PDA

View Full Version : 2nd down


SteelKnight
09-04-2010, 08:10 PM
The Steelers run too much on second down and long (10 etc).

They know they will not get a first down so it guarantees an all or nothing 3rd down.

I know a third and short is more manageable but the wole thing just annoys me.

Surprisingly Ben came through on third down a lot last year but this year I think his back up won't come through. This means the Steelers will take perfectly good drives and ruin it with their predictable runs on second and predictable passes on third.

What do you guys think?

SteelKnight
09-04-2010, 08:19 PM
If the running is going great and you can get me 7 and make it 3rd and 3, I'll take it but if you can only get 2, I see no difference between 3rd and 8 and 3rd and 10...not much. I'd rather have 2 pass attempts.

I especially hate it when they got zero on first down running. So you want to run and get 1 or 2 on second down to force a 3rd and 8 where everyone knows you will be passing.

StainlessStill
09-04-2010, 11:23 PM
I said in another thread that 2nd down is going to be the most important down to our football team, esp in the first 4. What I saw in the pre-season was a LOT of 3rd and 19's.. 3rd and 17's and 3rd and 15's.. hardly putting yourself in a position to succeed. Our ground game is going to have to put us in manageable 3rd and 3's rather than 3rd and 20's and all that success has to translate to having even more success on 2nd down.

SteelKnight
09-05-2010, 02:09 PM
I said in another thread that 2nd down is going to be the most important down to our football team, esp in the first 4. What I saw in the pre-season was a LOT of 3rd and 19's.. 3rd and 17's and 3rd and 15's.. hardly putting yourself in a position to succeed. Our ground game is going to have to put us in manageable 3rd and 3's rather than 3rd and 20's and all that success has to translate to having even more success on 2nd down.

I agree.

Even 3rd and 10 sucks.

There were times when they were unsuccessful at first down so it was 2nd and 10 and they decided "The defense has been shutting down our run and probably thinks we are going to pass but so we'll run". Oops. Shut down and then 3rd and 8 or 3rd and 9. At that point it might have been better to give Ben 2 tries. It will especially be important to give Dixon or Batch 2 tries.

They are not fooling anyone. They need to pick the best play that will get them the most yards on the next play and stop worrying about being unique to outsmart the defense. Instead, they are surprising their fans.

2nd and 1 should be a passing opportunity but with Batch an Dixon in it will be "Hey...let's run and get that first down." They should have a free play action pass and throw it away if needed. Then on 3rd and 1 they can run.

3rd and 3 will be scary this year. In the past, this would have been a pass. Now it may be a run. I just would hate to see good drives end on a stupid run. 3rd and 2, I'm comfortable with this year...but that 3? IDK.

stb_steeler
09-05-2010, 10:43 PM
Last year it seemed like they ran the ball on 3rd and 7. I can still remember screaming at the tv. Why the hell are u running it on 3rd and long.......:noidea:

StainlessStill
09-05-2010, 10:50 PM
Last year it seemed like they ran the ball on 3rd and 7. I can still remember screaming at the tv. Why the hell are u running it on 3rd and long.......:noidea:

I think our football season hit an ALL TIME LOW, out of ALL of the losing seasons (or years we missed the playoffs) we have EVER seen from our team the past several decades (which isn't many), with that Thursday Night game last year in Cleveland. I've never felt like 3rd and 1 to be so damn impossible that I held my breath and covered my face every time we were faced a 3rd and short... VERSUS CLEVELAND! We lost to a QB, Brady Quinn, by only completing 6 of his passes! Doesn't get worse than that, folks.

SteelKnight
09-06-2010, 03:28 AM
Last year it seemed like they ran the ball on 3rd and 7. I can still remember screaming at the tv. Why the hell are u running it on 3rd and long.......:noidea:

I believe that. I think Arians (and Tomlin) think they are outsmarting the other side. They are surprising the fans but if the other side is stopping them, who cares whether they were surprised or not.

I can just hear them. "Oh...so they stopped us for a loss of 2 yards running on first down. I bet they think we will pass with 2nd and 12. They'll be so surprised. Oh...they stopped us for a gain of 1."

kirklandrules
09-06-2010, 08:16 AM
Well, I don't put much stock in what we saw in the preseason. They needed to observe certain individuals and they probably ran the ball in more situations in this preseason than you will see in the regular season. Remember, they aren't game-planning in the preseason.

But there will plenty of times we will be disappointed with the choice of run vs. pass calls on any particular play this year.

Downbylaw
09-06-2010, 09:07 AM
The Steelers run too much on second down and long (10 etc).

They know they will not get a first down so it guarantees an all or nothing 3rd down.

I know a third and short is more manageable but the wole thing just annoys me.

Surprisingly Ben came through on third down a lot last year but this year I think his back up won't come through. This means the Steelers will take perfectly good drives and ruin it with their predictable runs on second and predictable passes on third.

What do you guys think?

In the games the Steelers lost, their offense only converted 26 percent of their fourth quarter third downs, versus 52 percent of the fourth quarter third downs in the games they won. In the losses to the Browns and Bengals, the Steelers' offense only had third down conversion rates of 20 and 21 percent for the whole game. That is too many three-and-outs to let your older defense get enough rest. That is why we had A LOT of 4th quarter meltdowns. Ben did not and does not historically come through on 3rd downs. His pct is below average for his career just as it was last year.



Medium 3rd down of 4-7 yards

Colts .578
Saints .565
Dolphins 538
Giants .514
Packers .545
Vikings .500
Titans .525
Texans .492
Chargers .489
Bengals .406
Steelers .385

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/6/24/1533609/inside-3rd-down-run-vs-pass

SteelKnight
09-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Well, I don't put much stock in what we saw in the preseason. They needed to observe certain individuals and they probably ran the ball in more situations in this preseason than you will see in the regular season. Remember, they aren't game-planning in the preseason.

But there will plenty of times we will be disappointed with the choice of run vs. pass calls on any particular play this year.

Yeah...I know but it just reminded me what they do in the regular season.

SteelKnight
09-06-2010, 03:47 PM
In the games the Steelers lost, their offense only converted 26 percent of their fourth quarter third downs, versus 52 percent of the fourth quarter third downs in the games they won. In the losses to the Browns and Bengals, the Steelers' offense only had third down conversion rates of 20 and 21 percent for the whole game. That is too many three-and-outs to let your older defense get enough rest. That is why we had A LOT of 4th quarter meltdowns. Ben did not and does not historically come through on 3rd downs. His pct is below average for his career just as it was last year.



Medium 3rd down of 4-7 yards

Colts .578
Saints .565
Dolphins 538
Giants .514
Packers .545
Vikings .500
Titans .525
Texans .492
Chargers .489
Bengals .406
Steelers .385

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/6/24/1533609/inside-3rd-down-run-vs-pass

OK. I'll buy those STATs. In the games I watched, he was coming through on third down a lot. I'm not from Pitt and missed a bunch of the losing games.

One thing is the Steelers had the ball longer than their opponents last year. They just had trouble in the red zones. Because of this the "old defense" being tired because of no running etc. doesn't work. If they were tired fine...but it wasn't because of time of possession.

stb_steeler
09-06-2010, 04:46 PM
That was another problem, we didnt manage the time of possession last year as well as in the past. We need to get back to basic's, it works! Wonder if the Bus is ready to come out of retirement. :popcorn:

SteelKnight
09-06-2010, 05:05 PM
That was another problem, we didnt manage the time of possession last year as well as in the past. We need to get back to basic's, it works! Wonder if the Bus is ready to come out of retirement. :popcorn:

We definitely had the ball for longer than other teams list year (check time of possession stat).

The stats are messed up because we were behind a lot last year late leading to more passing being needed.

I think 50/50 is good. I have always been a fan of the passing game...even when it was Stallworth/Swann.

Cowher used to get annoyed by the way people would analyze the stats. He said looking at the first half is a better indication of what a coach is trying to do. He tried to be 50/50. He said in the second half if they had a lead he would try to run the ball more to run the clock but if they were losing he would try to pass to come back quickly and conserve time. The dumb media NEVER understood this so they would come up with stats and questions like "Do you think you lost this game because you tried to get away from the run whereas in games that you win you run the ball more?" NO DUMMY, we passed more because we were down by 2 scores and running out of time. They (running/winning) are found together but one isn't necessarily causing the other.

I agree with Arians that we have to be more effective in running the ball. Last year we tried to run and sucked often so we were forced to pass. Last year a 3rd and two would have been stressful on the ground but they looked good in preseason.

I also agree with Cowher that we should judge Tomlin/Arians on what they do in the first half as far a philosophy. In the second half (especially 4th quarter), do what needs to be done with respect to the clock. If we need to conserve time, gain big yardage and come back, more passing. If we need to waste time, more running.

Analyzing 4th quarter pass/run choices as philosophy is absolutely ridiculous...unless maybe if the game is tied.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 12:01 AM
OK. I'll buy those STATs. In the games I watched, he was coming through on third down a lot. I'm not from Pitt and missed a bunch of the losing games.

One thing is the Steelers had the ball longer than their opponents last year. They just had trouble in the red zones. Because of this the "old defense" being tired because of no running etc. doesn't work. If they were tired fine...but it wasn't because of time of possession.

We led TOP because of the defense giving the offense extra chances (3 and outs). Just like in the B-more game with Dixon. We led TOP that game as well. Not due to Dixon and the offense but Due to the defense.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 12:06 AM
We definitely had the ball for longer than other teams list year (check time of possession stat).

The stats are messed up because we were behind a lot last year late leading to more passing being needed.

I think 50/50 is good. I have always been a fan of the passing game...even when it was Stallworth/Swann.

Cowher used to get annoyed by the way people would analyze the stats. He said looking at the first half is a better indication of what a coach is trying to do. He tried to be 50/50. He said in the second half if they had a lead he would try to run the ball more to run the clock but if they were losing he would try to pass to come back quickly and conserve time. The dumb media NEVER understood this so they would come up with stats and questions like "Do you think you lost this game because you tried to get away from the run whereas in games that you win you run the ball more?" NO DUMMY, we passed more because we were down by 2 scores and running out of time. They (running/winning) are found together but one isn't necessarily causing the other.

I agree with Arians that we have to be more effective in running the ball. Last year we tried to run and sucked often so we were forced to pass. Last year a 3rd and two would have been stressful on the ground but they looked good in preseason.

I also agree with Cowher that we should judge Tomlin/Arians on what they do in the first half as far a philosophy. In the second half (especially 4th quarter), do what needs to be done with respect to the clock. If we need to conserve time, gain big yardage and come back, more passing. If we need to waste time, more running.

Analyzing 4th quarter pass/run choices as philosophy is absolutely ridiculous...unless maybe if the game is tied.

Cowher should give a seminar on how to choke away home field advantage and how to lose leads. Like he did in 94 to the Chargers. UGH

We lead TOP due to the defense. We get more possessions than our opponents due to the 3 and outs. We just need to execute and sustain long drives so they can rest the D. We are masters of the 3 and out in the Roethlisberger era. He is not good on 3rd down or in the redzone. Largly in part because we have 3rd and long due to an ill advised sack. If he learns to throw the ball away we would have manageable 3rd downs. Last pre sesaon game he took 2 sacks instead of throwing the ball away and living to fight another down. He will never learn.

steeltheone
09-07-2010, 12:20 AM
Cowher had an all pro line and no QB most of his years...Now we have a franchise QB and no line...With BR7 under Cowher in the 90's we win 2 to 3 more rings.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 06:49 AM
Cowher had an all pro line and no QB most of his years...Now we have a franchise QB and no line...With BR7 under Cowher in the 90's we win 2 to 3 more rings.

