done, and that is coach a team to a championship. You'd think that would give MT a little bit more leeway, but obviously not with you. No. He should resign immediately in your eyes just because the team underachieved this season and should not be given a chance next season to rectify the problem.

My opinion stands.

I didn't ask the question about Wade on the basis of records. Obviously I asked to make the point that disagreeing with a personnel selection doesn't make one a "hater". Both have loaded rosters. Both teams have underachieved.

I couldn't care less who else might have hired MT and given him his chance, except that it be the team I have rooted for all my life.

I would have preferred Whiz or Russ. Didn't happen. Along came MT. I disagreed with the choice then. Still do. How the @#$% does that make me a "hater"?

As for those that made the Cowher / MT experience comparison, Cowher had three years as a pro DC under his belt, following two years coaching the secondary and another two with STs. MT had five years coaching the DBs and a year as DC. IMHO, MT lacked the experience to take the reigns of the Pittsburgh Steelers. That was evident in 07. Its painfully evident in 09. 08 is open to debate, but I don't think he affected it much one way or the other.

I was neutral on the Cowher decision at the time. To me it was between Cowher and Wannstedt. Toss a coin.

I will go on record as saying that unless the team goes the way it did in 2H09, MT is here for as long as he wants to be. As a lifelong fan, I hope he is resoundingly successful.

fansince'76
12-22-2009, 12:08 PM
IMHO, MT lacked the experience to take the reigns of the Pittsburgh Steelers. That was evident in 07. Its painfully evident in 09. 08 is open to debate, but I don't think he affected it much one way or the other.

OK, so by your logic, he was "responsible" for the '07 season, despite the team being basically a M.A.S.H. unit towards the end of that season and still making the playoffs that year after missing them in '06, he's "responsible" for the 2006-like swoon this season, but had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the team's fortunes in '08? Makes sense, and was just the kind of post I expected. No offense, but there's a reason I thank Christ that the fans don't call the shots for this team, because if they did, we'd become the Snyder Redskins in no time.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 12:19 PM
OK, so by your logic, he was "responsible" for the '07 season, despite the team being basically a M.A.S.H. unit towards the end of that season and still making the playoffs that year after missing them in '06, he's "responsible" for the 2006-like swoon this season, but had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the team's fortunes in '08? Makes sense, and was just the kind of post I expected. No offense, but there's a reason I thank Christ that the fans don't call the shots for this team, because if they did, we'd become the Snyder Redskins in no time.

I make no pretense at being smarter than Rooneys or any other pro sports ownership or management team. I have made my position on the MT hiring clear. Am I not allowed to have an opinion contrary to yours?

You seem to be a MT fan. Make the case that he affected 08 in any way. I watched every game several times. TV being the wasteland that it is, that's what I do. I didn't note MT's fingerprint on much of anything except getting the defense thinking "run back" on turn overs. That played out on the Silverback SB TD.

The contrast between this board and Steeler Nation is remarkable. They have a "Has a HC ever been fired during a game(THE ONSIDE KICK DEBATE)" poll where the preveiling sentiment is "Tomlin you asshat. That was as stupid as it gets. An onside kick attempt when you are winning under 4 minutes left. You are breaking new ground." The board admin's av is ..

http://s647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/vinnyq/UnleashFailsmall.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Whudda bunch of "haters"! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

I think I'm rather charitable by comparison.

Dino 6 Rings
12-22-2009, 12:26 PM
what's really sad, is that after the kick, and ball given to the Packers at our 38 yard line, the Defense STILL couldn't make a play and still couldn't make a stop and still let up a touchdown.

I mean, a 3 and out there, with maybe 8 yards gained, makes it a 47 yard field goal attempt into the open end of the stadium for the win. Instead, they shove the ball right down our defense's throat and score 7 to go up and then, to add insult to injury, with a 4 point lead, Convert a freaking 2 point conversion to go up by 6.

