PDA

View Full Version : The good news , and the bad news...


caseydog
12-20-2009, 08:54 PM
The good news is that Ben threw for 503 yards. The bad news is that Ben had to throw for 503 yards to win.

IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock. They score touchdowns, after eating several minutes off the clock. Then, they make the opponent go three-and-out, and eat up several more minutes on the way to at least three, and hopefully seven more points.

I'm VERY happy that the Steelers won today, and Ben's 503 yards were certainly impressive, but would much rather see a game where Ben only got 200 yards, and the Steelers OWNED the line and the clock.

503 yards passing may be "exciting," but I would much rather be bored by the Steelers winning with a whole lot fewer yards, by controlling 80 percent of the game clock and pounding their opponents into submission on offense and defense.

Am I wrong about this?

Steelboy84
12-20-2009, 09:08 PM
The good news is that Ben threw for 503 yards. The bad news is that Ben had to throw for 503 yards to win.

IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock. They score touchdowns, after eating several minutes off the clock. Then, they make the opponent go three-and-out, and eat up several more minutes on the way to at least three, and hopefully seven more points.

I'm VERY happy that the Steelers won today, and Ben's 503 yards were certainly impressive, but would much rather see a game where Ben only got 200 yards, and the Steelers OWNED the line and the clock.

503 yards passing may be "exciting," but I would much rather be bored by the Steelers winning with a whole lot fewer yards, by controlling 80 percent of the game clock and pounding their opponents into submission on offense and defense.

Am I wrong about this?


Well man, right now, I'll take a win any way we can get 'em.

klick81
12-20-2009, 09:14 PM
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

What is true is that Ben saved this god-awful defense, but what is even more true is that I will SAVOR this victory. This is why I watch this damned game!

johnnyribcage
12-20-2009, 09:15 PM
Well man, right now, I'll take a win any way we can get 'em.

agreed, but a lot of that nonsense could have been avoided with a more balanced attack that chews clock time. Love the win, and I hate to throw a but in here, but... eh nevermind, goes without saying I think most of us noticed the particularly big but on that one near the end... :heha:

Go Steelers, thanks for the win and the show of heart!
:banana::tt04::banana:

Hammer67
12-20-2009, 09:18 PM
The good news is that Ben threw for 503 yards. The bad news is that Ben had to throw for 503 yards to win.

IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock. They score touchdowns, after eating several minutes off the clock. Then, they make the opponent go three-and-out, and eat up several more minutes on the way to at least three, and hopefully seven more points.

I'm VERY happy that the Steelers won today, and Ben's 503 yards were certainly impressive, but would much rather see a game where Ben only got 200 yards, and the Steelers OWNED the line and the clock.

503 yards passing may be "exciting," but I would much rather be bored by the Steelers winning with a whole lot fewer yards, by controlling 80 percent of the game clock and pounding their opponents into submission on offense and defense.

Am I wrong about this?

In today's NFL, yes. This ain't the 70's anymore....hell, it ain't the 90's!

Unfortunately, the Steelers would need to completely retool the line, find a Hall of Fame worthy, battering ram of a running back and rewind the clock on NFL defenses.

The Steelers have adapted with the times, and won a Super Bowl through the air. As do other teams these days.

Nuff said...these aren't your daddy's Steelers. So, some of Steeler Nation will have to get over it.

mesaSteeler
12-20-2009, 09:30 PM
The good news is that Ben threw for 503 yards. The bad news is that Ben had to throw for 503 yards to win.

IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock. They score touchdowns, after eating several minutes off the clock. Then, they make the opponent go three-and-out, and eat up several more minutes on the way to at least three, and hopefully seven more points.

I'm VERY happy that the Steelers won today, and Ben's 503 yards were certainly impressive, but would much rather see a game where Ben only got 200 yards, and the Steelers OWNED the line and the clock.

503 yards passing may be "exciting," but I would much rather be bored by the Steelers winning with a whole lot fewer yards, by controlling 80 percent of the game clock and pounding their opponents into submission on offense and defense.

Am I wrong about this?

You are completely correct!

I salute your sagacity. :hatsoff:

steel9guy
12-20-2009, 09:31 PM
I'd rather see them win running the ball but I'll take todays win.

SteelerFanInCA
12-20-2009, 09:36 PM
I'll take the W and be happy.

steelerchad
12-20-2009, 10:35 PM
Problem is, they're not built to do what you want them to on offense. Mendy has been a nice fit this year and I agree running a little more would help. But this is not a grind it out and hold them on D team anymore. I really don't care how it's done, just win.
Would like to see our D have a little more fire. This secondary is making our whole D look soft.