Cowher was here with Ben in 04, 05 and 06. We had an All Pro Line and we still had too many sacks. With Ben in the 90's Cowher would find a way to choke the game away. Tell me it was the qb vs the Chargers? Vs the Broncos and Pats. No it was RUN, RUN, PASS. RUN, RUN, PASS. And when we got a lead it was RUN, RUN, RUN, PUNT. Cowher is just like his mentor Marth Chokenheimer. Notice they both have similar results?

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 08:05 AM
We led TOP because of the defense giving the offense extra chances (3 and outs). Just like in the B-more game with Dixon. We led TOP that game as well. Not due to Dixon and the offense but Due to the defense.

You are over-complicating matters. We led in TOP means our offense had the ball for more time than the opponents' offense had the ball...simple. Whether you say it was the D or O becomes complicated. For example a bad D might let opponents score quickly and send the ball back to the offense. To try to determine WHY is complicated without observing the exact game.

The only point I was making is that some are making up concepts that the D was worn out because they were out there for too long because we didn't run. This makes no sense when we had a higher time of possession. People just make stuff up that sounds good.

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 08:14 AM
Cowher was here with Ben in 04, 05 and 06.

You like to argue. All he said is we would have had 2-3 more Super-Bowl wins...which is absolutely correct. He may not have choked in SB 30 and he would not have choked against the Patriots and Chargers.

You brought up the three years Cower had Ben

04 -15-1 and AFC Championship
05 -Super Bowl Camps
06- Bad year...and you know there was the accident and appendicitis.

Ben is a superstar and we are lucky to have him. In 6 seasons, he has taken us to the Championship game half the time and has produced 2 Superbowl wins.

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 08:42 AM
We lead TOP due to the defense. We get more possessions than our opponents due to the 3 and outs. We just need to execute and sustain long drives so they can rest the D. We are masters of the 3 and out in the Roethlisberger era. He is not good on 3rd down or in the redzone. Largly in part because we have 3rd and long due to an ill advised sack. If he learns to throw the ball away we would have manageable 3rd downs.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense...really Down. It gets old.

The Steelers had a bad season due to Red Zone problems. The offense was productive and moved the ball.

They led in number of plays (by a lot), rushing plays, passing plays, first downs, total offensive yards (by more than 1000), total passing yards, total rushing yards, yards per carry, AND TIME OF POSSESSION.

Please stop making stuff up.

If what you were saying was correct, the numbers would be different. As an example...if we had more 3 and outs than our opponents, we would have a lower amount of total plays. The fact that we had more plays combined with fewer 3rd down attemps suggest that we were better at sustaining drives than our opponents...the TOP goes along with this. Even though some of the numbers are challenging because we are comparing our defense, the Steelers did well overall as far as yards in the whole NFL. Our offense was #7.

We just need to be effective with short runs (which looked good in preseason), get more TDs from our Red Zone trips, and get more turnovers than we give up.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 08:58 AM
You are over-complicating matters. We led in TOP means our offense had the ball for more time than the opponents' offense had the ball...simple. Whether you say it was the D or O becomes complicated. For example a bad D might let opponents score quickly and send the ball back to the offense. To try to determine WHY is complicated without observing the exact game.

The only point I was making is that some are making up concepts that the D was worn out because they were out there for too long because we didn't run. This makes no sense when we had a higher time of possession. People just make stuff up that sounds good.

I understand that. If the defense gives you more touches the it makes sense that you will have a greater TOP. We dont have a ball consuming, efficient chain moving offense but we do have a dominant defense. It the Steeler have 13 possesions and the opponent has 9 in the game, that is going to make a huge difference in terms of Time Of Possession. In the Vikes game they killed us in TOP but the defense forced turnovers and we won. They won TOP because their D did what ours usually does, it stopped us and allowed them extra possesions, hence the TOP discrepancy. As you see they had 77 plays to our 49. This stat also substantiates my point.

The D WAS worn out. We led in TOP for the reasons I just listed above (Just like the Raven game with Dixon). They had 5 more plays ran than us but we had more possessions, again due to the Defense. Dont you find it odd that ALL of our breakdowns on defense happened in the 4th? That is no coincidence, that is due to and inefficient offense, not putting together long drives and letting the defense rest. ESPECIALLY against good teams. Our offense being 23rd in the NFL and our 33% conversion rate on 3rd and 4-7 substantiates that point.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 09:01 AM
*23rd in the NFL in the redzone

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 09:07 AM
You like to argue. All he said is we would have had 2-3 more Super-Bowl wins...which is absolutely correct. He may not have choked in SB 30 and he would not have choked against the Patriots and Chargers.

You brought up the three years Cower had Ben

04 -15-1 and AFC Championship
05 -Super Bowl Camps
06- Bad year...and you know there was the accident and appendicitis.

Ben is a superstar and we are lucky to have him. In 6 seasons, he has taken us to the Championship game half the time and has produced 2 Superbowl wins.

How do you know that? He choked vs the Seahawks. The Pats and Chargers both had better defenses. The accident was a self created hardship sorry, had he listened to Cowher it never would have happened. Ben is no superstar. He is more notorious for his OFF THE FIELD antics than his on the field ones. Ben is a good qb, no more no less. The defense has taken us to the Championship games. When that Defense was down, Ben had his best year. Result. 9-7. Ben being 9-6.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 09:20 AM
What you are saying doesn't make any sense...really Down. It gets old.

The Steelers had a bad season due to Red Zone problems. The offense was productive and moved the ball.

They led in number of plays (by a lot), rushing plays, passing plays, first downs, total offensive yards (by more than 1000), total passing yards, total rushing yards, yards per carry, AND TIME OF POSSESSION.

Please stop making stuff up.

If what you were saying was correct, the numbers would be different. As an example...if we had more 3 and outs than our opponents, we would have a lower amount of total plays. The fact that we had more plays combined with fewer 3rd down attemps suggest that we were better at sustaining drives than our opponents...the TOP goes along with this. Even though some of the numbers are challenging because we are comparing our defense, the Steelers did well overall as far as yards in the whole NFL. Our offense was #7.

We just need to be effective with short runs (which looked good in preseason), get more TDs from our Red Zone trips, and get more turnovers than we give up.

What does Moving the ball mean when you dont score TD's? It means you get beat by teams who do. Thats the story of our 09 season. Of course they led in number of plays etc. I have been saying that for months. The defense gives them extra chances and thats why they do. They even led with DIXON vs the Ravens. Was that because Dixon was great? Do explain. What teams did we sustain drives against? You throw stats out but CANT give any in game examples as I have provided. Why not?

We had 7 games vs Top 10 defenses and our offense SUCKED in every one except the Packers (Props to Ben!)

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 09:41 AM
What does Moving the ball mean when you dont score TD's? It means you get beat by teams who do. Thats the story of our 09 season. Of course they led in number of plays etc. I have been saying that for months. The defense gives them extra chances and thats why they do. They even led with DIXON vs the Ravens. Was that because Dixon was great? Do explain. What teams did we sustain drives against? You throw stats out but CANT give any in game examples as I have provided. Why not?

We had 7 games vs Top 10 defenses and our offense SUCKED in every one except the Packers (Props to Ben!)

We agree that Redzone and scoring was the problem (I'll also add short yardage running and turnover ratio).

But your premise before was that we had too many 3 and outs and that was the problem. The stats don't bear this out. We had more plays and less third down attempts than our opponents. This means we were moving the ball better than our opponents...and in case you argue that this was only because of a strong defense, I have explained that our offense was #7 in the league. We had a 4000 yard passer, 2 - 1000 yard receivers and a 1000 yard rusher. We got yards...we just didn't score.

Stop that time of possession was due to the defense. Sure a good defense helps but they also had a high TOP because they were running sustained drives and getting yards. Simple.

Downbylaw
09-07-2010, 10:39 AM
We agree that Redzone and scoring was the problem (I'll also add short yardage running and turnover ratio).

But your premise before was that we had too many 3 and outs and that was the problem. The stats don't bear this out. We had more plays and less third down attempts than our opponents. This means we were moving the ball better than our opponents...and in case you argue that this was only because of a strong defense, I have explained that our offense was #7 in the league. We had a 4000 yard passer, 2 - 1000 yard receivers and a 1000 yard rusher. We got yards...we just didn't score.

Stop that time of possession was due to the defense. Sure a good defense helps but they also had a high TOP because they were running sustained drives and getting yards. Simple.

Short yardage and turnover ratio? Yes, you are correct. Excluding the Viking game. I stand by my premise about the 3 and outs. Perhaps, I should have clarified and said 3 and outs vs good teams. Of course we were moving the ball better than our opponents (we had 10 games vs inferior Defenses). Our opponents had to go against our D, so that is to be expected. You are correct we had a 4,000 yard passer, 1000 yard rusher and 2 1000 yard receivers but that was against our TEN inferior defenses that we faced. When we faced a good defense, that just wasnt the case, excluding the Packers game.

Ravens #1 Dixon was 12-26- 145 1TD 1Int and 1rushing TD/153 Yards rushing
Ravens #2 in Total Defense - Ben was 17-33 259 1 TD 1 int /48 Yards rushing
Vikings #4- 14-26 175 1 Td./107 Yards rushing
#5 Bengals Game 1- 22-31- 276 1 TD 1int/102 Yards rushing
#5 Bengals Game 2. 20-40- 171 1 INT/80 Yards rushing

As you see, we got our lofty stats vs inferior defenses, Titans (321yards passing),
Bears (203 passing, 105 rushing),
Chargers (327passing, 177 rushing),
Lions (262 passing, 82 Rushing),
Browns game 1 (403 passing, 140 rushin),
Broncos (202 passing, 173 rushing)
Chiefs (402 Passing, 114 rushing),
Raiders (269, 132),Dolphins (201,202).

Ben also lit up the injury riduled Packer (2 starters out). You see how our defense was with two starters out, so that explains the big day.

If you look at 2008 when we played that killer schedule, you will see that Ben and the offense had a terrible statistical season. In fact he had 23 turnovers, were 23rd in rushing and we still won the Super Bowl. THANKS TO THE DEFENSE who was #1.

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 08:58 PM
Short yardage and turnover ratio? Yes, you are correct. Excluding the Viking game. I stand by my premise about the 3 and outs. Perhaps, I should have clarified and said 3 and outs vs good teams. Of course we were moving the ball better than our opponents (we had 10 games vs inferior Defenses). Our opponents had to go against our D, so that is to be expected. You are correct we had a 4,000 yard passer, 1000 yard rusher and 2 1000 yard receivers but that was against our TEN inferior defenses that we faced. When we faced a good defense, that just wasnt the case, excluding the Packers game.

Ravens #1 Dixon was 12-26- 145 1TD 1Int and 1rushing TD/153 Yards rushing
Ravens #2 in Total Defense - Ben was 17-33 259 1 TD 1 int /48 Yards rushing
Vikings #4- 14-26 175 1 Td./107 Yards rushing
#5 Bengals Game 1- 22-31- 276 1 TD 1int/102 Yards rushing
#5 Bengals Game 2. 20-40- 171 1 INT/80 Yards rushing

As you see, we got our lofty stats vs inferior defenses, Titans (321yards passing),
Bears (203 passing, 105 rushing),
Chargers (327passing, 177 rushing),
Lions (262 passing, 82 Rushing),
Browns game 1 (403 passing, 140 rushin),
Broncos (202 passing, 173 rushing)
Chiefs (402 Passing, 114 rushing),
Raiders (269, 132),Dolphins (201,202).

