PDA

View Full Version : Rooney wants old Steelers offense


Raw Steel
01-22-2012, 11:12 PM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say?eleven=twelve

mesaSteeler
01-22-2012, 11:34 PM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say?eleven=twelve

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::appla udit::applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

He's not the only one who wants to get back to real Steelers football. Enough of the pass cr*p offense.

GMU Steeler
01-22-2012, 11:43 PM
Good. I realize it's become a passing game but you still need the run and we have guys that can run the ball. Arians biggest fault was not seeing that you can win the run too.

Steelerfreak58
01-22-2012, 11:58 PM
I don't give a shit what kind of offense it is as long as it can get more TDs then it did this year. Field Goals don't cut it.

I hope I never see a bubble screen from a Steeler WR for at least a few years.

TRH
01-23-2012, 01:02 AM
i think we'll try and utilize the running game better......but i think we'll be passing more (at least just as much) but with better spreads, playcalls, and routes.

6RingsAndCounting
01-23-2012, 01:08 AM
I don't wanna go back to "old" Steelers football, but I want to be balanced.

tanda10506
01-23-2012, 01:45 AM
I would like to move in that direction but ultimately we still need to pass at least 50% of the time. Play calling was the main reason the passing game was mediocre. With better play calling and the O line hopefully making some improvement the passing game will be more efficient which will also help taking some attention off the run. Moving towards the old style while becoming the great passing team we are capable of being would make up for any problems the defense MIGHT have during the changes to come.

wyn50
01-23-2012, 04:44 AM
They need consistency and balance on offense. Arian was terrible at managing games consistently.

plenewken
01-23-2012, 06:45 AM
Doesn't matter to me if we're balanced or not. The offense is paid to put points on the board and it didn't get the job done under Arians.

steeltheone
01-23-2012, 07:05 AM
Points are points. I dont care if they come trough the air or on the ground!

BigRick
01-23-2012, 07:50 AM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say?eleven=twelve

Then they better start by getting a decent OL. I know the Steelers aren't big players in the free agent market, but it's time to step up.:helmet:

Whodis
01-23-2012, 08:03 AM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say?eleven=twelve

YDR had a quote from the great Jon Witman saying how hard it was watching a RB trying to run without a FB to open holes.

Curtain_of_Steel
01-23-2012, 08:58 AM
With the Rooneys basically pushing the run,, dont be surprised if Wallace signs an offer sheet elsewhere.
Pats could easy blow late 1st round picks on him n a ton of cash.

We fo not have the rbs or oline to be a running team, nor the cash to bring in players.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 09:11 AM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say?eleven=twelve

That's exactly what I've been saying and I hope his comments are more rhetorical than sincere because it would be a shame to allow all of the receiving talent we have as well as a QB who's genetically built to throw a football turned into little more than spectators just because of some mythological vision of "Steeler Football" and one man's resistance to change.

I'd like to see a fullback too and a power back like Bettis (John Clay, anyone?), but only to serve as one of many things we can do and to be used strategically when needed while still favoring a passing game overall.

I think the days of being "one thing" are gone and to be truly successful in today's league a team needs to be many things and needs to be able to adapt to a given situation.

jjpro11
01-23-2012, 09:14 AM
With the Rooneys basically pushing the run,, dont be surprised if Wallace signs an offer sheet elsewhere.
Pats could easy blow late 1st round picks on him n a ton of cash.

We fo not have the rbs or oline to be a running team, nor the cash to bring in players.

and they're offense would pretty much be unstoppable. they don't even have a deep threat, yet their tight ends still are able to get open at will underneath... imagine if they got someone like Wallace to take the top off of defenses. my worse fear regarding Wallace is that he leaves and heads straight to New England. Brady gets all the time in the world thanks to his O-line to allow plays to develop downfield... we saw what they could do with a top flight deep threat in 2007.. i know they didn't win the Super Bowl, but nobody wants to see them play like that again.

4xSBChamps
01-23-2012, 09:19 AM
Part of the reason Arians was not retained is because Art II wants to get back to old Steeler football, at least to a degree. Expect a fullback at Heinz Field in 2012.



after watching the Steelers offense in recent seasons, imagine my surprise when last week's SI arrived
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/Glensgages/football/SF49ers-coverofSportsIllustratedJanuary2012.jpg
I thought this formation (tailback behind the fullback, behind the quarterback, behind the center) had been outlawed years-ago

I would like to move in that direction but ultimately we still need to pass at least 50% of the time.