For the record, in football terms, there is no difference between a 6 point and 5 point lead at that point in the game, either way, we need a TD to win and there is obviously only enough time left on the clock for one drive. How about that Slap in the Face that the Packers Offense Gave our Defense after Tomlin made this call?

No one want to talk about that pathetic performance by our once Fantastic Defense?

fansince'76
12-22-2009, 12:34 PM
You seem to be a MT fan. Make the case that he affected 08 in any way. I watched every game several times. TV being the wasteland that it is, that's what I do. I didn't note MT's fingerprint on much of anything except getting the defense thinking "run back" on turn overs. That played out on the Silverback SB TD.

Well, he was the HC. If you're going to blame him for the swoon this season, how does he have no effect on a SB-winning season? You can't have it both ways. And if you think simply sticking any schmuck in the HC position for a team loaded with talent will suffice in winning a championship, then please allow me to present the San Diego Chargers and Dallas Cowboys as exhibits A and B.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 12:38 PM
And if you think simply sticking any schmuck in the HC position for a team loaded with talent will suffice in winning a championship, then please allow me to present the San Diego Chargers and Dallas Cowboys as exhibits A and B.

That's precisely why I would have preferred Whiz or Russ at the time. I liked their chances better than a kid with a year as a DC. Why is that so irritating to people on this board?

Preacher
12-22-2009, 04:40 PM
That's precisely why I would have preferred Whiz or Russ at the time. I liked their chances better than a kid with a year as a DC. Why is that so irritating to people on this board?

Because you have failed to yet answer this question.

I've gotta wonder, did he feel the same way about Cowher, who had about the same experience Tomlin had. If he did, how long did it take him to get over it?

If not, then what is the difference between the two? Because I can't really see one, except Cowher was too conservative.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 04:53 PM
Because you have failed to yet answer this question.

"Failed"? What, am I on the witness stand? But I haven't been read my rights. :chuckle:

Its on the same page for Heaven's sake. And the record would indicate that Cowher had three times the DC experience of MT.

I didn't ask the question about Wade on the basis of records. Obviously I asked to make the point that disagreeing with a personnel selection doesn't make one a "hater". Both have loaded rosters. Both teams have underachieved.

I couldn't care less who else might have hired MT and given him his chance, except that it be the team I have rooted for all my life.

I would have preferred Whiz or Russ. Didn't happen. Along came MT. I disagreed with the choice then. Still do. How the @#$% does that make me a "hater"?

As for those that made the Cowher / MT experience comparison, Cowher had three years as a pro DC under his belt, following two years coaching the secondary and another two with STs. MT had five years coaching the DBs and a year as DC. IMHO, MT lacked the experience to take the reigns of the Pittsburgh Steelers. That was evident in 07. Its painfully evident in 09. 08 is open to debate, but I don't think he affected it much one way or the other.

I was neutral on the Cowher decision at the time. To me it was between Cowher and Wannstedt. Toss a coin.

I will go on record as saying that unless the team goes the way it did in 2H09, MT is here for as long as he wants to be. As a lifelong fan, I hope he is resoundingly successful.

X-Terminator
12-22-2009, 04:55 PM
That's precisely why I would have preferred Whiz or Russ at the time. I liked their chances better than a kid with a year as a DC. Why is that so irritating to people on this board?

It's irritating because "firing the HC" (or, in your case, asking for his resignation) is the first thing the fans do whenever the team has a bad season. Benching the QB is second...which of course we had last season when some lawn jockey on this board actually had the gall to call for Big Ben to be traded. Anyway, back to the point - how many times was Cowher "fired" by the fans from 1998-2000? And remember, that happened a year after they went to the AFCC. What about 2003? Lots of calls for Cowher to be run out of town along with Tommy Maddox. It's why I thank God that the Rooneys do not bow to fan pressure whenever they make personnel or coaching decisions.