Ben also lit up the injury riduled Packer (2 starters out). You see how our defense was with two starters out, so that explains the big day.

If you look at 2008 when we played that killer schedule, you will see that Ben and the offense had a terrible statistical season. In fact he had 23 turnovers, were 23rd in rushing and we still won the Super Bowl. THANKS TO THE DEFENSE who was #1.

Good defenses are good defenses for a reason. If they are truly good, few have good games against them. It is what it is. We were #7 in the league on offense. We were close in a lot of those games. We could have won either of the Cincy games, many of the other games.

If Sweed makes that catch in Cincy, we win the division at 10-6, make the playoffs and a lot of this talk is decreased. We also gave up ST TDs that cost us.

Unlike Cincy which only beat 1 good team (ignoring us), I liked how we performed against some reputable opponents including GB, Minn, Miami, Denver, SD and Baltimore (with Ben). We went 4-3 against playoff teams and the 3 losses were 2 to Cincy that were close and one to Baltimore that was close (OT)with Back up Dixon.

We have a good team. All loses were within 1 score and 5 of the 7 losses were within one field goal. They couldn't finish.

Don't overplay how bad the offense is. They are not bad. They are good. They just need to work on Red Zone, 3rd down short yardage, and turnover ratio. The need to finish games...but they are a good and talented offense (#7).

tony hipchest
09-07-2010, 10:23 PM
The only point I was making is that some are making up concepts that the D was worn out because they were out there for too long because we didn't run. This makes no sense when we had a higher time of possession. People just make stuff up that sounds good.so what the likes of troy, clark, and farrior have confirmed, you are simply debunking as make believe?

im gonna have to side with the experts and professionals on this one.


The Steelers long have followed a winning formula that is unique and proven, but they veered off course last season and must embrace it again in 2010, according to Troy Polamalu.

"We have a pretty good formula here how to win," said Polamalu, finishing up the week of spring practices and meetings with his teammates after returning from more than a month of training in California. "That doesn't change from year to year or from decade to decade. We've had our formula here and it's been good to us."

The formula is neither secret nor difficult to understand, Polamalu said. If not followed, however, you get 9-7 and look at the playoffs from the outside. It involves an electric, smothering defense that needs its offense to turn the clock so it can rest, and for special teams to do their job and not give up large chunks of yardage or touchdowns.

It is not something usually seen in the NFL, Polamalu said.

"I think it's unique no question. Especially in today's game. People don't think that you can, for the most part, have a really smothering defense. But, with the smothering defense, you can't have a pass-happy offense. For example, you would think you could take a great defense and mesh them together, but our defense would not work well with a New England Patriots offense or Indianapolis Colts offense. They may put up a lot of points, but it takes a lot more energy to play our defense than a Tampa 2-type defense."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10161/1064514-66.stm#ixzz0z02H8aqK

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 11:13 PM
so what the likes of troy, clark, and farrior have confirmed, you are simply debunking as make believe?

im gonna have to side with the experts and professionals on this one.

I'll respect Tomlin, Lebeau and Arians if you can show me quotes from those guys saying that the defense was too tired because of less running.

Sometimes people say things without analyzing the facts. When the players say things we like we accept and when they say things we don't like we ignore. When the O-Line says good things we ignore them right? Answering a question involes more than "truth".

What is Troy supposed to say wen they keep asking him why the defense was so bad? I've seen him say it and it strikes me as him just trying to be humble. He doesn't want to say "It was because I was out." so instead of scolding the pass defense for their horrible play, he can say something like that. Same with Clark showing why he was not as dominant without Troy.

It is one thing to say we should get back to good running. I want to see the quote that says we were tired because of the offenses' lack of time of possession and that why we played terribly.

Since we led in time of possession, I can tell you that other defenses around the league spent longer on the field. The Ravens D for example spent more time on the field than Pittsburgh. If Lebeau wants to come out and say my defense was too tired even though we spent less than half the time on the field, let him come out and say it.

Did Farrior claim he was too tired in 4th quarters? Maybe we need to start rotating Foote in there to give him rest. Weak excuse. Timmons better not say stuff like that.

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 11:23 PM
so what the likes of troy, clark, and farrior have confirmed, you are simply debunking as make believe?

im gonna have to side with the experts and professionals on this one.

Tony...you do realize that our time of possession was more last year than in our Super Bowl year in 08 right? So in '08 the defense was on the field longer and they were number 1.

If you want to go over the stats and have a fun conversation, I'd like that but not if your entire argument will be what troy told the media trying to be humble about his absence.

Cheers

tony hipchest
09-07-2010, 11:37 PM
Did Farrior claim he was too tired in 4th quarters? Maybe we need to start rotating Foote in there to give him rest. Weak excuse. Timmons better not say stuff like that.

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. Ask inside linebacker and co-captain James Farrior about the uneven performance of the Steelers defense last season, and he doesn't hesitate to point the finger of blame at himself.

"I left a lot of plays out on the field. There were some situations I could have played a lot better," Farrior said Monday following a three-hour workout at ESPN Wide World of Sports. "No matter what anybody says, we had a bad year. I didn't play as well as I wanted to play, and I know a lot of guys on the team felt the same way."

Finishing 9-7 a year after winning Super Bowl XLIII, the Steelers missed the playoffs by one game, For Farrior, a player accustomed to an overabundance of success during 13 NFL seasons, not reaching the postseason was unacceptable.

Especially when Farrior didn't perform up to his normal lofty standards.

At 35 and the second-oldest player on the team (behind quarterback Charlie Batch), Farrior suggests he's getting better, not older. He also predicts a turnaround not only for himself, but for a defense that's anxious to reclaim its status among the league's most dominant units.

Farrior said media criticism regarding his individual performance despite leading the team in tackles four consecutive seasons has given him unexpected motivation.

"That adds fuel to the fire. That's one of the motivating factors for me how bad we played last year. You're going to do everything in your power not to let that happen again," said Farrior, who is entering the third year of a five-year contract. "Whenever people doubt you, say negative stuff about you, as a competitor, you try to prove everybody wrong. It makes you want to work that much harder.

"I don't feel like the oldest guy on the team. Age is just a number. I don't want to put a time limit on anything. As long as my body feels healthy, as long as I'm mentally into it, I want to keep playing."

That's why Farrior, who calls defensive signals, was pushing himself under the watchful eye of speed and conditioning guru Tom Shaw only 11 days before the opening of training camp.


there are MULTIPLE articles where the steelers defenders admit they were gassed in the 4th quarter, trying too hard to compensate for the loss of troy, smith, 8 returns for td's, bens multitude of sacks, and fumbles.

i'll let you do the search to find the ryan clark ones i posted and the other 2 pertaining to farrior and polamalu (which were just several of what i read and heard).

i will trust rooney and the coaching staff. the proof is in the pudding.

the steelers have placed a premium on running the football and it shows in preseason and all the work they put in this offseason.

:cheers:

SteelKnight
09-07-2010, 11:56 PM
there are MULTIPLE articles where the steelers defenders admit they were gassed in the 4th quarter, trying too hard to compensate for the loss of troy, smith, 8 returns for td's, bens multitude of sacks, and fumbles.

i'll let you do the search to find the ryan clark ones i posted and the other 2 pertaining to farrior and polamalu (which were just several of what i read and heard).

i will trust rooney and the coaching staff. the proof is in the pudding.

the steelers have placed a premium on running the football and it shows in preseason and all the work they put in this offseason.

:cheers:

Now I will agree with what you are saying. If the defense had to work extra hard because Troy and Smith were gone and that made them tired or if some of the aging players are getting tired in the fourth quarter fine. (I actully heard Smith say Hood would be good so they are not tired in the 4th). I'll buy that.

What I'm not buying is the "running game" is what caused poor defensive play because of time of possession. That just is not that case when you look at the stats. I already explained that we had a longer average TOP than the 2008 season where the defense was number 1 in almost every catagory. This means THEY WERE ON THE FIELD LONGER in that season. This is just a fact...not a guess.

The truth is Troy (and maybe Smith) made a big difference but they keep trying to be humble.

I am open to finding truth. When you present to me something that makes more sense like having to do extra work because Troy was gone (in the same amout of time), that makes sense.

I'm not buying any humble Troy argument for the defense. I have seen it myself where they try to get him to admit he was the difference and he blocks it every chance he gets. I guess his religion requires him to be extremely humble but seriously, if he can't admit he was the main deal, some credibility as far as interviews is lost.

:drink:

I will agree with Tomlin and Arians that they need to run more EFFECTIVELY...not necessarily more. Both have said this. Just because one of the Rooneys said we have to get back to running it has been a quote fest. He could have said we need to get back to GOOD running or leading the league in rushing.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:03 AM
Good defenses are good defenses for a reason. If they are truly good, few have good games against them. It is what it is. We were #7 in the league on offense. We were close in a lot of those games. We could have won either of the Cincy games, many of the other games.

If Sweed makes that catch in Cincy, we win the division at 10-6, make the playoffs and a lot of this talk is decreased. We also gave up ST TDs that cost us.

Unlike Cincy which only beat 1 good team (ignoring us), I liked how we performed against some reputable opponents including GB, Minn, Miami, Denver, SD and Baltimore (with Ben). We went 4-3 against playoff teams and the 3 losses were 2 to Cincy that were close and one to Baltimore that was close (OT)with Back up Dixon.

We have a good team. All loses were within 1 score and 5 of the 7 losses were within one field goal. They couldn't finish.

Don't overplay how bad the offense is. They are not bad. They are good. They just need to work on Red Zone, 3rd down short yardage, and turnover ratio. The need to finish games...but they are a good and talented offense (#7).

The offense is good against mediocre teams as they should be. But when challenged by a good defense it is NOT good. Check 09 and 08 for substantiation of that fact. Our offense is inconsistent, doesnt convert enough 3rd downs consistently and is below average in the redzone. That is on the qb. Contrast what I just said with the Saints, Pats and Colts. They excell in all those areas. Why? They have an elite qb, thats why.

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 12:03 AM
steelknight, you are new here, and i feel no need to rehash an argument that has taken place 100 times.

been there done that.

i just suggest doing some research on the disproportionate TOP in the 1st half vs the 2nd. heres a clue... dino6rings has already done the research (game by game) and it shows the defense was on the field in the 2nd half MUCH more than in the 1st.

it is PROPORTIONATE to the games they gave up leads in the 4th quarter.

the big problem is while the offense could easilly control the bal for 17+ minutes in the first half they couldnt put points on the board, build a big lead, or even convert third downs and control the clock in the 4th quarter to secure a small lead.

dick lebeaus defense is designed to win lombardi's. arians offens is designed to win in fantasy stat league championships.

RESEARCH shows that if the steelers coulda had 4 more rushes per game and converted atleast 1 more 1st down per game, they would have easilly led the league in TOP (about 34.5-35 min/game) and won 4 or 5 more games.