Preacher
12-20-2009, 10:38 PM
The good news is that Ben threw for 503 yards. The bad news is that Ben had to throw for 503 yards to win.

IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock. They score touchdowns, after eating several minutes off the clock. Then, they make the opponent go three-and-out, and eat up several more minutes on the way to at least three, and hopefully seven more points.

I'm VERY happy that the Steelers won today, and Ben's 503 yards were certainly impressive, but would much rather see a game where Ben only got 200 yards, and the Steelers OWNED the line and the clock.

503 yards passing may be "exciting," but I would much rather be bored by the Steelers winning with a whole lot fewer yards, by controlling 80 percent of the game clock and pounding their opponents into submission on offense and defense.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes you are.

Go back and look at SB records. Running teams over the last 15 years simply do not win SB's. There has been 1 that has won.

SO why go back to a style of ball that is basically 1-14 in the SB???

BlastFurnace
12-20-2009, 10:40 PM
Yes you are.

Go back and look at SB records. Running teams over the last 15 years simply do not win SB's. There has been 1 that has won.

SO why go back to a style of ball that is basically 1-14 in the SB???

Baltimore?

VegasStlrFan
12-20-2009, 11:20 PM
A track meet is fine if they can consistently score touchdowns. Massive yardage and field goals won't work, it lets the other team hang around. Look at tonight 1st half 3 TD's vs their 2 and were in good shape up by 7; 2nd half 3FG's 1TD vs their 3 TD's and we squeak out a win. Statistically we beat them in all 3 phases of the game but it was close because 2 red zone trips in the 4th produced only 6pts.

Another change that has to be made, if this is where were headed, is in Defensive philosophy. Track meets don't need run stuffing defensive fronts as much as they need ball hawking secondaries. We have arguably one of the best front 7 in the game and one of the worst secondaries. In a shootout, such as tonight, GB ran it 12 times and threw it 48. 48 shots at the weakest link no wonder they scored 36.

fansince'76
12-20-2009, 11:20 PM
IMHO, the Steelers win Super bowls by OWNING the line of scrimmage, and the clock.

We had over 35 minutes TOP today. I'd like to see the defense that we've become known for materialize again.

pepsyman1
12-21-2009, 12:25 AM
Yes you are.

Go back and look at SB records. Running teams over the last 15 years simply do not win SB's. There has been 1 that has won.

SO why go back to a style of ball that is basically 1-14 in the SB???

Preacher....lots of respect for your opinion, but I'm gonna call you out a little on this one. MOST of the SB winners had balanced offensive attacks (which I know you are calling for)...There have been 3 teams in the last 15 SB that have had a significantly higher ranked run offense then passing offense (00' Ravens 5th run-22nd pass, 05 Steelers 5th run-24th pass, 07 Giants 4th run-21 pass)....but even in the balanced offenses there are another 5 winners who had higher ranked running offenses than passing. (95 Cowboys 2nd run-13th pass, 97&98 Broncos 4th&2nd run-9th&7th pass, 01&04 Patriots 13th&7th run-22nd&11th pass) and even among two of the real high flying offenses that were higher ranked in the pass (94 Niners and 99 Rams) they still had good balance (Niners 6th run-4th pass, Rams 5th run-1st pass). Superbowl teams that are way lopsided toward the pass are AS rare as those way lopside toward the run. We need to have BOTH. You don't see many teams win the Superbowl with poor running games. We did last year but we had an astounding defense....Tampa Bay ditto. Even the 06 Colts were still ranked 18th in the run.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sharkissle29
12-21-2009, 12:32 AM
Yes you are.

Go back and look at SB records. Running teams over the last 15 years simply do not win SB's. There has been 1 that has won.

SO why go back to a style of ball that is basically 1-14 in the SB???

1-14?

how the hell did u come up with that number?

pepsyman1
12-21-2009, 01:41 PM
1-14?

how the hell did u come up with that number?

LOL...check my last post....that 1-14 number isn't quite right.

Bluedust
12-21-2009, 01:53 PM
It's a passing league now, adapt or die.