It is also irritating because by calling for him to resign and downplaying his impact on the team, last season especially, means that you do not and will not support him, since your guy didn't get the job. It borders on sour grapes.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 05:06 PM
It is also irritating because by calling for him to resign and downplaying his impact on the team, last season especially, means that you do not and will not support him, since your guy didn't get the job. It borders on sour grapes.

I will go on record as saying that unless the team goes the way it did in 2H09, MT is here for as long as he wants to be. As a lifelong fan, I hope he is resoundingly successful.

Nah, no sour grapes. No hate. Just disagree with the decision. I think that's about all I can say on the subject at this point.

As for the passion for MT, what has he done in his tenure that has you all excited. Nobody seems to want to answer that question. I've spent a good bit of time "on the stand" over this. Somebody step up and make the case for MT.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 05:13 PM
"Failed"? What, am I on the witness stand? But I haven't been read my rights. :chuckle:

Its on the same page for Heaven's sake.
:hatsoff: My apologies... I didn't see that.

Actually 2007 came simply because the team was worked to hard. Yes, that is a problem, but a problem ANY rookie coach could have made.

Can you explain to me seasons 97-99, 2003, and 2006? Were those all rookie coaching mistakes?

You could just as easily argue that Cowher took over a Chuck Knoll team that was rebuilding for another SB run... and rode that team, making mistakes his first year, getting lucky his second and third year, and then Cowher's faults came out in years 97-99.

Personally, I don't buy any of it. Not about Cowher, not about Tomlin. Tomlin came in that first camp and established his way of doing things. People didn't like it, and they were gone. Why do you think Big Red ain't with us anymore? Bye bye. Joey Porter? Bye Bye. They were mouthing about things, and were cut or not resigned. While ownership had a lot to do with that, you CAN BET that Tomlin was in on it too.

Then to the drafts. Woodley? Timmons? Mendenhall? Sep? Wallace? Johnson? 6 good contributors from three drafts, with a few more waiting in the wings.

Last year, Our top receiver is busted for possession of pot. WHat does our coach do? He CLEARLY shows that this team is not the Bengals. The kid sits, in a VERY important game. What are the ramifications? That same kid becomes the SB MVP. He learns a little more discipline.

There are things I think Tomlin is wrong on. I think he is ruining Sweed. Sweed's issues are mental toughness issues. You learn that by pushing through, but Tomlin did not give him a chance to do that. He kept getting pulled, EVEN after having a VERY GOOD preseason.

But be that as it may, Tomlin is, IMO, an excellent coach. He did in two years what took Cowher almost his entire career to day. He won a SB.

X-Terminator
12-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Nah, no sour grapes. No hate. Just disagree with the decision. I think that's about all I can say on the subject at this point.

As for the passion for MT, what has he done in his tenure that has you all excited. Nobody seems to want to answer that question. I've spent a good bit of time "on the stand" over this. Somebody step up and make the case for MT.

I didn't see that above - my bad.

Anyway, for me it's not so much passion for MT, but supporting the coach and NOT be a typical fan who calls for firings and resignations whenever things go bad. MT has earned the chance to "right the ship" next season and beyond by virtue of the ring on his finger. And even if he hadn't won it...so what? The Rooneys have always shown patience, thankfully much more patience than the fans show, and would not have even considered the thought of firing him. They will fire all of his assistants and replace half the team before that happens.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 05:26 PM
I didn't see that above - my bad.

Anyway, for me it's not so much passion for MT, but supporting the coach and NOT be a typical fan who calls for firings and resignations whenever things go bad. MT has earned the chance to "right the ship" next season and beyond by virtue of the ring on his finger. And even if he hadn't won it...so what? The Rooneys have always shown patience, thankfully much more patience than the fans show, and would not have even considered the thought of firing him. They will fire all of his assistants and replace half the team before that happens.

My sentiments exactly.