2008 ~ 460 rushes, 506 pass attempts + 49 sacks = 555 pass plays
45.3% / 54.7%

2009 ~ 428 rushes, 536 pass attempts + 50 sacks = 586 pass plays
42.2% / 57.8%

2010 ~ 471 rushes, 479 pass attempts + 43 sacks = 522 pass plays
47.4% / 52.6%

2011 ~ 434 rushes, 539 pass attempts, + 40 sacks = 579 pass plays
42.8% / 57.2%

running the ball frequently will help keep opposing defenses honest, and prevent them from teeing-off on our QB (who is averaging just-under 3 sacks per-game, and a similar number of broken bones each season), and make our passing game even more dangerous:
maybe he'll reach his 35th birthday without needing to use a walker

if you believe (as I do) that this year's Steeler team wasn't a serious threat to win the Super Bowl depsite it's 12-4 record, you'll see that the 2 most recent successful seasons (2008 SB Champs, 2010 Conference Champs) had the run/pass ratio closer to 50/50, and that the weak 2009 & 2011 teams were 42/58-ish:
besides, we play in a physically-demanding, foul-weather division, so running the ball is important

steelfury02
01-23-2012, 09:59 AM
Funny how defenses and ability to run the ball effectively in key situations is still the recipe for success

Furthermore - one could argue that even the Pats defense has stepped it up in time for playoffs. Lastly - the Green Bay offense did in fact look fantastic against us in SB XLV - but a pick 6 and a critical forced fumble on Mendy is what truly won them the game - opportunistic defense won the day. If we wouldn't have turned it over I fully believe we would have won.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 10:10 AM
Funny how defenses and ability to run the ball effectively in key situations is still the recipe for success

Furthermore - one could argue that even the Pats defense has stepped it up in time for playoffs. Lastly - the Green Bay offense did in fact look fantastic against us in SB XLV - but a pick 6 and a critical forced fumble on Mendy is what truly won them the game - opportunistic defense won the day. If we wouldn't have turned it over I fully believe we would have won.

And the operative phrase is "in key situations" which is a lot different than "all the time".

steelfury02
01-23-2012, 10:24 AM
exactly - balance for the sake of balance means nothing - but some innovation, creativity and less predictability means quite a lot.

"Old Steelers football" is long dead and in no way do I want that back. Slinging it 40 to 50 times a game doesn't work consistently and especially in the playoffs either. Sure you can beat a really awful defense that way - but you are ripe for the pickin (and your QB a beatin) if you think you can do that against playoff defenses.

Not saying I hate Bruce Arians as a person - but Ben covered up for him quite a bit IMHO and regardless of what anyone thinks or if they agree - that is and will be his legacy.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 10:31 AM
exactly - balance for the sake of balance means nothing - but some innovation, creativity and less predictability means quite a lot.

"Old Steelers football" is long dead and in no way do I want that back. Slinging it 40 to 50 times a game doesn't work consistently and especially in the playoffs either. Sure you can beat a really awful defense that way - but you are ripe for the pickin (and your QB a beatin) if you think you can do that against playoff defenses.

Not saying I hate Bruce Arians as a person - but Ben covered up for him quite a bit IMHO and regardless of what anyone thinks or if they agree - that is and will be his legacy.

I don't want to argue about Arians anymore other than to say that although he may not have been the ideal OC for this team, his ideas about opening up the passing game were not wrong.

You're absolutely right that balance is what it's all about.
But to install a running game as the main event when we have a boatload of receiving talent and a QB who loves to throw would be nothing short of ridiculous.

jiminpa
01-23-2012, 11:09 AM
exactly - balance for the sake of balance means nothing - but some innovation, creativity and less predictability means quite a lot.

"Old Steelers football" is long dead and in no way do I want that back. Slinging it 40 to 50 times a game doesn't work consistently and especially in the playoffs either. Sure you can beat a really awful defense that way - but you are ripe for the pickin (and your QB a beatin) if you think you can do that against playoff defenses.