I already explained that we had a longer average TOP than the 2008 season where the defense was number 1 in almost every catagory. This means THEY WERE ON THE FIELD LONGER in that season. This is just a fact...not a guess.



i think this is what you are not getting...

there is a HUGE difference in being on the field 14 minutes in the 1st and 14 min in the 2nd vs. 12 minutes in the 1st vs 16 in the second (trying to protect the lead of a squandering offense).

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:06 AM
Tony...you do realize that our time of possession was more last year than in our Super Bowl year in 08 right? So in '08 the defense was on the field longer and they were number 1.

If you want to go over the stats and have a fun conversation, I'd like that but not if your entire argument will be what troy told the media trying to be humble about his absence.

Cheers

Thats because in 08 we played a tougher schedule. In 09 we played 10 cream puffs so it should be better. Again, we led TOP with DIXON playing. Thats due to the defense. Tony is correct and the numbers prove that. Its no coincidence that we had 4th qtr collapses. That sir, was due to fatigue

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:09 AM
steelknight, you are new here, and i feel no need to rehash an argument that has taken place 100 times.

been there done that.

i just suggest doing some research on the disproportionate TOP in the 1st half vs the 2nd. heres a clue... dino6rings has already done the research (game by game) and it shows the defense was on the field in the 2nd half MUCH more than in the 1st.

it is PROPORTIONATE to the games they gave up leads in the 4th quarter.

the big problem is while the offense could easilly control the bal for 17+ minutes in the first half they couldnt put points on the board, build a big lead, or even convert third downs and control the clock in the 4th quarter to secure a small lead.

dick lebeaus defense is designed to win lombardi's. arians offens is designed to win in fantasy stat league championships.

RESEARCH shows that if the steelers coulda had 4 more rushes per game and converted atleast 1 more 1st down per game, they would have easilly led the league in TOP (about 34.5-35 min/game) and won 4 or 5 more games.

Now THATS an excellent post and 100% FACTUAL!!!!

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:11 AM
BTW...while our rush percentage was low, it was higher than our opponents. Our opponents also had more passing attempts (beyond percentage).

I'd like to see about 50/50 for the first half then pass if we are behind or run if we have the lead in the second half...just like Cowher described.

I'm not going to get boxed into some corner that says the defense was never tired or that our running doesn't need to be more effective. In fact, if the running was more effective, I'm sure they would have run more.

What I'm against is this concept that the other team ran the ball and controlled the clock and because our team was too pass happy our offense was off the field quickly with a low time of possession forcing our poor defense to be on the field longer and tiring them out. Because of this we need to run more. So the poor pass denense is Arians fault. The statistics don't support this kind of thinking.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:13 AM
The offense is good against mediocre teams as they should be. But when challenged by a good defense it is NOT good. Check 09 and 08 for substantiation of that fact. Our offense is inconsistent, doesnt convert enough 3rd downs consistently and is below average in the redzone. That is on the qb. Contrast what I just said with the Saints, Pats and Colts. They excell in all those areas. Why? They have an elite qb, thats why.

We never go through the defenses of the prolific passeres discounting games one by one. What a waste. Te Steelers played well aginst some good teams and they finished #7 overall in offense.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:17 AM
BTW...while our rush percentage was low, it was higher than our opponents. Our opponents also had more passing attempts (beyond percentage).

I'd like to see about 50/50 for the first half then pass if we are behind or run if we have the lead in the second half...just like Cowher described.

I'm not going to get boxed into some corner that says the defense was never tired or that our running doesn't need to be more effective. In fact, if the running was more effective, I'm sure they would have run more.

What I'm against is this concept that the other team ran the ball and controlled the clock and because our team was too pass happy our offense was off the field quickly with a low time of possession forcing our poor defense to be on the field longer and tiring them out. Because of this we need to run more. So the poor pass denense is Arians fault. The statistics don't support this kind of thinking.

Only statisticl that matters is consistent 4th qtr collapses happen for one reason. FATIGUE.
Same thing happened in 05 Divisional round vs the Colts. Got up on them and the air fell out of the offense. Take a look at 1st half stats then look at 2nd half stats. Thats they reason the Colts almost came back on us. No consistency throughout the game.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:18 AM
We never go through the defenses of the prolific passeres discounting games one by one. What a waste. Te Steelers played well aginst some good teams and they finished #7 overall in offense.

What good defense did we play well against? The Packers? They had TWO starters out of that game. How did we play with TWO starters out? (smith/troy). Not up to snuff. What good defense did we play well against in 08? Please name the team.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:26 AM
steelknight, you are new here, and i feel no need to rehash an argument that has taken place 100 times.

been there done that.

i just suggest doing some research on the disproportionate TOP in the 1st half vs the 2nd. heres a clue... dino6rings has already done the research (game by game) and it shows the defense was on the field in the 2nd half MUCH more than in the 1st.

it is PROPORTIONATE to the games they gave up leads in the 4th quarter.

the big problem is while the offense could easilly control the bal for 17+ minutes in the first half they couldnt put points on the board, build a big lead, or even convert third downs and control the clock in the 4th quarter to secure a small lead.

dick lebeaus defense is designed to win lombardi's. arians offens is designed to win in fantasy stat league championships.

RESEARCH shows that if the steelers coulda had 4 more rushes per game and converted atleast 1 more 1st down per game, they would have easilly led the league in TOP (about 34.5-35 min/game) and won 4 or 5 more games.



i think this is what you are not getting...

there is a HUGE difference in being on the field 14 minutes in the 1st and 14 min in the 2nd vs. 12 minutes in the 1st vs 16 in the second (trying to protect the lead of a squandering offense).

I see the argument you are making. I was pondering quarter by quarter analysis while we were discussing it but I wanted to keep the post shorter.

What we would need to do is look at quarter by quarter for 08 and 09 (good year and bad year).

I agree with more effective running, we could have run the clock more with leads but if it is not working, it can't be forced. A lot of that had to do with the O-line. I just hate the concept of blaming the poor performance of the D on Arians. They try to make it like he had a big passing ego and went pass happy so he made Gay suck aand the secondary suck without Troy.

I'm not all for super conservative offense with a small lead anyway. The problem is they have to close and put up TDs in the Red Zone. If the run game is effective then it is not super conservative because you are still moving the ball trying to get more points. What I'm opposed to is knowing your run game is sucking and forcing the run just to eat clock. Those teams lose.

You guys just want to blame BA for everything. lol. Soon you'll find a way to blame Special Teams coverage on him too. lol (kidding).

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:28 AM
I dont blame coaches. I blame Players. The ones who are actually on the field playing.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:32 AM
I've got the BA attack for special teams. Because that evil Arians passed too much the players who normally play special teams were winded running down the sidelines trying to see where the passes where going whereas if he had run the ball more, they could have stayed seated and watched. This tiredness let to poor ST coverage therefore it is all Arians fault. lol

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 12:33 AM
BTW...while our rush percentage was low, it was higher than our opponents. Our opponents also had more passing attempts (beyond percentage).

.

of course they did. rewind to 2001 when the steelers led the league in overall defense and rush defense.

what did the champion patriots and playoff raiders do to beat the steelers in the 1st two weeks of 2002?

they completely abandoned the run and collectively passed the ball almost 100 times.

fast forward to 2009. the steelers basically shut down lead leading rusher, chris johnson, for a win. they also kept adrian peterson (arguably the best back in the league) in check for another win.

sometimes there is an appropriate time to abandon the run. arians figured it out vs the #1 rush defense in the league (packers).

he dropped the ball when he got cute and abandoned the run vs 3 of the sorriest rush defenses in the league (chiefs, raiders, browns).

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:38 AM
What good defense did we play well against? The Packers? They had TWO starters out of that game. How did we play with TWO starters out? (smith/troy). Not up to snuff. What good defense did we play well against in 08? Please name the team.

I don't like to nitpick as to which unit helped us win etc. A win is a win. We beat some good teams last year. There were times where if the offense did not score a lot, we were going to be in trouble and they came through.

We beat the Ravens 3 times in 2008 and some other good teams. I really don't care what their defenses were ranked. If the offense was called to step up and play and they produced, I'm happy. I don't want to waste time going through all the good teams we beat and have you telling me the team is good but they have a bad defense or the defense is good but we only won because of our defensive plays. Frankly, I don't care so much.

I just like Wins. Sometimes the O will have to step up. The D always has to step up.

I wonder why you are a Steeler fan. lol Were you a fan since childhood or did you start liking them lately?

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:48 AM
of course they did. rewind to 2001 when the steelers led the league in overall defense and rush defense.

what did the champion patriots and playoff raiders do to beat the steelers in the 1st two weeks of 2002?

they completely abandoned the run and collectively passed the ball almost 100 times.

fast forward to 2009. the steelers basically shut down lead leading rusher, chris johnson, for a win. they also kept adrian peterson (arguably the best back in the league) in check for another win.

sometimes there is an appropriate time to abandon the run. arians figured it out vs the #1 rush defense in the league (packers).

he dropped the ball when he got cute and abandoned the run vs 3 of the sorriest rush defenses in the league (chiefs, raiders, browns).

Got ya...I missed some of the games.

When I did watch and we sucked at running, sometimes I felt like we were trying to force the run.

I'm excited because our running looked like it was back in the preseason. Maybe Adams is a better run blocker. Maybe Pouncey is helping. Maybe Kugs is teaching them. Either way, I would like productive runs.

I want them to keep trying to score when we have the lead unless it is by at least 2 TDs. I hope they can do this with running but if not, short passes and using all of the playclock is fine with me. Whatever it takes.

I like Arians (except some of his 2nd down calls...lol). I like what he has done with Ben. I think we have a good chance to win the SB this year. If we can just make the playoffs, we'll be dangerous. I like our chance to beat 3 teams in the postseason and get to the SB.

The terrible O-line is not BAs fault. Now with them playing better, he will have more choices.

mikegrimey
09-08-2010, 12:49 AM
he dropped the ball when he got cute and abandoned the run vs 3 of the sorriest rush defenses in the league (chiefs, raiders, browns).


This is so true and a trademark of the Tomlin/Arians era. I remember in 2007 going up against the 32nd ranked against the rush Broncos and we came out passing and Ben made mistakes in thep assing game that got us into a big hole by halftime. We ran more in the 2nd half and tied the game in the 4th quarter but it was too little too late.

When I was watchign the game I could understand why we threw on our first drive for the element of suprise but coudln't understand why we didn't run more after that. It seems obvious but you'd think that coaches would want to exploit an opponenets obvious weakness.

Like you mentioned there are times when it is wise to abandon something that isn't working too well. I could understand why we didn't run that many time against the Packers and Vikings in 09---I couldn't get why Mendenhall barely touched the rock after the first quarter against Detroit though, they should have been ramming it down their velvet clad throats all day. Like I said this failure to exploit an opponent's obvious weakness has been pretty routine the last 3 years.

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 12:52 AM
What good defense did we play well against? The Packers? They had TWO starters out of that game. How did we play with TWO starters out? (smith/troy). Not up to snuff. What good defense did we play well against in 08? Please name the team.

off the top of my head?

packers, denver, minnesota, san diego, ravensX2, bunglesX2.

2006 & 2007 proved we play down to our level of competition.

2008 proved we play UP to our level of competition.

2009 proved both.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:53 AM
It seems obvious but you'd think that coaches would want to exploit an opponenets obvious weakness.



I hope you feel that way when the D's weakness is the pass too. Atlanta, and Baltimore (without Foxworth and Reed) will have pass defense as their weakness.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:57 AM
off the top of my head?

packers, denver, minnesota, san diego, ravensX2, bunglesX2.