Either you hire a guy that has a bunch of experience, and then have to make all sorts of changes in the ethos of the team and organization to accomodate it, which causes confusion and derision, especially when there is a revolving door (see the Browns), or you hire young coach, let him "grow" in the organization and learn from within, giving him room to make some mistakes and learn how to be a better coach.

I prefer the latter to the former.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 08:00 PM
Anyway, for me it's not so much passion for MT, but supporting the coach and NOT be a typical fan who calls for firings and resignations whenever things go bad. MT has earned the chance to "right the ship" next season and beyond by virtue of the ring on his finger. And even if he hadn't won it...so what? The Rooneys have always shown patience, thankfully much more patience than the fans show, and would not have even considered the thought of firing him. They will fire all of his assistants and replace half the team before that happens.

One thing we can all agree on is the steady Rooney hand. And maybe that'll play out again.

I support any Steeler coach or player in venue or in conversation outside of Steeler circles. I'm from the "My country right or wrong" school of thought. That applies to God, Country, Family and Team. That's what fans do. I have never or will ever boo the team. And I have experienced a 1-13 season.

I will, however, speak my mind within the confines of a Steelers forum or among Steelers fans regardless of the flack. It's America, We still get to do that.

Actually 2007 came simply because the team was worked to hard. Yes, that is a problem, but a problem ANY rookie coach could have made.

No dispute.

Can you explain to me seasons 97-99, 2003, and 2006? Were those all rookie coaching mistakes? .

Well, they would hardly be “rookie mistakes” as BC was by then a tenured coach.

In 97, we lost the AFCCG, BC’s 3nd, at home. I remember that one as the beginning of the Korky meltdown – 3 picks. Coulda shoulda had that one. In 98 we took a 7-4 record into Detroit for the mind numbing finish to that Thanksgiving game. We never recovered and lost the last 5. I said in another thread that the 2nd bungholes game this year was eerily like Thanksgiving 98, and sure enough, we lost the next 4 to teams we should have handled. We only just beat GB with 00 on the clock. The 2nd stains game this year reminded me of the 2nd jags game in 98. The team was lost and Korky was sobbing on the sidelines. In 99 the pattern repeated and should have signaled the end of the BC era. We were 5-3 at the half and finished 1-7. To the Rooney’s credit, they gave BC an extension. In 2 of those 3 seasons there were 5 or more game losing streaks to end what started as promising seasons.

You could just as easily argue that Cowher took over a Chuck Knoll team that was rebuilding for another SB run... and rode that team, making mistakes his first year, getting lucky his second and third year, and then Cowher's faults came out in years 97-99. .

You could, but I wouldn’t. Noll’s teams of the 80s didn’t have the talent that MT inherited. And what Noll got out of those teams was by sheer coaching. In 92, BC inherited a decent roster including O'Donnell, Foster, Hoge, Green, Jackson, Strzelczyk, Ilkin, Dawson, Haselrig, Nickerson, Little, Lloyd, Woodson, and Lake. They added Searcy, Kirkland, Steed, and Perry in that draft and the team started to look like the one we called Cowher’s. In 07 MT inherited the BC team that won 2 Super Bowls in 4 years.

Personally, I don't buy any of it. Not about Cowher, not about Tomlin. Tomlin came in that first camp and established his way of doing things. People didn't like it, and they were gone. Why do you think Big Red ain't with us anymore? Bye bye. Joey Porter? Bye Bye. They were mouthing about things, and were cut or not resigned. While ownership had a lot to do with that, you CAN BET that Tomlin was in on it too. .

“Tomlin was in on it” BC was a firebrand.

Then to the drafts. Woodley? Timmons? Mendenhall? Sep? Wallace? Johnson? 6 good contributors from three drafts, with a few more waiting in the wings.