Not saying I hate Bruce Arians as a person - but Ben covered up for him quite a bit IMHO and regardless of what anyone thinks or if they agree - that is and will be his legacy.
They were saying old Steeler football is dead when we won a Superbowl with it too. Old Steeler football means always having the ability to pound the rock, and knowing when not to. But the fact of the matter is that the diva won't be here forever, and he needs to shut his mouth and hand the ball off when he's told to, and throw it when he's told to, and make magic when the time comes. Chuck Noll had the testosterone to explain that to Bradshaw by splintering his rear end. Tomlin, not so much.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 12:00 PM
They were saying old Steeler football is dead when we won a Superbowl with it too. Old Steeler football means always having the ability to pound the rock, and knowing when not to. But the fact of the matter is that the diva won't be here forever, and he needs to shut his mouth and hand the ball off when he's told to, and throw it when he's told to, and make magic when the time comes. Chuck Noll had the testosterone to explain that to Bradshaw by splintering his rear end. Tomlin, not so much.

Maybe in the beginning Noll laid down the law to Bradshaw but as time went by, Bradshaw began to run his own show quite often.

I recall one game in particular against Cincy where we had the ball in the Red Zone and needed a TD to win and Noll specifically sent in a running play. When Bradshaw saw the defense however, he checked off to a pass and threw a TD and won the game. Immediately afterward, when Bradshaw trotted to the sideline, Noll grabbed Bradshaw's grill and started screaming at him, but it had to be hard to yell at a guy who just won the game for you.

I think Ben is a lot like Bradshaw in that he goes with his gut when it comes to certain situations and I think that even though that may occasionally backfire, I'd rather he be allowed to do that than to simply "shut his mouth and hand the ball off when he's told to, and throw it when he's told to" because that would be like hitching a thoroughbred to a milk wagon.

The "magic" you mention can only happen if Ben is allowed to improvise when he thinks the time is right. So in that regard, I wouldn't try to make him "do what he's told" as much as I'd try to make him more aware of what's going on around him. I'd try to teach him that there's often a difference between doing something that satisfies his ego and doing something that will help the team and the only real coaching that's necessary would be to develop the wisdom to know the difference between the two

Ben will never be a "worker bee" and to think that any coach can make him into one is ridiculous.

A good coach will recognize this and work with it instead of against it by tempering Ben's need to achieve with a better understanding of the realities of a given situation. He can still allow Ben the freedom to trust his instincts, but to do so in a more realistic way and to make him understand that he's not Superman nor does he need to be on every play. But if a coach were to step in now to try to get a guy like Ben - especially after the success he's had - to toe some line and "follow orders" would be a colossal waste of everyone's time.

Fire Arians
01-23-2012, 12:11 PM
you have to be able to run the ball well to score in the red zone. thats been plaguing us ever since arians took over

steelfury02
01-23-2012, 12:24 PM
I think what most could agree on is that the next O-coordinator couldn't be worse from a situational standpoint - and so the change as of now is acceptable. What none of us want to see is a pissy Ben and the new guy butting heads. My answer to that situation would be that Ben would then still have zero clue what it means to be a franchise QB - sometimes your ego has to be 2nd to what is perceived to be best for the team.

Fullback or no fullback - the Steelers aren't going to become unpredictable with a line that is injured / revolving every single week. A healthy team along with maturing receivers will help quite a bit.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 12:44 PM
Fullback or no fullback - the Steelers aren't going to become unpredictable with a line that is injured / revolving every single week. A healthy team along with maturing receivers will help quite a bit.

Congratulations!

That has to be the most sensible thing that anyone's said about this. :drink:

steelfury02
01-23-2012, 01:19 PM
haha - thanks - although I usually have knee jerk reactions with the lot of em'

Although I am happy to see Arians go - I also have to equally weigh the injuries

The healthy Steelers that beat the Titans, Pats, Bengals > Pats, Giants - that is the only thing that brings me comfort for next season.

MACH1
01-23-2012, 01:27 PM
A guy could take "steelers football" as imposing our will on the other team whether it be running or passing. Not the finesse BS that arians brought to the field.

OX1947
01-23-2012, 02:25 PM
Little revisionist history, if the Steelers could run in Super Bowl 43, Steelers blow out the Cardinals. And it wasnt just that game, they were pathetic on 3rd and 1s all year. It just so happen that it almost cost them in the biggest game of the year. They were on the half yard line and Tomlin decided to kick a FG.

Last year, Steelers had a good balance. Mendenahall had his best year and Big Ben was relatively healthy all year. Things would have been different had the Steelers held on in the Baltimore game. That game ended up costing the Steelers big time.