2006 & 2007 proved we play down to our level of competition.

2008 proved we play UP to our level of competition.

2009 proved both.

Thanks. Any relief is helpful. I'm going to the bench. Down is a nice guy but arguing with him is tiring. I feel like the Steelers defense you described. lol

The thing is, I don't feel like we are searching for the truth in that kind of argument when there is never a chance the person will be convinced. lol

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 12:58 AM
This is so true and a trademark of the Tomlin/Arians era. I remember in 2007 going up against the 32nd ranked against the rush Broncos and we came out passing and Ben made mistakes in thep assing game that got us into a big hole by halftime. We ran more in the 2nd half and tied the game in the 4th quarter but it was too little too late.

When I was watchign the game I could understand why we threw on our first drive for the element of suprise but coudln't understand why we didn't run more after that. It seems obvious but you'd think that coaches would want to exploit an opponenets obvious weakness.
.

you hit the nail on the head and further expose what is the biggest weakness of arians as a coordinator....

he abandons conventional wisdom at the most INOPPORTUNE times.

everybody knows we will pound the ball against the 32nd rush defense, or in tropical storm conditions in frigid weather with 40 MPH winds.

so instead of just imposing our will and letting the players win the game, arians gets cute and tries to "trick" the opposition, to win the game with his "brains".

he defies conventional wisdom because he is afraid the opposing coordinator may figure him out or know what play he is going to run.

its the main reason he is afraid of dixon in the line-up.

he wants to out think the opponents coaches as opposed to just letting his players out play their players.

K.I.S.S.

mikegrimey
09-08-2010, 12:58 AM
I hope you feel that way when the D's weakness is the pass too. Atlanta, and Baltimore (without Foxworth and Reed) will have pass defense as their weakness.

Trust me my friend I am no disciple of the Cowher era where the old cliche of "run the ball and play defense" got repeated so many times I wanted to punch Shannon Sharpe and every other announcer for acting like it was a travesty to let Ben throw the ball 30 times.

I'm all about balance and attacking a weakness if its there instead of trying so hard to outsmart the other team that you give them extra chances.
I don't expect us to throw the rock around too too much against Atlanta unless we fall behind, just because of Dixon. If he plays good I wouldn't be suprised if they unleashed him against Baltimore though.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 12:59 AM
At least we'll all be on the same side on game day. I'd like to take some arguers and go fight against the Ravens fans. Down...you would argue for us right? lol

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:01 AM
you hit the nail on the head and further expose what is the biggest weakness of arians as a coordinator....

he abandons conventional wisdom at the most INOPPORTUNE times.



Here we agree. lol:tt02:

I often feel like he is trying to outsmart the opponents and do something unusual. It surprises the fans too and sometimes it doesn't work. lol

mikegrimey
09-08-2010, 01:01 AM
You mean confront them at Heinz Field?
Shite aint' that serious to me.
Or are you jsut talking about online?

I really don't see the point of arguing with other fans, well at least the ones that are hostile and full of nonse. Kind of like arguing with DBL, they just want to see how long they can get people to fall for their nonsense and give them attention.

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 01:08 AM
Here we agree. lol:tt02:

I often feel like he is trying to outsmart the opponents and do something unusual. It surprises the fans too and sometimes it doesn't work. lol

:cheers: im pretty certain we all agree on MUCH MORE than we disagree upon.

such is the way of family, and such is the way of the steeler nation.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:08 AM
Trust me my friend I am no disciple of the Cowher era where the old cliche of "run the ball and play defense" got repeated so many times I wanted to punch Shannon Sharpe and every other announcer for acting like it was a travesty to let Ben throw the ball 30 times.

I'm all about balance and attacking a weakness if its there instead of trying so hard to outsmart the other team that you give them extra chances.
I don't expect us to throw the rock around too too much against Atlanta unless we fall behind, just because of Dixon. If he plays good I wouldn't be suprised if they unleashed him against Baltimore though.

Great. I'm glad you remembered that. I don't think it was Cowher because as he said in the first half he aimed for 50/50.

I do remember stupid commentaters likke Mark Schlereth saying Ben shouldn't throw for more then 22 times. He said 18-22 is good. He kept missing the point that the reason some of the higher attempts correlated with losses was because we were behind so Ben HAD to throw it. He would say "The Steelers win when they keep Ben's passing attempts low." No Mark "Bens passing attempts are kept low when they are winning...from running the ball in the second half". Uggghh...then we hear "The Steelers got away from what they are used to..." Whatever.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:12 AM
You mean confront them at Heinz Field?
Shite aint' that serious to me.
Or are you jsut talking about online?

I really don't see the point of arguing with other fans, well at least the ones that are hostile and full of nonse. Kind of like arguing with DBL, they just want to see how long they can get people to fall for their nonsense and give them attention.

Neither. I was just kidding. I just meant if we argued online it might be fun to argue WITH Down instead of against im all the time. lol It is just a game to me too.

It's funny you thought I meant suit up and go argue with fans at the stadium. lol
What are we going to get them to do? Change teams? lol

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:13 AM
:cheers: im pretty certain we all agree on MUCH MORE than we disagree upon.

such is the way of family, and such is the way of the steeler nation.

Agreed. Now that BA has an O-line that can run block and a focused Ben, I hope he has an awesome year. I do like the guy.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 04:33 AM
steelknight, you are new here, and i feel no need to rehash an argument that has taken place 100 times.

been there done that.

i just suggest doing some research on the disproportionate TOP in the 1st half vs the 2nd. heres a clue... dino6rings has already done the research (game by game) and it shows the defense was on the field in the 2nd half MUCH more than in the 1st.

it is PROPORTIONATE to the games they gave up leads in the 4th quarter.
.

As you know statistics can be tricky. In the hands of an honest guy in search of the truth, they can be great.

Many people will selectively interpret statistics to prove their point in an arguement.

For example, I don't have the energy to go through each game (I wouldn't mind doing 1) but it can be tricky. If it is a game where we lost and you are looking at 4th quarter TOP, if the defense is playing poorly but at the same time the opponent's offense is not that good, they could do long drives that take up time because our bad defense can't stop them. Then later we might be losing so we might try to pass to try to come back and conserve time. Meanwhile the other team stops us, gets the ball back and attempts to run the clock out using up more TOP.

So then when you analyze it looks like:
opponent high TOP
1.because our bad defense couldn't stop them yet they were not good enough to score quickly
2. When they took the lead and were trying to run the clock.
Us...low TOP
1. Because we were passing to try to conserve time to come back.
2. Because the offense was watching the terrible defense on the field having trouble trying to stop our opponents.
Us...more pass than run
-Because we were losing.

Someone could take the bold and say SEE I TOLD YOU...we lost because we tried to pass more than run, had trouble keeping our TOP high thus forcing the defense to stay out there. Because they got tired, they made mistakes. It is all Arian's fault.

It would take an honest person to analyze what was going on with the score while we were choosing our selections.

Another way to tell is to observe how many short series the opponents offense had. How many 4th quarter first downs did they have. It would be one thing if the defense didn't allow too many then our offense kept going 3 and out not using enough time. It is another thing if the defense couldn't stop them. Many things can be analyzed to determine these things including a combination of 1st downs and 3rd down attempts.

Then the other thing is I would have to know when it is the defense is admitting they sucked and were playing poorly (presumably because they were tired) vs feeling OK. To be completely fair, we would want to analyze the period BEFORE they admit they were tired because what they do when they are tired would support my claim (that it might not be all the offense's fault) but that poor play has been conceded..

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 04:50 AM
The final thing I will say is that it is a crime to keep blaming Arians for the defensive suckery.

Even though we had trouble scoring and Red Zone problems, we still scored more PPG than our Superbowl season. The difference was the defense allowed 20.3 points instead of 14.9 PPG.

People may not want to hear it but if the defense had played up to the standards of '08 (tough to duplicate), we would have been fine last year. It was Troy and Smith being gone. Stop blaming Arians for everyting. lol

Fix that pass D...lol LAA (Leave Arians Alone)

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 05:07 AM
I also have to point out that in addition to having a greater TOP than our offense in 2008, we also had fewer punts (for those who say it was because we had more 3 and outs). We had more third down attempts in our Superbowl season. We had BY FAR more first downs last year compared to our Superbowl year.

Let's just fix the pass D, convert more TDs in the Red Zone.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:29 AM
I don't like to nitpick as to which unit helped us win etc. A win is a win. We beat some good teams last year. There were times where if the offense did not score a lot, we were going to be in trouble and they came through.

We beat the Ravens 3 times in 2008 and some other good teams. I really don't care what their defenses were ranked. If the offense was called to step up and play and they produced, I'm happy. I don't want to waste time going through all the good teams we beat and have you telling me the team is good but they have a bad defense or the defense is good but we only won because of our defensive plays. Frankly, I don't care so much.

I just like Wins. Sometimes the O will have to step up. The D always has to step up.

I wonder why you are a Steeler fan. lol Were you a fan since childhood or did you start liking them lately?

Translation you cant name any good defenses like I thought. For your info I have been a Steeler fan since 74. So no, thats not lately.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:32 AM
Got ya...I missed some of the games.

When I did watch and we sucked at running, sometimes I felt like we were trying to force the run.

I'm excited because our running looked like it was back in the preseason. Maybe Adams is a better run blocker. Maybe Pouncey is helping. Maybe Kugs is teaching them. Either way, I would like productive runs.

I want them to keep trying to score when we have the lead unless it is by at least 2 TDs. I hope they can do this with running but if not, short passes and using all of the playclock is fine with me. Whatever it takes.

I like Arians (except some of his 2nd down calls...lol). I like what he has done with Ben. I think we have a good chance to win the SB this year. If we can just make the playoffs, we'll be dangerous. I like our chance to beat 3 teams in the postseason and get to the SB.

The terrible O-line is not BAs fault. Now with them playing better, he will have more choices.

If you missed some of the games then WHY the heck are you trying to argue a point? You are not even qualified to do so. You dont have enough data. I have watched every game since Sunday Ticket came out. I know for a fact the defense carries this team. If it did in the Bradshaw days what makes you think it doesnt now?

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:35 AM
off the top of my head?

packers, denver, minnesota, san diego, ravensX2, bunglesX2.

2006 & 2007 proved we play down to our level of competition.

2008 proved we play UP to our level of competition.

2009 proved both.

I already mentioned the Packers and told why we played well against them. They had two Dbs out. Makes a difference. We looked well vs Denver (Mendenhall, Tyone Carter). Sandiego has a terrible defense, are you kidding me?. We looked like butt vs the Vikes, Bengals (2) and Ravens (game 2).

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:37 AM
At least we'll all be on the same side on game day. I'd like to take some arguers and go fight against the Ravens fans. Down...you would argue for us right? lol

No not at all :banging:

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:40 AM
As you know statistics can be tricky. In the hands of an honest guy in search of the truth, they can be great.

Many people will selectively interpret statistics to prove their point in an arguement.

For example, I don't have the energy to go through each game (I wouldn't mind doing 1) but it can be tricky. If it is a game where we lost and you are looking at 4th quarter TOP, if the defense is playing poorly but at the same time the opponent's offense is not that good, they could do long drives that take up time because our bad defense can't stop them. Then later we might be losing so we might try to pass to try to come back and conserve time. Meanwhile the other team stops us, gets the ball back and attempts to run the clock out using up more TOP.