I like all those choices. I also liked Searcy, Kirkland, Steed, Perry, Figures, Brown, Hastings, Williams, Johnson, Buckner, Gildon, Morris, and Bell that rounded out that 92 roster into our 95 Super Bowl team. I didn’t include Bruenner, Stewart, Stai and Flowers because we’re only comparing the first three drafts.

Last year, Our top receiver is busted for possession of pot. WHat does our coach do? He CLEARLY shows that this team is not the Bengals. The kid sits, in a VERY important game. What are the ramifications? That same kid becomes the SB MVP. He learns a little more discipline.

A whole game?! Yeah. Good move. BC cut Bam Morris, our SBXXX feature back. That turned out better than expected because we probably wouldn’t have had the services of our recently retired 315lb tailback for the next decade had Bam not been busted.

There are things I think Tomlin is wrong on. I think he is ruining Sweed. Sweed's issues are mental toughness issues. You learn that by pushing through, but Tomlin did not give him a chance to do that. He kept getting pulled, EVEN after having a VERY GOOD preseason.

Very much agree. I think he’s allowing Ben to get beaten to death by sticking with our putz OC, allowing scrub teams to scorch us with run backs, and allowing the perennial best defense in the league (which he also inherited) to languish. He’s the HC. He owns those problems. He hasn’t even begun to fix them. I will, however, give MT props for how he handled Mendy.

By the same token BC could have managed Korky better. That kid had some serious talent. BC clearly lost the team during three long losing streaks. He mailed in 06. But in spite of being a “Marty Ball” disciple, and arguably because of it, he eeked out 9 division titles, 2 conference championships, a Lombardi, and perhaps one of the gaudier records of all time – 110-1 with a 10 point lead.

But be that as it may, Tomlin is, IMO, an excellent coach. He did in two years what took Cowher almost his entire career to day. He won a SB.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I, apparently, am not. BC built the team that played in SBXXX. All MT has done “in two years” is manage to win another Lombardi with essentially the same roster BC won with two years earlier. Ben was a “game manager” in his first two years. MT was nothing more.

BC went 33-19 (including playoffs) or .634 in his first three seasons. MT will (I'll give him 9-7 but no play offs this year) go 34-19 or .653. BC built his team. MT inherited his. To MT's credit, it’s not yet three years. While I’m not encouraged by either Sweed or MT, the jury is still out.

Either you hire a guy that has a bunch of experience, and then have to make all sorts of changes in the ethos of the team and organization to accomodate it, which causes confusion and derision, especially when there is a revolving door (see the Browns), or you hire young coach, let him "grow" in the organization and learn from within, giving him room to make some mistakes and learn how to be a better coach.

I prefer the latter to the former.

I do too. CN and BC bear that out. Way too early to make that call with MT, but I hope it works out

ETL
12-22-2009, 08:49 PM
Can't fault Tomlin for making that call. Its one that you live and die by and I for one am glad that he's got the guts to make calls like that.

How many of you are crucifying Tomlin for making this call and were also criticizing Cowher when he was too conservative? Your 20-20 hindsight is nice and accurate as usual.

How many games have we lost with the other teams offense scoring with no time left on the clock and our offense sitting on the sidelines. We have a top 5 QB, 2 superbowl MVP WRs and a top 3 TE on our offense and we have no chance to win because we have no time on the clock.

I totally understand why Tomlin made this call. If we recover the onside kick (50-50 chance with element of surprise), we win the game. If we don't recover, GB will score early and we have a chance to win with our strength, our offense. If we kick away, there's a chance that our offense would never see the ball again and GB kicks a game winning FG with no time on the clock. I would have puked out my liver if I saw that happen again.

I totally understand why Tomlin made this call. It was a calculated and well-thought out call. Football is about risks and this was a calculated risk worth taking.

Yes, I know it makes a comment about the defense and how little confidence he has in them. WAKE the F$%K UP! Our defense sucks right now and if that is hard for you do swallow, get over it. Also get over all the lore of the Steelers being a good defensive team and blah, blah, blah... What a bunch of homer crap. Get over it.