Edman
01-23-2012, 02:54 PM
Why not? The "New" Offense wasn't working. Extremely Pass-Heavy but the run game suffered and schizophrenic offensive production

By "Old" Offense I don't think Rooney necessarily means "3 Yards and a cloud of dust". He wants an balanced Offense with restrained passing (Not heaving up Deep Balls every single drive), better routes (No bubble screens, more slants), and more consistent emphasis on an effective run game (With a Fullback).

I think he means the Offense as what it was in 2004/2005. Didn't get big plays, but scored TD's more often, moved the ball more effectively, was more consistent, and didn't stall in the Red Zone.

Ben's Gutsy Heroics and a legendary Steelers Defense won Super Bowl XLIII, our Offense was pathetic all that year and Short yardage was a joke. It was even worse in 2009.

jiminpa
01-23-2012, 04:08 PM
Maybe in the beginning Noll laid down the law to Bradshaw but as time went by, Bradshaw began to run his own show quite often.

I recall one game in particular against Cincy where we had the ball in the Red Zone and needed a TD to win and Noll specifically sent in a running play. When Bradshaw saw the defense however, he checked off to a pass and threw a TD and won the game. Immediately afterward, when Bradshaw trotted to the sideline, Noll grabbed Bradshaw's grill and started screaming at him, but it had to be hard to yell at a guy who just won the game for you.

I think Ben is a lot like Bradshaw in that he goes with his gut when it comes to certain situations and I think that even though that may occasionally backfire, I'd rather he be allowed to do that than to simply "shut his mouth and hand the ball off when he's told to, and throw it when he's told to" because that would be like hitching a thoroughbred to a milk wagon.

The "magic" you mention can only happen if Ben is allowed to improvise when he thinks the time is right. So in that regard, I wouldn't try to make him "do what he's told" as much as I'd try to make him more aware of what's going on around him. I'd try to teach him that there's often a difference between doing something that satisfies his ego and doing something that will help the team and the only real coaching that's necessary would be to develop the wisdom to know the difference between the two

Ben will never be a "worker bee" and to think that any coach can make him into one is ridiculous.

A good coach will recognize this and work with it instead of against it by tempering Ben's need to achieve with a better understanding of the realities of a given situation. He can still allow Ben the freedom to trust his instincts, but to do so in a more realistic way and to make him understand that he's not Superman nor does he need to be on every play. But if a coach were to step in now to try to get a guy like Ben - especially after the success he's had - to toe some line and "follow orders" would be a colossal waste of everyone's time.
Bradshaw called his own plays, and Noll occasionally sent one in, and there's a difference between a legitimate audible--"Coach thought they'd do this, but they're doing this instead" and "I don't like running the football, so I won't." I sort of agree with you about the rest. I just think that Ben is a one trick pony who everyone treats like a thoroughbred so he'll do his one trick, and should have already had the facts of life explained to him, and that he still needs to have to play team ball with a more structured offense, not completely rigid, just more structured, and I don't think he'll like even that. Look at Mark Brunnell, when he was in Jacksonville, the guy was better at improvising than BR is even capable of comprehending, but he started the play that was called, or legitimately audibled to a better one for the defense that was showing. And Coughlin held him accountable every single time he audibled, but that was over the top. And it's also the reverse philosophy of what you would think. Brunnell often audibled into running plays, because Coughlin was a believer in every offensive play should end in a touchdown, and Brunnell understood the game. BR does not.

Spidey
01-23-2012, 05:38 PM
I just want to see some clever playcalling. Utilising ALL the talent we have, with a QB clever enough to pull it all off.

At the end of the day it's the offenses job to score points and win games, anyone who believes Arians did a good job on this account is clearly deluded.

I just hope Ben can move forward and not act like a dick if it's sticky at first.