So then when you analyze it looks like:
opponent high TOP
1.because our bad defense couldn't stop them yet they were not good enough to score quickly
2. When they took the lead and were trying to run the clock.
Us...low TOP
1. Because we were passing to try to conserve time to come back.
2. Because the offense was watching the terrible defense on the field having trouble trying to stop our opponents.
Us...more pass than run
-Because we were losing.

Someone could take the bold and say SEE I TOLD YOU...we lost because we tried to pass more than run, had trouble keeping our TOP high thus forcing the defense to stay out there. Because they got tired, they made mistakes. It is all Arian's fault.

It would take an honest person to analyze what was going on with the score while we were choosing our selections.

Another way to tell is to observe how many short series the opponents offense had. How many 4th quarter first downs did they have. It would be one thing if the defense didn't allow too many then our offense kept going 3 and out not using enough time. It is another thing if the defense couldn't stop them. Many things can be analyzed to determine these things including a combination of 1st downs and 3rd down attempts.

Then the other thing is I would have to know when it is the defense is admitting they sucked and were playing poorly (presumably because they were tired) vs feeling OK. To be completely fair, we would want to analyze the period BEFORE they admit they were tired because what they do when they are tired would support my claim (that it might not be all the offense's fault) but that poor play has been conceded..

Bro you have admitted to not seeing all of the games. Having said that, how can you give an opinion? Stats dont tell the whole complexity of the game. Take the Vikes/Saints for example: If you look at the Stats you would think that the Vikings won going away but they didnt, they lost, despite what the statistics say.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:41 AM
:cheers: im pretty certain we all agree on MUCH MORE than we disagree upon.

such is the way of family, and such is the way of the steeler nation.

Here here :drink:

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 07:43 AM
you hit the nail on the head and further expose what is the biggest weakness of arians as a coordinator....

he abandons conventional wisdom at the most INOPPORTUNE times.

everybody knows we will pound the ball against the 32nd rush defense, or in tropical storm conditions in frigid weather with 40 MPH winds.

so instead of just imposing our will and letting the players win the game, arians gets cute and tries to "trick" the opposition, to win the game with his "brains".

he defies conventional wisdom because he is afraid the opposing coordinator may figure him out or know what play he is going to run.

its the main reason he is afraid of dixon in the line-up.

he wants to out think the opponents coaches as opposed to just letting his players out play their players.

K.I.S.S.

This is good stuff! I honestly didnt know you had it in ya Tony. I dont like to blame coaches (coordinators) but I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 10:04 AM
ive had this argument a million times on this board, and its not really even rehashing it for the new members but i cant let certain NON-facts and fallacies slide by.

The final thing I will say is that it is a crime to keep blaming Arians for the defensive suckery.

Even though we had trouble scoring and Red Zone problems, we still scored more PPG than our Superbowl season. The difference was the defense allowed 20.3 points instead of 14.9 PPG.
People may not want to hear it but if the defense had played up to the standards of '08 (tough to duplicate), we would have been fine last year. It was Troy and Smith being gone. Stop blaming Arians for everyting. lol

Fix that pass D...lol LAA (Leave Arians Alone)even w/o troy and smith, the defense allowed about 16.75 points a game which would place them 4th in the league.

the bolded statement is one of the WORST misconceptions in this entire argument.

you CANNOT pin 8 return TD's on the defense. that belongs to offense and special teams. those td's average out to 3 points a game basically putting the defense in a 3 point hole in every game.

out of 16 total games, the defense was in the hole for a TD in half of them. now look at how many games we lost by a td or less. the defense held their own despite missing 2 of its biggest stars.

the offense had a full arsenal, and some of the greatest stats ever, but couldnt keep from tripping over its own dick in the redzone. they couldnt put points on the board. :dang: 2 tds a game + 2 fgs dont cut it. its actually pathetic when you consider a 4000+ yd passer/ two 1000+ yd wr's/ 1000+ yd rb/ and heath miller.

completely unacceptable.

I already mentioned the Packers and told why we played well against them. They had two Dbs out. Makes a difference. We looked well vs Denver (Mendenhall, Tyone Carter). Sandiego has a terrible defense, are you kidding me?. We looked like butt vs the Vikes, Bengals (2) and Ravens (game 2).you asked for some good defenses the steelers faced as if they didnt face any.

i listed 7 games played vs teams ranked in the top 7, which means just about half of our games were played vs the very BEST defenses (the only one missing was the jets, and we cant play ourselves.)

and your comeback is "well, we looked like butt"??? :huh:

really?

seriously?

do you know what a defensive slugfest is?

have you forgotten what a smashmouth football game is all about?

that is why todays football fans have been spoiled by fantasy football and rule changes geared towards the offens.

they now think good defensive football is really just crappy offensive play.

heres the fact of the matter. all those teams looked like shit vs us too! favre was one of the best qb's in the league with his best season ever. = fumble for a td and a pick 6.

in 05 we played the top 4 offenses in the league on the road to the superbowl and they ALL looked like shit!

does that mean the colts, bungles, seahawks, and broncos WERE shit? no. they were still the BEST offenses in the league.

it happens in football.

...defense happens.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 12:35 PM
We never go through the defenses of the prolific passeres discounting games one by one. What a waste. Te Steelers played well aginst some good teams and they finished #7 overall in offense.

Tony, my "what good defenses did we play well against" comment was regarding this post. I'm not saying we didnt play any good defenses because I know we did. My point is we looked like butt against those defenses. Same can be said in 08 as well.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:32 PM
If you missed some of the games then WHY the heck are you trying to argue a point? You are not even qualified to do so. You dont have enough data. I have watched every game since Sunday Ticket came out. I know for a fact the defense carries this team. If it did in the Bradshaw days what makes you think it doesnt now?

Unfortunately I live outside of the Pitt area, don't have Sunday ticket and they were working hard to block internet games last year.

Alright, good. I'm glad you feel that since I missed some games, I'm not qualified to have any opinions. I'm tired of arguing with you. It's pointless.

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 01:54 PM
ive had this argument a million times on this board, and its not really even rehashing it for the new members but i cant let certain NON-facts and fallacies slide by.

even w/o troy and smith, the defense allowed about 16.75 points a game which would place them 4th in the league.

the bolded statement is one of the WORST misconceptions in this entire argument.

you CANNOT pin 8 return TD's on the defense. that belongs to offense and special teams. those td's average out to 3 points a game basically putting the defense in a 3 point hole in every game.

out of 16 total games, the defense was in the hole for a TD in half of them. now look at how many games we lost by a td or less. the defense held their own despite missing 2 of its biggest stars.

the offense had a full arsenal, and some of the greatest stats ever, but couldnt keep from tripping over its own dick in the redzone. they couldnt put points on the board. :dang: 2 tds a game + 2 fgs dont cut it. its actually pathetic when you consider a 4000+ yd passer/ two 1000+ yd wr's/ 1000+ yd rb/ and heath miller.

completely unacceptable.


Nice argument. I must admit I overlooked that. Sure. I agree ST needs work. My point is we can't blame Arians for everything.

There is no question we need to work on Red Zone scoring.

Our pass defense was only average and it is not something that I'm used to. If we had a better CB than Gay, we would have made the playoffs.

I say all 3 are to blame
D- bad (average) pass defense. Inability to create turnovers.
O- poor red zone scoring and bad 3rd down running (though up the middle they had a power rating of 88 which is 3rd in the league. Me thinks they need to run up the middle more on less than 2 yards).
ST-terrible coverage. In fact even though I don't like Sepulveda's KOs, if he was in there we might have made the playoffs just for his ability to tackle unlike Reed who looked like a girl. I don't expect him to tackle but if he could force the runner towards the sidelines, he might accidentally step out.

The good news is I think these should be improved.

Without Troy and Clark together, the defense never feels the same...even with good stats. I remember in '07 when Troy was injured at times or even when he was there but Clark was gone, I felt like the defense absolutely sucked and was not intimidating at all but their stat numbers looked good (for yards at least...maybe I should have redone it at the time with points allowed).

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 02:11 PM
Unfortunately I live outside of the Pitt area, don't have Sunday ticket and they were working hard to block internet games last year.

Alright, good. I'm glad you feel that since I missed some games, I'm not qualified to have any opinions. I'm tired of arguing with you. It's pointless.

Not trying to offend but if you cant see my point then let me provide an analogy. How can you give an eyewitness acount in court if you were not an eyewitness? You can't. Make sense?

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 02:25 PM
Not trying to offend but if you cant see my point then let me provide an analogy. How can you give an eyewitness acount in court if you were not an eyewitness? You can't. Make sense?

Blah...so detectives, CSI investigators, pathologists, etc are all useless right?
Even though you saw all of them, I don't always agree with what you are seeing so I'll overlook you as an eye witness ...thanks. lol

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not qualified because you can be tiring. You bring up some decent points though.

I'm tired of arguing now. We need the real season to begin. lol

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Blah...so detectives, CSI investigators, pathologists, etc are all useless right?
Even though you saw all of them, I don't always agree with what you are seeing so I'll overlook you as an eye witness ...thanks. lol

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not qualified because you can be tiring. You bring up some decent points though.

I'm tired of arguing now. We need the real season to begin. lol

Of course they are not useless. But before they make an opinion there is a data and fact finding process that they go through. You have not. You didnt see the game so what are you even talking about? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. "I didnt see the game but I have an opinion on the game". Thats absurd bro.

You dont have to agree with what I see and thats not the issue. Even if you dont agree at least I can offer a qualified opinion of what I sayw. You cannnot. Thats the difference.

I agree, bring on the Falcons!!!:tt04:

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 03:30 PM
Of course they are not useless. But before they make an opinion there is a data and fact finding process that they go through. You have not. You didnt see the game so what are you even talking about? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. "I didnt see the game but I have an opinion on the game". Thats absurd bro.

You dont have to agree with what I see and thats not the issue. Even if you dont agree at least I can offer a qualified opinion of what I sayw. You cannnot. Thats the difference.

I agree, bring on the Falcons!!!:tt04:

It's not a big deal. It's just that it's a weak argument to assume all the magic that makes your opinion occurred in the games I missed. It's possible but unlikely. You can have a fan watch every game and without looking at the stats that fan can have some misconceptions. If we are talking about a particular game and you want to rule out my opinion because I didn't see it, no big deal but that does not mean I cannot have any Steeler opinions because I did not see EVERY SINGLE GAME. I'm sure you don't get that subtlety so forget it.

Downbylaw
09-08-2010, 04:14 PM
Of course you can have an opinion. It just wont be a correct one. Go back and look at this thread. You are getting your hat handed to you and why is that? Its not because you are a dumb person, not because you arent a good debator. Just the oppossite. Its because you dont have the information available to put forth a rational argument. Who argues politics without knowing the policies a candidate stands for? Who aregues about religion without having knowledge of religion? Who goes to work on Monday and argues about the Steelers game that he hasnt even seen? Only a fool

SteelKnight
09-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Of course you can have an opinion. It just wont be a correct one. Go back and look at this thread. You are getting your hat handed to you and why is that? Its not because you are a dumb person, not because you arent a good debator. Just the oppossite. Its because you dont have the information available to put forth a rational argument. Who argues politics without knowing the policies a candidate stands for? Who aregues about religion without having knowledge of religion? Who goes to work on Monday and argues about the Steelers game that he hasnt even seen? Only a fool

Futility with you. I almost explained but you are never one to "get" something so i won't waste my time. You have your mind made up about everything. If that's the case, why even come to a message board?