Rick5895
12-21-2009, 01:56 PM
I would like to see us run more, but thats my philosophy when I coach. OUR OFFENSE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THE PACKERS D GAVE US, we held the ball for 10 more minutes than the Packers, even when we ran more than we passed that was what our average T.O.P . People on these boards have been bitching and moaning that Arians and the O don't take advantage of what the D gives and don't adjust. NEWS FLASH, OUR OFFENSE DID THAT. What the hell more do people want, we just broke a 5 game losing streak and exhibited more character by winning than I have seen all season. Our coaching staff took chances, they never quit. WE WON. Let's be happy with that right now and see if it carries us through the rest of the season. My bet is this win and the way we won will solidify this team and we will be a lot better for it. IMO

Florida_Steelers_Fan
12-21-2009, 02:27 PM
visiting this website can be very depressing at times...i stopped coming around so much because i've never seen so many "debbie downers" in all my life.

the faster everyone gets the idea out of their mind that this is not the franco harris / bam morris / jerome bettis steelers, the better off we'll all be. just because this franchise has been something 10, 20 or 30 years ago doesn't mean a thing today.

look, i'm 37 and i remember all those great steeler teams from the late 1970s on (as best as i can, as i was born in '72). but everyone just expects this team to ALWAYS have a dominating run game and stalwart defense. i'd like that too...but it's NOT guaranteed.

the problem on this team is two-fold: our o-line is not very good and our corners are awful (i still like ike taylor, but he can't carry the whole team). the steelers need to fix their problems...not try and recreate the teams of yesteryear... the sooner we all get that the better off this franchise will be. i'm ready to let go of Noll and Cowher - while i appreciated them, it's a different time, and quite possibly a different style of play will now dominate this team. i can't say i agree with that philosophy, but whatever it takes to win is all that matters to me. not how...

pepsyman1
12-21-2009, 06:45 PM
visiting this website can be very depressing at times...i stopped coming around so much because i've never seen so many "debbie downers" in all my life.

the faster everyone gets the idea out of their mind that this is not the franco harris / bam morris / jerome bettis steelers, the better off we'll all be. just because this franchise has been something 10, 20 or 30 years ago doesn't mean a thing today.

look, i'm 37 and i remember all those great steeler teams from the late 1970s on (as best as i can, as i was born in '72). but everyone just expects this team to ALWAYS have a dominating run game and stalwart defense. i'd like that too...but it's NOT guaranteed.

the problem on this team is two-fold: our o-line is not very good and our corners are awful (i still like ike taylor, but he can't carry the whole team). the steelers need to fix their problems...not try and recreate the teams of yesteryear... the sooner we all get that the better off this franchise will be. i'm ready to let go of Noll and Cowher - while i appreciated them, it's a different time, and quite possibly a different style of play will now dominate this team. i can't say i agree with that philosophy, but whatever it takes to win is all that matters to me. not how...

Agreed.....BUT, you still don't see too many Superbowl Champions without at least a DECENT running game (top 15) I know Preacher suggests going back and checking the numbers....I did and my earlier post breaks down the numbers....It isn't necessary to be a top ranked rushing team, but the odds go against you if you're weak in that phase of the game.

CPanther95
12-21-2009, 07:02 PM
Ben is so good, he started at the 19 and still managed to pass for 93 yards on the final drive.

markymarc
12-22-2009, 12:52 PM
Sorry but I will take a victory no matter how it got done. Unfortunately it appears we can't rely on our defense anymore to stop an opponent. Let's not forget that Ben now ranks 5th ALL TIME for most passing yards in an NFL game.

Hammer67
12-22-2009, 03:30 PM
Agreed.....BUT, you still don't see too many Superbowl Champions without at least a DECENT running game (top 15) I know Preacher suggests going back and checking the numbers....I did and my earlier post breaks down the numbers....It isn't necessary to be a top ranked rushing team, but the odds go against you if you're weak in that phase of the game.


Balance is good and fine, but I think the issue is that some around here are going nuts over them "not playing Stillers football" by just running the whole game from the power I formation.

That, my friends, is gone. We have a 1000 yard back who didn't play in 5 games this year...that's decent balance. What old school Steeler Nation fanatics need to get over is that you aren't going to run the HB seam or the ISO plays anymore. Just not happening in today's NFL. GET OVER IT!

jokerman
12-22-2009, 08:44 PM
we still won. and i think a victory like that just may have sparked something in that pittsburgh team

pepsyman1
12-22-2009, 09:12 PM
Balance is good and fine, but I think the issue is that some around here are going nuts over them "not playing Stillers football" by just running the whole game from the power I formation.

That, my friends, is gone. We have a 1000 yard back who didn't play in 5 games this year...that's decent balance. What old school Steeler Nation fanatics need to get over is that you aren't going to run the HB seam or the ISO plays anymore. Just not happening in today's NFL. GET OVER IT!