I firmly belive this was a great decision by ArtII

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 05:40 PM
Bradshaw called his own plays, and Noll occasionally sent one in, and there's a difference between a legitimate audible--"Coach thought they'd do this, but they're doing this instead" and "I don't like running the football, so I won't." I sort of agree with you about the rest. I just think that Ben is a one trick pony who everyone treats like a thoroughbred so he'll do his one trick, and should have already had the facts of life explained to him, and that he still needs to have to play team ball with a more structured offense, not completely rigid, just more structured, and I don't think he'll like even that. Look at Mark Brunnell, when he was in Jacksonville, the guy was better at improvising than BR is even capable of comprehending, but he started the play that was called, or legitimately audibled to a better one for the defense that was showing. And Coughlin held him accountable every single time he audibled, but that was over the top. And it's also the reverse philosophy of what you would think. Brunnell often audibled into running plays, because Coughlin was a believer in every offensive play should end in a touchdown, and Brunnell understood the game. BR does not.

You're comparing Roethlisberger to Mark Brunell?

Brunell?

Really?

Brunell went to the playoffs 6 times in a 16-year career and never went to a SB except as a holder for the Saints.

A friggin' HOLDER!

Ben has been to the playoffs 6 times in an EIGHT year career and he's also been to 3 SB's and won two of them.
He's responsible for nearly 30 game winning or comeback drives and you're talking about him as if he shouldn't be allowed on a football field with adult supervision.

Jeez dude, can we try to keep things in perspective?

Ricco Suavez
01-23-2012, 05:44 PM
I love how everyone says we were pass happy, by league average we are about middle of the pack. Its not that we pass too much it is we do not get a return on our run attempts. Maybe its the no fullback deal, or it could be we do not move or create holes for our backs. I watch the same games you guys watched and I got tired of running once or twice for little or no gain and then expect Ben to convert 3rd and 6-7-8 yds. If the pass game got going and it loosened up the LBers then when we did run some good gains we stopped and abandoned it.

Eli last night passed 58 times, and they were damn lucky to win. The 49ers ran for 150 yds and still could not score because of a below avg. QB. A balanced game plan much like what the Patriots did is going to be the most consistent. There will always be games where you have to go with what match ups are in your favor, but balance should be the way to go.

I do not believe we have the horses, either up front or RBs to have a run heavy offense, quality linemen will be hard to find and not cheap. I just hope who comes in is man enough to call his own game and not let Ben, Tomlin, or even the Front Office dictate how he does it. Let him implement his ideas based on our strengths and not just run for runs sake.

While we all moan and groan the lack of scoring, the one constant I saw from this weekends games were that all four teams, even the Patriots, put pressure on the opposing teams QB. The 49ers put a beating on Eli, the Giants front four flushed Smith all night, Brady felt the Ravens pressure and even the Patriots blew up the Ravens interior. I would like to see us return to Steeler Defense as much as I would like to see Steelers Offense. Our statistically ranked #1 defense did not look like the 49ers, Giants, or Ravens.

jiminpa
01-23-2012, 06:28 PM
You're comparing Roethlisberger to Mark Brunell?

Brunell?

Really?

Brunell went to the playoffs 6 times in a 16-year career and never went to a SB except as a holder for the Saints.

A friggin' HOLDER!

Ben has been to the playoffs 6 times in an EIGHT year career and he's also been to 3 SB's and won two of them.
He's responsible for nearly 30 game winning or comeback drives and you're talking about him as if he shouldn't be allowed on a football field with adult supervision.

Jeez dude, can we try to keep things in perspective?
Sure, let's keep things in perspective. You just listed the accomplishments of the Pittsburgh Steelers defense for all but 2 of Ben's years. The defense frigging dragged the offense along, and even in his 2 years under Cowher with a productive offense, the defense was the core of the team. Brunnell labored in a Jags uniform for all of his prime. BR contributed to the Steelers going to the playoffs and Superbowl. Brunnell tried to carry the Jags to success in spite of the organization. IMO Brunnell was a much better QB than BR, and I have watched both extensively. I used to live in Bubbaville. I don't hate BR as a QB, I just don't worship at his alter either. He is very good at his one trick and could have learned more had he been coached.

Sixburgher
01-23-2012, 06:31 PM
Sure, let's keep things in perspective. You just listed the accomplishments of the Pittsburgh Steelers defense for all but 2 of Ben's years. The defense frigging dragged the offense along, and even in his 2 years under Cowher with a productive offense, the defense was the core of the team.

Cowher had dominant defenses more seasons than not for the better part of twelve years before Roethlisberger arrived in Pittsburgh and never won jack shit. Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.

jiminpa
01-23-2012, 06:40 PM
I love how everyone says we were pass happy, by league average we are about middle of the pack. Its not that we pass too much it is we do not get a return on our run attempts. Maybe its the no fullback deal, or it could be we do not move or create holes for our backs. I watch the same games you guys watched and I got tired of running once or twice for little or no gain and then expect Ben to convert 3rd and 6-7-8 yds. If the pass game got going and it loosened up the LBers then when we did run some good gains we stopped and abandoned it.