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 07:28 AM
Bro its simple, If you didnt see something then you dont know anything. How can you offer an opinion on what you didnt see? Its a second hand account at best and not as good as an eyewitness account. Get over it. GEEEEEEZ

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 12:53 PM
Bro its simple, If you didnt see something then you dont know anything. How can you offer an opinion on what you didnt see? Its a second hand account at best and not as good as an eyewitness account. Get over it. GEEEEEEZ

By your analysis you should not be able to comment on any individual either since you do not see him/her every second of the day (you might miss something).

Done with this. It's a new season. These circular arguments bore me anyway.

Good luck.

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 03:42 PM
By your analysis you should not be able to comment on any individual either since you do not see him/her every second of the day (you might miss something).

Done with this. It's a new season. These circular arguments bore me anyway.

Good luck.

That analogy is flawed. I'm not offering an analysis on an individual, I'm offering it on our football team and how they do and did. If you want to continue to speak on games you didnt even see, then be my guest but dont get offended when you get your hat handed to you. Imagine going to work tomorrow and having this conversation:John: "Hey dude I missed the game last night can someone fill me in as to what happened"
Jim: "I can, I watched the game from start to finish"
Steelknight: "I didnt watch the game but I studied the boxscore so I can tell ya what happened"

Now who do you think John is going to go to to get an accurate account of what happened last night?

Riddle_Of_Steel
09-09-2010, 05:02 PM
That analogy is flawed. I'm not offering an analysis on an individual, I'm offering it on our football team and how they do and did. If you want to continue to speak on games you didnt even see, then be my guest but dont get offended when you get your hat handed to you. Imagine going to work tomorrow and having this conversation:John: "Hey dude I missed the game last night can someone fill me in as to what happened"
Jim: "I can, I watched the game from start to finish"
Steelknight: "I didnt watch the game but I studied the boxscore so I can tell ya what happened"

Now who do you think John is going to go to to get an accurate account of what happened last night?

So your whole coutroom-esque charade is based upon "you saw the games, and he didn't, so his opinion doesn't count"? For this to be a valid argument, you would need to establish:

a) your photographic memory can be trusted completely, with no errors or ommissions.

b) your analysis of witnessed events is more credible than someone else's opinion, after watching the same game.

If you are not able to establish both (I can't see how you possibly could...), then this "argument" of your is intellectually bankrupt and meaningless.

Riddle_Of_Steel
09-09-2010, 05:05 PM
If you want to continue to speak on games you didnt even see, then be my guest but dont get offended when you get your hat handed to you. Imagine going to work tomorrow and having this conversation:John: "Hey dude I missed the game last night can someone fill me in as to what happened"
Jim: "I can, I watched the game from start to finish"
Steelknight: "I didnt watch the game but I studied the boxscore so I can tell ya what happened"


Except that you are discussing games that were played over a year ago, some as far back as 2001. Your recollection of those events is not sure to be much more accurate than someone who did not watch the game and only analyzed the stats at this point in time.

Now who do you think John is going to go to to get an accurate account of what happened last night?

Since these games were played so long ago-- neither. You fail to adress any of of the poster's points (which were well-evidenced), you just keep falling back on your "You didn't see the game, so you don't know" fallacy....

cloppbeast
09-09-2010, 05:11 PM
That analogy is flawed. I'm not offering an analysis on an individual, I'm offering it on our football team and how they do and did. If you want to continue to speak on games you didnt even see, then be my guest but dont get offended when you get your hat handed to you. Imagine going to work tomorrow and having this conversation:John: "Hey dude I missed the game last night can someone fill me in as to what happened"
Jim: "I can, I watched the game from start to finish"
Steelknight: "I didnt watch the game but I studied the boxscore so I can tell ya what happened"

Now who do you think John is going to go to to get an accurate account of what happened last night?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6j6wg59Llw

How do you ******* upload youtube videos?

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 05:12 PM
So your whole coutroom-esque charade is based upon "you saw the games, and he didn't, so his opinion doesn't count"? For this to be a valid argument, you would need to establish:

a) your photographic memory can be trusted completely, with no errors or ommissions.

b) your analysis of witnessed events is more credible than someone else's opinion, after watching the same game.

If you are not able to establish both (I can't see how you possibly could...), then this "argument" of your is intellectually bankrupt and meaningless.

It has already been done. Feel free to read through this thread for confirmation. See what happens when you burgalarize someone elses conversation?

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 05:15 PM
Except that you are discussing games that were played over a year ago, some as far back as 2001. Your recollection of those events is not sure to be much more accurate than someone who did not watch the game and only analyzed the stats at this point in time.

Here is your chance to prove that said arguments posted by me are inaccurate.


Since these games were played so long ago-- neither. You fail to adress any of of the poster's points (which were well-evidenced), you just keep falling back on your "You didn't see the game, so you don't know" fallacy....

Oh do I? Please reread the thread sir lol. Lastly, an eyewitness account is always better than second hand information.

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 06:22 PM
That analogy is flawed. I'm not offering an analysis on an individual, I'm offering it on our football team and how they do and did. If you want to continue to speak on games you didnt even see, then be my guest but dont get offended when you get your hat handed to you. Imagine going to work tomorrow and having this conversation:John: "Hey dude I missed the game last night can someone fill me in as to what happened"
Jim: "I can, I watched the game from start to finish"
Steelknight: "I didnt watch the game but I studied the boxscore so I can tell ya what happened"

Now who do you think John is going to go to to get an accurate account of what happened last night?

Why can't you get it through your head that I saw MOST of the games. Missing a few games does not mean I can't have an overall opinion. Sure all the unusual things could have happened in the games I missed but at that point, we would be talking about consistency. You are the one using flawed logic. You keep bringing it back to one game. If I didn't see a game, I would tread lightly before arguing about it. If the person states mis-truths (that are not supported by data) then I might point that out but I wouldn't not argue about the flavor and feel of the game.

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 06:32 PM
It has already been done. Feel free to read through this thread for confirmation. See what happens when you burgalarize someone elses conversation?

I've been here and it hasn't been done. That's the other thing. You tend to not be with the majority so I doubt your "eye-witness" is that credible. You are seeing things that the majority are not seeing. I'm not saying the majority is always right by the way...but if you are to use the argument that anyone who saw it would know it clearly, this has to be considered.

Most players ...who watch games feel Ben is a great franchise QB...you do not. So much for your expert eye witness leading to opinions. Once the analysis reaches the level of opinion and perspective beyond stats, it becomes more subjective. The only valid point to make would involve the majority. If not...less can be claimed.

For example...suppose the stats show that there were 5 incompletions. Someone at the game might say all 5 should have been caught. This would require the majority to agree for validity. If the majority does not agree, it becomes merely a subjective stance. It's not great to put things in the hands of the majority but such is life when you require "eye witness" as your standard.

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 06:35 PM
Oh do I? Please reread the thread sir lol. Lastly, an eyewitness account is always better than second hand information.

It depends on the credibilty of the eye witness.

If I ask how many picks did Brees have and they eye witness says "I think one". Then the stats show he had 3 picks...there you go.

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Why can't you get it through your head that I saw MOST of the games. Missing a few games does not mean I can't have an overall opinion. Sure all the unusual things could have happened in the games I missed but at that point, we would be talking about consistency. You are the one using flawed logic. You keep bringing it back to one game. If I didn't see a game, I would tread lightly before arguing about it. If the person states mis-truths (that are not supported by data) then I might point that out but I wouldn't not argue about the flavor and feel of the game.

Ok be specific and tell me what games did you actually see

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 08:12 PM
I've been here and it hasn't been done. That's the other thing. You tend to not be with the majority so I doubt your "eye-witness" is that credible. You are seeing things that the majority are not seeing. I'm not saying the majority is always right by the way...but if you are to use the argument that anyone who saw it would know it clearly, this has to be considered.

Most players ...who watch games feel Ben is a great franchise QB...you do not. So much for your expert eye witness leading to opinions. Once the analysis reaches the level of opinion and perspective beyond stats, it becomes more subjective. The only valid point to make would involve the majority. If not...less can be claimed.

For example...suppose the stats show that there were 5 incompletions. Someone at the game might say all 5 should have been caught. This would require the majority to agree for validity. If the majority does not agree, it becomes merely a subjective stance. It's not great to put things in the hands of the majority but such is life when you require "eye witness" as your standard.

You are saying the majority is right. If you asked the majority is "Downbylaw a good debator" The majority would say "HELL NO!" Does that mean that its accurate? No, it just means that they dont like me. There is a difference. There are guys here who posted that T.O is a scrub, does that mean it is true? No, it just means he is not liked.

In regard to Ben. Most people like who? The experts dont. Do you mean Steeler fans? You can say Ben is elite all you like, that is your opininon ( he brings up Ben because he knows this is his trump card to get posters on his side. Newsflash. I have been battling ALL of these guys on my own for a while now. Its not a problem lol) Ben doesnt have elite numbers. You say he has won 2 rings and I say so has Willie Parker so does that make him elite? So again, you say Ben is elite and I say In what regard? Ben has TEAM accolades. Bens individual stats are GOOD and thats exactly what I say about Ben. I asked the question 2 weeks ago and never got a answer from one poster. I will ask you. If Ben is elite like you say, then give me FOUR or FIVE games in a row where Ben has ELITE stats. If Ben was elite he would have more than ONE Pro Bowl. If he was elite he would have more than ONE team MVP. If he was elite he would have league Mvps. If he was elite he would have ELITE stats.
Question- If Ben was on the Lions do they make the playoffs? Raiders? Rams? Ben is not the kind of qb who you can put a team on his back. He just isnt. He is the type of qb that is a good piece to a puzzle. He is gritty, tough and determined to get the job done. He is also clutch. But Ben is NOT cerebral and thats what stops him from being elite. He has an elite arm, elite body but not an elite mind. Thats the difference.

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 08:16 PM
It depends on the credibilty of the eye witness.

If I ask how many picks did Brees have and they eye witness says "I think one". Then the stats show he had 3 picks...there you go.

Lol
If you ask how many picks an individual has, that DOESNT take an eyewitness lol
An individual can merely look that up. The eyewitness stance came because you were sitting there debating games you have not seen. So once you state what games you have seen then we can come to common terms. And if you want to question my knowledge as a football eyewitness then thats fine too. I dont offend easy. I have thick skin.

MACH1
09-09-2010, 08:30 PM
Two words- Arians Sucks

:chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
09-09-2010, 08:37 PM
Two words- Arians Sucks

:chuckle:
whats that mach ?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3426106666_1f92dfce8d.jpg

tony hipchest
09-09-2010, 08:40 PM
:rofl: :toofunny: :sofunny:

downbylaw, you still havent learned to use the "multi quote" function?

this thread is reallg going far off topic and both of you are reaching real deep to prove a point with is nothing but opinion, neaning it cant be proven. so now you are reaching real deep to prove who has a more valid opinion.

funny thing is, i bet you both forgot what your initial point was in the 1st place.

let it go... argue the topic of the thread... or i can simply just kill it.

tasters choice.

MasterOfPuppets
09-09-2010, 08:41 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zDaKPR8JYB04HM:http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/9483/pledgeofallegiancebrainul1.jpg&t=1

arians rules.....arians rules...