I think the biggest reason people miss the I formation is that we KNOW that our O line isn't great and we don't have Adrian Peterson in the backfield....hence having a full back lead the attack would make the backs that we have more effective. I'm sure if we had a line that was opening big gaps on a regular basis people would have less issue with it. We know what we see...we have two primary backs and neither of them is quite quick enough to get outside on a regular basis. When we watch them go up the middle we get stuffed quite often...especially on 3rd and short. A big full back would help that situation. I still loved the play when we brought Legursky in as a full back. (I think they used him again for that this past game) Why be adverse to something that works?....and it actually happens quite a bit in "todays NFL"...Steven Jackson, Adrian Barber, Maurice Jones-Drew run out of "I" formation quite a bit....even Chris Johnson sees more "i" formation than we see here in Pittsburgh.

RoethlisBURGHer
12-22-2009, 11:04 PM
When Cowher was here and he would go run-run-pass-punt, people bitched that we needed to throw the ball a but more.

Now that the offense is more tooled to be more even and sometimes pass-heavy, people bitch.

Preacher
12-22-2009, 11:16 PM
Preacher....lots of respect for your opinion, but I'm gonna call you out a little on this one. MOST of the SB winners had balanced offensive attacks (which I know you are calling for)...There have been 3 teams in the last 15 SB that have had a significantly higher ranked run offense then passing offense (00' Ravens 5th run-22nd pass, 05 Steelers 5th run-24th pass, 07 Giants 4th run-21 pass)....but even in the balanced offenses there are another 5 winners who had higher ranked running offenses than passing. (95 Cowboys 2nd run-13th pass, 97&98 Broncos 4th&2nd run-9th&7th pass, 01&04 Patriots 13th&7th run-22nd&11th pass) and even among two of the real high flying offenses that were higher ranked in the pass (94 Niners and 99 Rams) they still had good balance (Niners 6th run-4th pass, Rams 5th run-1st pass). Superbowl teams that are way lopsided toward the pass are AS rare as those way lopside toward the run. We need to have BOTH. You don't see many teams win the Superbowl with poor running games. We did last year but we had an astounding defense....Tampa Bay ditto. Even the 06 Colts were still ranked 18th in the run.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'm sorry, I was actually talking specifically of the SB itself. My argument is that once a team gets into the playoffs, they get to a level of opponents where EVERY opponent can stop the run. Therefore, the teams that win the SB are teams that are balanced to pass first teams. The only team which is a run first team (and continued to be so in teh SB) that won the SB is the Ravens.

Thus, if we want to build a team that can actually win teh SB, we have to build a team that has the ability to throw the ball. That is more important than running it.

That isn't to say we can slack off on the run game, but that all things being equal, the SB game stats tell us IMO that teams which can pass the ball will win more games than teams that can run the ball.

True, absolute balance is the most desirable, but not always possible. So if we have to slide to one side or the other, slide to the pass.

After all, all teh "you can't win in december by throwing the ball in the AFCN" looks a little strange after our last game.

pepsyman1
12-23-2009, 02:56 AM
I'm with you Preacher....if we have a balanced package then we can go to whatever is working against any given opponent once we get to the playoffs. That was definitely a problem during the Cowher regime. We would meet up against good defenses that would stack 7 or 8 in the box and simply dare us to throw and we usually weren't able to execute well.

To this day I still remember attending my first Steelers game after being a long time fan...the 95 AFC championship game against the Chargers....we couldn't move the ball the whole game, gave up a big pass play and TD and needed to come back. Neil O'donnell drove us the length of the field and with 1st and goal from the 5 we attempted to run it until we had no choice on 4th down. Cowher took the ball out of the hands of the QB when we were unable to run the ball ALL DAY....very disappointing.

Hammer67
12-23-2009, 07:13 AM
When Cowher was here and he would go run-run-pass-punt, people bitched that we needed to throw the ball a but more.

Now that the offense is more tooled to be more even and sometimes pass-heavy, people bitch.


Ahhh...the joys and frustrations of being a rational football fan are thrown right out the window when you are a Yinzer... :chuckle:

Hammer67
12-23-2009, 07:17 AM
I think the biggest reason people miss the I formation is that we KNOW that our O line isn't great and we don't have Adrian Peterson in the backfield....hence having a full back lead the attack would make the backs that we have more effective. I'm sure if we had a line that was opening big gaps on a regular basis people would have less issue with it. We know what we see...we have two primary backs and neither of them is quite quick enough to get outside on a regular basis. When we watch them go up the middle we get stuffed quite often...especially on 3rd and short. A big full back would help that situation. I still loved the play when we brought Legursky in as a full back. (I think they used him again for that this past game) Why be adverse to something that works?....and it actually happens quite a bit in "todays NFL"...Steven Jackson, Adrian Barber, Maurice Jones-Drew run out of "I" formation quite a bit....even Chris Johnson sees more "i" formation than we see here in Pittsburgh.