Eli last night passed 58 times, and they were damn lucky to win. The 49ers ran for 150 yds and still could not score because of a below avg. QB. A balanced game plan much like what the Patriots did is going to be the most consistent. There will always be games where you have to go with what match ups are in your favor, but balance should be the way to go.

I do not believe we have the horses, either up front or RBs to have a run heavy offense, quality linemen will be hard to find and not cheap. I just hope who comes in is man enough to call his own game and not let Ben, Tomlin, or even the Front Office dictate how he does it. Let him implement his ideas based on our strengths and not just run for runs sake.

While we all moan and groan the lack of scoring, the one constant I saw from this weekends games were that all four teams, even the Patriots, put pressure on the opposing teams QB. The 49ers put a beating on Eli, the Giants front four flushed Smith all night, Brady felt the Ravens pressure and even the Patriots blew up the Ravens interior. I would like to see us return to Steeler Defense as much as I would like to see Steelers Offense. Our statistically ranked #1 defense did not look like the 49ers, Giants, or Ravens.Our # 1 in points allowed defense had, what? 2-3 bad games all season, and those are what everyone measures. By those standards BR turned the ball over more times than the O scored in total points, which would make Cliff Stoudt a better QB. Going back to Steelers defense would get us torched in every game, and the whole entire starting D ejected every game in today's No Football League, geared toward doing whatever it takes to get the Cheatriots championships every year.

Atlanta Dan
01-23-2012, 06:47 PM
I am cynical enough to believe Ben or Arians was the source of this story as a way to portray Arians being canned as anything other than a performance issue

Ricco Suavez
01-23-2012, 07:26 PM
Our # 1 in points allowed defense had, what? 2-3 bad games all season, and those are what everyone measures. By those standards BR turned the ball over more times than the O scored in total points, which would make Cliff Stoudt a better QB. Going back to Steelers defense would get us torched in every game, and the whole entire starting D ejected every game in today's No Football League, geared toward doing whatever it takes to get the Cheatriots championships every year.

I did not say we had bad games on defense, but I did not see the pass rush like I seen from the teams that played this weekend. Our secondary is be-moaned and crucified yet we give opposing QBs (note:Tebow did not even have to wash his jersey) more than enough time to pick them apart. SF was in Elis face all night and they have a better O-Line than we do, plus a two back system.

Listen you score more points it helps your defense. While our offense did not score in relation to the amount of yardage it generated, it did control Time of Possession which is what you want your offense to do to help rest your defense.. Now it just so happens the defense played its worst game in the playoffs, but we also lost on a drive to Baltimore when Flacco went,what, 80 yards in the last minutes of the game. And I find it funny that we moan and groan about the offense when two years ago when we missed the playoffs the defense gave up the winning score in what 4,5,6 games.

I will agree Ben has to protect the ball, along with the receivers and backs. I would like for you to at least acknowledge the Defenses inability to create turnovers themselves. The offense looked good on paper, yards, TOP, Pro Bowl players. The Defense looked more impressive on paper #1 in most categories. Both failed, one in scoring, the other in producing game changing plays. Steeler fan for 40 years+, Favorite all time Steeler is Lambert, and I could very well be wrong but I think we have bigger issues on defense than offense in the coming seasons. My opinion so feel free to knock it.

FanSince72
01-23-2012, 07:33 PM
Sure, let's keep things in perspective. You just listed the accomplishments of the Pittsburgh Steelers defense for all but 2 of Ben's years. The defense frigging dragged the offense along, and even in his 2 years under Cowher with a productive offense, the defense was the core of the team. Brunnell labored in a Jags uniform for all of his prime. BR contributed to the Steelers going to the playoffs and Superbowl. Brunnell tried to carry the Jags to success in spite of the organization. IMO Brunnell was a much better QB than BR, and I have watched both extensively. I used to live in Bubbaville. I don't hate BR as a QB, I just don't worship at his alter either. He is very good at his one trick and could have learned more had he been coached.

For the record, I don't worship Ben.

I don't worship any player and (gasp!) I don't even worship the Steelers.