Our defense gave up a TD to larry fitzgerald in the SB when it really counted and our offense had to save the day. Get over it. Its a servicable group but right now, they can't be relied on to win games.

Tomlin knows all this and I hope he sent a message to the defense saying to they YOU ARE NOT RELIABLE and hopefully a drastic call like this gets them to man up.

I for one like tomlin alot and want him to coach this team for decades to come.

mesaSteeler
12-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Was the onside kick a smart call?
Steelers Q&A with Ed Bouchette
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Click here to submit your question

Q: Hi Ed -- under other circumstances (meaning if the defense had not forgotten how to tackle or catch balls), then I would have thought Mike Tomlin's onside kick to be absurd. However, considering how they have lost most of their games, don't you think the call was smart? It gave them a chance to get the ball at best, and at worst, it shortened the field so the Packers could not just eat up the clock before they scored the inevitable touchdown.

Rob Pierce, Albuquerque, N.M.

BOUCHETTE: If indeed that was the thinking, then they should have let the Packers score on their first play from the 39 and not allowed them to take six plays and nearly two minutes to score. Green Bay almost did not score fast enough to allow the plan to work.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09356/1022797-367.stm#ixzz0aTkoeq9c

NJarhead
12-22-2009, 09:30 PM
I agree with Ed Bouchette about 50% of the time myself.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 09:39 PM
it’s not yet three years. While I’m not encouraged by either Sweed or MT, the jury is still out.



I do too. CN and BC bear that out. Way too early to make that call with MT, but I hope it works out


Now that assessment I can understand a lot more. While I disagree, I can definitely understand the logic there that says, "I want to see what happens when Tomlin's tenure extends to the majority of player selections"

Maybe its from my background as a pastor, but I see leadership differently. Pastors go into churches that are busting at the seams and ready to explode with growth, and destroy them. Other pastors go into church that are down and out, and see them grow greatly. While in the ministry, I believe the Lord has a lot to do with it, another element that simply cannot be discounted is the ability and style of leadership.

From my training in those areas, I have liked what MT has done. I think (from what I have seen from the outside, granted), he has been a very good leader. That is the most important thing about being a coach. Your assistants can carry you on the ins and outs of the technicalities of the game, but the coach has to be a good leader.

steelwalls
12-22-2009, 09:58 PM
BOUCHETTE: If indeed that was the thinking, then they should have let the Packers score on their first play from the 39 and not allowed them to take six plays and nearly two minutes to score. Green Bay almost did not score fast enough to allow the plan to work.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09356/1022797-367.stm#ixzz0aTkoeq9c

Bouchette can be such a douch sometimes, this is his job come with a serious reply. I get sick of his talking down to people sometimes.

ummmmm...hopeing they would only score a feild goal jerk, and not leaving them with time too..

Bluedust
12-22-2009, 10:08 PM
Not sure what more should be expected of MT at this point in time.
Assuming we win out this year (definitely not even 75% chance) that's 3 +.500 seasons out of 3, and depending on how the games fall (and we win out) 3 playoff appearances in 3 seasons as well.

I still believe this season was a disaster but it took a ballsy call by Tomlin to finally give up on the defense beating us every week to get us a win, thank you MT.

Everyone does say Pittsburgh has the most nonsensical fans, and living here my whole life that's usually true so, I dunno, whatever.

BUT HEY, he better win the Superbowl this year or fire his ass!!! :tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt:

Preacher
12-23-2009, 03:40 AM
Not sure what more should be expected of MT at this point in time.
Assuming we win out this year (definitely not even 75% chance) that's 3 +.500 seasons out of 3, and depending on how the games fall (and we win out) 3 playoff appearances in 3 seasons as well.

I still believe this season was a disaster but it took a ballsy call by Tomlin to finally give up on the defense beating us every week to get us a win, thank you MT.