Does it happen? Sure, but it isn't the focal point of most offenses anymore. The Steelers have a pro bowl (and future HoF in my opinion) QB...you have to cater to his talents. I believe in balance and I think the Steelers do have that, at least given the talent deficit at OL. Ben will win you games.

The biggest problem this year is the lack of a pass rush and the horrendous play of the secondary as a result. We miss Aaron Smith and Troy much more then anything else. Otherwise, they are playing well. If the defense was it's normal self, we wouldn't even be talking about the O as they are putting enough points up to normally win, only to have the D give up long drives for TD's in the 4th quarter. We are also controlling time of possession. It's long been a myth to Steeler fans that running the ball is the only way to win.

HometownGal
12-23-2009, 07:30 AM
When Cowher was here and he would go run-run-pass-punt, people bitched that we needed to throw the ball a but more.

Now that the offense is more tooled to be more even and sometimes pass-heavy, people bitch.

Are you surprised Roeth? Typical new age Steelers fan - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

steelax04
12-23-2009, 10:46 AM
All of these different definitions of "Steeler football" drive me crazy... to me, Steelers football is wining Lombardi Trophies. Whether it's defense, offense, run, smash them in the teeth, pass for 500 yards, etc, etc... the trophy is all that matters.

pepsyman1
12-23-2009, 03:54 PM
Does it happen? Sure, but it isn't the focal point of most offenses anymore. The Steelers have a pro bowl (and future HoF in my opinion) QB...you have to cater to his talents. I believe in balance and I think the Steelers do have that, at least given the talent deficit at OL. Ben will win you games.

The biggest problem this year is the lack of a pass rush and the horrendous play of the secondary as a result. We miss Aaron Smith and Troy much more then anything else. Otherwise, they are playing well. If the defense was it's normal self, we wouldn't even be talking about the O as they are putting enough points up to normally win, only to have the D give up long drives for TD's in the 4th quarter. We are also controlling time of possession. It's long been a myth to Steeler fans that running the ball is the only way to win.

I'm with you Hammer, but the reality is that in the last 15 years, there have only been 2 Superbowl winners that have had a running game ranked 20th or higher...Steelers last year and Tampa Bay. Currently we are sitting at 19. Most Superbowl winners have had running games at least in the top third of the league. We need to do better.

markymarc
12-24-2009, 10:57 AM
Typical new age Steelers fan - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Actually HG couldn't you use that statement for any NFL team's fan?

solardave
12-24-2009, 11:13 AM
In today's NFL, yes. This ain't the 70's anymore....hell, it ain't the 90's!

Unfortunately, the Steelers would need to completely retool the line, find a Hall of Fame worthy, battering ram of a running back and rewind the clock on NFL defenses.

The Steelers have adapted with the times, and won a Super Bowl through the air. As do other teams these days.

Nuff said...these aren't your daddy's Steelers. So, some of Steeler Nation will have to get over it.

Over the years the league has passed several rules to produce more offense.5 yard rule (AKA Mel Blount rule) Tuck rule (AKA Marcia Brady Rule) they hurt my feelings rule(AKA Marcia Brady rule) It's worked and the Steelers have adapted. Sure I miss the POUND THE ROCK days as Gruden puts it, but I must admit I love watching Ben air it out too. It's a sign of the times. Like Lambert said, "put dresses on them". I'm just glad we don't have a Vagina for a QB!!!!

rick723
12-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Yes you are.

Go back and look at SB records. Running teams over the last 15 years simply do not win SB's. There has been 1 that has won.

SO why go back to a style of ball that is basically 1-14 in the SB???

Because we are the one?

Hammer67
12-26-2009, 02:34 PM
I'm with you Hammer, but the reality is that in the last 15 years, there have only been 2 Superbowl winners that have had a running game ranked 20th or higher...Steelers last year and Tampa Bay. Currently we are sitting at 19. Most Superbowl winners have had running games at least in the top third of the league. We need to do better.

Well, you have to take that in context. The past 15 years have seen a drastic change in offenses so comparing last year to 1995 is not quite apples to apples, either. The NFL has changed during that time.

At the end of the day, you have to score more points then the other team, not out-rush them. Controlling the clock is fine too, whether you do it via a passing game or running game, as it keeps the other team's Offense off the field. Our offense is doing that...our defense sucks. Arians is not losing us games, the secondary and Special Teams are.