MACH1
09-09-2010, 08:48 PM
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/images/hypnotize.jpg

tony hipchest
09-09-2010, 08:55 PM
some threads deserve to be grossly hijacked.

i think this one is one of them.

MasterOfPuppets
09-09-2010, 09:08 PM
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/powder-keg/27088d1258511571-lee-ermy-show-fragmentation-round-hijack-deniro.jpg

steelax04
09-09-2010, 09:09 PM
Favre.

MasterOfPuppets
09-09-2010, 09:10 PM
http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac292/luft11hoflich/shat/dummies-thread-hijacking.png

Downbylaw
09-09-2010, 09:11 PM
:rofl: :toofunny: :sofunny:

downbylaw, you still havent learned to use the "multi quote" function?

this thread is reallg going far off topic and both of you are reaching real deep to prove a point with is nothing but opinion, neaning it cant be proven. so now you are reaching real deep to prove who has a more valid opinion.

funny thing is, i bet you both forgot what your initial point was in the 1st place.

let it go... argue the topic of the thread... or i can simply just kill it.

tasters choice.

He was arguing with you, not me. I dont even know how I got in it. Thats what I get for agreeing with your stance lol

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 09:38 PM
You are saying the majority is right. If you asked the majority is "Downbylaw a good debator" The majority would say "HELL NO!" Does that mean that its accurate? No, it just means that they dont like me. There is a difference. There are guys here who posted that T.O is a scrub, does that mean it is true? No, it just means he is not liked.

In regard to Ben. Most people like who? The experts dont. Do you mean Steeler fans? You can say Ben is elite all you like, that is your opininon ( he brings up Ben because he knows this is his trump card to get posters on his side. Newsflash. I have been battling ALL of these guys on my own for a while now. Its not a problem lol) Ben doesnt have elite numbers. You say he has won 2 rings and I say so has Willie Parker so does that make him elite? So again, you say Ben is elite and I say In what regard? Ben has TEAM accolades. Bens individual stats are GOOD and thats exactly what I say about Ben. I asked the question 2 weeks ago and never got a answer from one poster. I will ask you. If Ben is elite like you say, then give me FOUR or FIVE games in a row where Ben has ELITE stats. If Ben was elite he would have more than ONE Pro Bowl. If he was elite he would have more than ONE team MVP. If he was elite he would have league Mvps. If he was elite he would have ELITE stats.
Question- If Ben was on the Lions do they make the playoffs? Raiders? Rams? Ben is not the kind of qb who you can put a team on his back. He just isnt. He is the type of qb that is a good piece to a puzzle. He is gritty, tough and determined to get the job done. He is also clutch. But Ben is NOT cerebral and thats what stops him from being elite. He has an elite arm, elite body but not an elite mind. Thats the difference.

Um...no...if you don't follow, too bad. I never said the majority is always right. I said once you get to the point where you are using "eye witness" as your proof, and we move to subjective perspective/opinion it has to be something the majority agree on. I'm not saying things should go that way but you can't have it both ways.

On Ben, I did not bring that up to get posters on my side you diabolical genius. I brought it up because it is an obvious area where you have come to a different conclusion than most of us despite having been an "eye witness". Simple.

Ben can work on his accuracy but I like his mental playing. I hear he's even better this year so great. The accuracy is the thing because often instead of hitting a receiver in stride, he's a little off, the receiver has to jump on the ground and the commentator think he purposely put it where the defenders couldn't get it. Maybe...sometimes...but sometimes if he hits the receiver in stride, our YAC would go up. I'm seeing it with Brees. Excellent accuracy.

Ben is a franchise QB and not just a piece. He could go to many middle teams and make them top end. Of course it is hard to go to a team with noting but even those teams, he could make better.

Lol
If you ask how many picks an individual has, that DOESNT take an eyewitness lol
An individual can merely look that up. The eyewitness stance came because you were sitting there debating games you have not seen. So once you state what games you have seen then we can come to common terms. And if you want to question my knowledge as a football eyewitness then thats fine too. I dont offend easy. I have thick skin.

:banging: Missed the point again. Someone who was an eyewitness may not observe something, observe incorrectly or not remember something. That's the point.

I am done arguing this nonsense with you.

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 09:44 PM
:rofl: :toofunny: :sofunny:

downbylaw, you still havent learned to use the "multi quote" function?

this thread is reallg going far off topic and both of you are reaching real deep to prove a point with is nothing but opinion, neaning it cant be proven. so now you are reaching real deep to prove who has a more valid opinion.

funny thing is, i bet you both forgot what your initial point was in the 1st place.

let it go... argue the topic of the thread... or i can simply just kill it.

tasters choice.

Tony I agree with you. I want to resist...I try to fight it. I must look deeper within for the force.

I myself had forgotten which thread this was...

Back on Topic...I hate Arian's (and Tomlin's ) second down calls. He tries to get cute, surprises everyone including the fans...everyone except the other team...lol

SteelKnight
09-09-2010, 09:49 PM
I know why Tomlin doesn't want to fire Arians. Tomlin knows that he makes a lot of the calls that Arians gets criticized for. It would be absurd. It is the job of both the OC and HC to make those calls. If the plays themselves suck, fire the OC but if they are good plays but just playcalling problems, this can be corrected. It is BOTH Tomlin and Arians.

Downbylaw
09-10-2010, 08:30 AM
I know why Tomlin doesn't want to fire Arians. Tomlin knows that he makes a lot of the calls that Arians gets criticized for. It would be absurd. It is the job of both the OC and HC to make those calls. If the plays themselves suck, fire the OC but if they are good plays but just playcalling problems, this can be corrected. It is BOTH Tomlin and Arians.

Again you show your ignorance. Tomlin is a defensive coach just like Cowher. Cowher left the offensive calls up to Whiz, Mullarky, Gailey etc. Could he call the plays himsefl? Probably but not with any effectiveness as its not his field of expertise. Just like Bill Walsh. He has a background in offense and not defense, he would be hurting the team to try to take over in an area that he isnt an expert. Present your PROOF that Tomlin makes the calls Arians gets criticized for. Lastly, I thik Arians stayed because Ben loves him and not Tomlin.

Downbylaw
09-10-2010, 08:48 AM
Um...no...if you don't follow, too bad. I never said the majority is always right. I said once you get to the point where you are using "eye witness" as your proof, and we move to subjective perspective/opinion it has to be something the majority agree on. I'm not saying things should go that way but you can't have it both ways.

I merely said that an eyewitness account is always better than an account of a person who was not there. Where there opinion is valid or not he/she will still have an eyewitness account that the questioner can discern between the statements to find out the truth. If a person is not there he/she has no probative value to offer because of lack of pertinent information. Get it? Of course you dont. lol

On Ben, I did not bring that up to get posters on my side you diabolical genius. I brought it up because it is an obvious area where you have come to a different conclusion than most of us despite having been an "eye witness". Simple.

You guys are Homer Steeler fans. I guarantee if you ask the average NFL fan they will agree with me. They will say Ben is Good. Ben is a game manager. Ben is not elite. Fans who love a player have a tendancy to be biased. Ask any Cowboy fan about Tony Romo and the MAJORITY will say he is elite. I disagree but you get my point. Fans of a certain team will back their guy and thats all thats happening here. I back Ben too but just not to the degree of most of you all. If I'm wrong then back up your statements with proof.

Ben can work on his accuracy but I like his mental playing. I hear he's even better this year so great. The accuracy is the thing because often instead of hitting a receiver in stride, he's a little off, the receiver has to jump on the ground and the commentator think he purposely put it where the defenders couldn't get it. Maybe...sometimes...but sometimes if he hits the receiver in stride, our YAC would go up. I'm seeing it with Brees. Excellent accuracy.

Thats because Brees is elite. You just defeated your own argument. Why is Brees elite? Because he puts in the time to work at his trade. Ben doesnt. Ben is raw, he had bad footwork, he is a fundamental nightmare. He gets by on RAW TALENT. Do you think quarterback coaches teach young quarterbacks to be like Ben? They do not. I run several and he is the poster boy for what not to do. You just said it "I hear hes even better this year" WHO waits till their 7th season to start working hard at their trade? A guy who has been tanking it thats who. Thats my main beef with Ben. He plays well when he feels like it. He putt putts through most games and turns it on and plays up to his ability in the 4th quarter. If he had that focus during the whole game, we would be unbeatable.

Ben is a franchise QB and not just a piece. He could go to many middle teams and make them top end. Of course it is hard to go to a team with noting but even those teams, he could make better.

You guys like to use that term "Franchise Qb" Like the Title should give a guy reverance. Trent Green, Don Majikowski, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Vince Young,Michael Vick, David Carr etc are all current and former franchise qbs. Your point is what? My point is Ben is NOT the primary reason we are good, the defense is. Ben would not go to the lions and make them contenders like the Steelers. Thats what ELITE qbs do. They dont make teams better, they make them contenders. You have just admitted that he is good and not elite. John Elway, Marino, Montana, Aikman,Peyton Manning,Drew Brees, Brett Favre all took TERRIBLE teams and made them contenders because they are elite.


:banging: Missed the point again. Someone who was an eyewitness may not observe something, observe incorrectly or not remember something. That's the point.

I am done arguing this nonsense with you.

You keep saying you are done but yet here you are again........ An eyewitness may miss something but he will give a better account than the one who saw NOTHING.

Downbylaw
09-10-2010, 08:49 AM
Tony I agree with you. I want to resist...I try to fight it. I must look deeper within for the force.

I myself had forgotten which thread this was...

Back on Topic...I hate Arian's (and Tomlin's ) second down calls. He tries to get cute, surprises everyone including the fans...everyone except the other team...lol

I dont believe Tomlin makes any calls on offense. If he does please enlighten us all. That would be interesting to know. Tomlin does however, help on the defense as I have seen a little progress in our Dbs reactionary skills.

SteelKnight
09-10-2010, 09:44 AM
I dont believe Tomlin makes any calls on offense. If he does please enlighten us all. That would be interesting to know. Tomlin does however, help on the defense as I have seen a little progress in our Dbs reactionary skills.

I do hate you now...I really do and I am working to figure out a way to block you but upon reading Arians latest comment, it does appear he is responsible and not Tomlin.

On most teams, the head coach may decide a type of play he wants in certain instances and the OC may (in those instances ) come up wit a specific play that'll cover what the coach wants. It is the key instances where we complain anyway. These are the times where coaches are most likely to have input. Even though Tomlin is a defensive coach by history, I doubt he gives much input to Lebeau during games.

Now...please avoid addressing me until I can figure out ow the block works. If I dont respond to a post. It doesn't mean you are right or that I have no response.

Downbylaw
09-10-2010, 09:57 AM
I do hate you now...I really do and I am working to figure out a way to block you but upon reading Arians latest comment, it does appear he is responsible and not Tomlin.

On most teams, the head coach may decide a type of play he wants in certain instances and the OC may (in those instances ) come up wit a specific play that'll cover what the coach wants. It is the key instances where we complain anyway. These are the times where coaches are most likely to have input. Even though Tomlin is a defensive coach by history, I doubt he gives much input to Lebeau during games.

Now...please avoid addressing me until I can figure out ow the block works. If I dont respond to a post. It doesn't mean you are right or that I have no response.

Hate? Thats your deal, not mine. I think he gives input to Lebeau during games and I can see it manifested in our coverages. We run a lot of Cover 2 now, whereas we didnt PRE Tomlin. Just dont respond. Simple