Everyone does say Pittsburgh has the most nonsensical fans, and living here my whole life that's usually true so, I dunno, whatever.

BUT HEY, he better win the Superbowl this year or fire his ass!!! :tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt:

Yep, that's a typical steelers fan! :chuckle:

gosteeler
12-23-2009, 06:24 AM
the onside kick in my opinion was the smartest move made by any coach in the league this year!!! when your team is in a funk and there is no way out, a coach must make decisions to help!!!

I thought it was a great call at the time I saw it!!!! the steelers didn't have anything to lose, there not going to the playoffs no matter what anybody has hopes for


the win only cost them in the draft next april anyway!!!!!


Great call Tomlin, should have been russ grimm making that call though and not tomlin

vasteeler
12-23-2009, 07:23 AM
the onside kick in my opinion was the smartest move made by any coach in the league this year!!! when your team is in a funk and there is no way out, a coach must make decisions to help!!!

I thought it was a great call at the time I saw it!!!! the steelers didn't have anything to lose, there not going to the playoffs no matter what anybody has hopes for


the win only cost them in the draft next april anyway!!!!!


Great call Tomlin, should have been russ grimm making that call though and not tomlin :doh:

Vincent
12-23-2009, 07:27 AM
Yep, that's a typical steelers fan! :chuckle:

Its the Rooney's fault. They made us that way. :couch:

steelax04
12-23-2009, 09:59 AM
the onside kick in my opinion was the smartest move made by any coach in the league this year!!! when your team is in a funk and there is no way out, a coach must make decisions to help!!!

I thought it was a great call at the time I saw it!!!! the steelers didn't have anything to lose, there not going to the playoffs no matter what anybody has hopes for


the win only cost them in the draft next april anyway!!!!!


Great call Tomlin, should have been russ grimm making that call though and not tomlin

I'm trying to follow you here...

Great call... BUT it didn't matter and cost us a draft spot.
Tomlin made the smartest move all year... BUT Russ Grimm should be the Steelers coach.

Did I get all of that correct?

stillers4me
12-23-2009, 10:25 AM
I'm trying to follow you here...

Great call... BUT it didn't matter and cost us a draft spot.
Tomlin made the smartest move all year... BUT Russ Grimm should be the Steelers coach.

Did I get all of that correct?

Unfortunately, I think you did. :hunch:

markymarc
12-23-2009, 12:06 PM
I loved the call by Mike Tomlin. I would love it even more if the defense got upset about being called out and got back to playing at a high level for at least 2 more games! It's funny how that was the 1 thing the entire media wanted to talk about on Monday was Tomlin's onside kick call.

Let's not forget that if Ike let's it roll 1 more yard the penalty flag is never thrown and we recover it. Mike knew what he was doing in leaving just enough time left for our offense to score the game winning TD. The Steelers won and it was because Tomlin had the nerve to make such a gutsy call late in the game.

Jmat
12-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Even Mike Tomlins 8 year old thought it was a dumb call.

GoSlash27
12-23-2009, 01:19 PM
I loved the call by Mike Tomlin. I would love it even more if the defense got upset about being called out and got back to playing at a high level for at least 2 more games! It's funny how that was the 1 thing the entire media wanted to talk about on Monday was Tomlin's onside kick call.

Let's not forget that if Ike let's it roll 1 more yard the penalty flag is never thrown and we recover it. Mike knew what he was doing in leaving just enough time left for our offense to score the game winning TD. The Steelers won and it was because Tomlin had the nerve to make such a gutsy call late in the game.

I agree.
His name would have been mud if it hadn't worked out. Everybody would have blamed his call for the loss.
But seriously, think about it. You're playing Madden and find yourself in the exact same situation. Who here *wouldn't* go for the onside with that much time left?

If your defense fails to stop the drive (which they showed every indication of), you get the ball back down by at least 2 with about 30 seconds on the clock if you're lucky.

Brilliant call IMO.