I'm just a fan.

Yes, it bothers me when we lose but when we do, I don't think about attaching a chain to a bowling ball and go looking for a tall bridge with a low railing.

Ben has his faults (just as Bradshaw did) and maybe he could have learned more and maybe he was too pampered and maybe he was handed the keys too soon, but he is who he is.
As far as his performance in the SB goes, I, like everyone else, saw SB 40 as not so much a game he won as much as a game he didn't lose. But don't forget, he was just a second-year player and throughout the playoffs he was spot-on and he put on a clinic against Denver in the AFCC game. After all that and with two weeks to think about it, I'll spot him some nerves and allow for a less than perfect game once the SB came around.

He WAS only 22 years old at the time..

In SB 43 however, he was every bit a part of that win as anyone else on that field and the final drive was his defining moment, so please don't try to tell me that he's just been along for the ride all these years.

As for last year, hey, we came up short and yes he threw a pick, but as I recall there were a few other guys out there who didn't exactly help things either. And this year was a big yawn primarily because of an O-line that couldn't stay healthy and of course the last four weeks was all about his ankle.

That said, I agree that he (with Arians' enabling) had become too pass-happy and often even reckless, but I still believe that they were on the right track. Ben throws the ball and he lives to make something out of nothing. That's what he was put on this earth to do and to try to turn him - with those skills and an uncanny knack for finding his way out of trouble - into some sort of pocket-passing robot would be a sin.

Maybe Arians didn't (or perhaps couldn't) grasp the true potential of what we have right now, but at least he tried to point this team in the right direction and actually tried to use the passing talent we have.

Do we need a better running game?

Absolutely.

But not at the expense of ignoring Ben's skill-set or the personnel we now have to utilize it. Like I've said, Ben could benefit from more in the wisdom department and in learning when to accept a more conservative approach when the situation calls for it. But his stock in trade is his imagination and his ability to think in the moment and I wouldn't mess with any of that for all the tea in China.

Ricco Suavez
01-23-2012, 08:24 PM
For the record, I don't worship Ben.

I don't worship any player and (gasp!) I don't even worship the Steelers.

I'm just a fan.

Yes, it bothers me when we lose but when we do, I don't think about attaching a chain to a bowling ball and go looking for a tall bridge with a low railing.

Ben has his faults (just as Bradshaw did) and maybe he could have learned more and maybe he was too pampered and maybe he was handed the keys too soon, but he is who he is.
As far as his performance in the SB goes, I, like everyone else, saw SB 40 as not so much a game he won as much as a game he didn't lose. But don't forget, he was just a second-year player and throughout the playoffs he was spot-on and he put on a clinic against Denver in the AFCC game. After all that and with two weeks to think about it, I'll spot him some nerves and allow for a less than perfect game once the SB came around.

He WAS only 22 years old at the time..

In SB 43 however, he was every bit a part of that win as anyone else on that field and the final drive was his defining moment, so please don't try to tell me that he's just been along for the ride all these years.

As for last year, hey, we came up short and yes he threw a pick, but as I recall there were a few other guys out there who didn't exactly help things either. And this year was a big yawn primarily because of an O-line that couldn't stay healthy and of course the last four weeks was all about his ankle.

That said, I agree that he (with Arians' enabling) had become too pass-happy and often even reckless, but I still believe that they were on the right track. Ben throws the ball and he lives to make something out of nothing. That's what he was put on this earth to do and to try to turn him - with those skills and an uncanny knack for finding his way out of trouble - into some sort of pocket-passing robot would be a sin.

Maybe Arians didn't (or perhaps couldn't) grasp the true potential of what we have right now, but at least he tried to point this team in the right direction and actually tried to use the passing talent we have.

Do we need a better running game?

Absolutely.

But not at the expense of ignoring Ben's skill-set or the personnel we now have to utilize it. Like I've said, Ben could benefit from more in the wisdom department and in learning when to accept a more conservative approach when the situation calls for it. But his stock in trade is his imagination and his ability to think in the moment and I wouldn't mess with any of that for all the tea in China.

Wow ,refreshing to read intelligent post. Agree with everything but the part about bowling ball. I am still grieving over last years SuperBowl.:thumbsup:

finesward
01-23-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't want to argue about Arians anymore other than to say that although he may not have been the ideal OC for this team, his ideas about opening up the passing game were not wrong.

You're absolutely right that balance is what it's all about.
But to install a running game as the main event when we have a boatload of receiving talent and a QB who loves to throw would be nothing short of ridiculous.

I disagree, a running game is exactly what you instill when you have such a talented core of WR's and a QB who can throw it to them. If you look around the league the only team that has managed to keep a solid O-line AND have talented receivers has been green bay. Every other team it's been a trade-off. SF has a great O-line and ehhh receivers and yet they still were able to make it to the NFCCG off of frank gore and a pass catching TE. Giants, also have a good O-LINE and until recently unknown WR's. No big names (although they certainly are making a name for themselves ala brown and wallace did) Patriots have a great O-line and have 1 WR worth a shit and 2 good TE's. We have a POOR (and I'm being generous) O-line and our bursting with talent at WR. We NEED a running game to open up the passing game. If we can bring a safety in the box consistently to stop the run our WR's get a chance to be man2man which is a WIN all day. Being a passing team opens up all sorts of problems if your QB is being pressured, bad throws, fumbles, sacks, picks, etc... pretty much what we've seen ALL season. Starting last year in the SB. We tried playing GB's game and we didn't have the O-line to do it, they did.

I'd rather the WR's take a hit in numbers and stats as long as their stat sheet at the end of the day has TD's on it. Brown, wallace, and sanders have take it to the house speed. Lets take advantage of it and put them in a system that play action will actually mean something, and they'll be able to get their opportunities to showcase their talents. Makes sense to me :noidea:

60_MINUTES
01-23-2012, 09:18 PM
For one time I hope rooney doesnt get his way????? I would like to have a little more balance kind of like we had with Whiz here... but make no mistake about it we threw the ball to open up the run the superbowl year 2005--06/// If we take our talent and try to run the ball 25 to 30 times then we will lose and lose our ass..BEN is one of the best QB in the league. I agree we and he should is not the saints but that doesnt mean we should go to all running.. We have a wr core that is unstoppable if used correct.. lets get balance and put some waggles, in the O.. but please oh please do not run run pass... If you run run pass you will kill this team. Let BEN take us where we need to go and have the running game complement the passing game..

At this time we cant run at all.. so add a fullback and some new plays and see what happens... but no matter what do not run run pass

finesward
01-23-2012, 09:31 PM
For one time I hope rooney doesnt get his way????? I would like to have a little more balance kind of like we had with Whiz here... but make no mistake about it we threw the ball to open up the run the superbowl year 2005--06/// If we take our talent and try to run the ball 25 to 30 times then we will lose and lose our ass..BEN is one of the best QB in the league. I agree we and he should is not the saints but that doesnt mean we should go to all running.. We have a wr core that is unstoppable if used correct.. lets get balance and put some waggles, in the O.. but please oh please do not run run pass... If you run run pass you will kill this team. Let BEN take us where we need to go and have the running game complement the passing game..

At this time we cant run at all.. so add a fullback and some new plays and see what happens... but no matter what do not run run pass

Whiz did exactly what your saying you don't want. He did do that in the playoffs and I think arians tried to incorporate that in his offensive philosophy and that is clearly not working for this team now. You forget in 2005-6 we had a pretty DECENT O-line. For what we have right now, and who we are likely to have next year, running the ball and being more creative like whiz. Running the ball will open up the pass just like it did for whiz. The o-line this year was probably the worst it has been since 2005, my god we had jonathan scott and trai essex starting at one point. Yet, even with the poor o-line we had one of the better years running the ball with an idiot calling the plays. Redman is a viable back for us, mendy was playing his best ball when he got hurt. I for one LOVE seeing them run an entire series and end with a TD without throwing a single pass. We did that a couple times this year. We need to try and replicate that success and be able to spring those talented WR's off play action or bubble screens :toofunny: But seriously, it wasn't a bad playcall a lot of times, just not so gosh darn many!

defence
01-23-2012, 11:07 PM
All i can really hope for is runners like the rams steven jackson or frank gore!! Foster from the texans isn't too shabby either!! I really don't belive we have the runner to really scare teams with our running game!! redman looks promising!! To become a team that will put fear we really need a stud as a runner and obviously some help on the oline!! Then watch out!! Ben with a real threat of a running game and all of his weapons!!

ETL
01-23-2012, 11:20 PM
All i can really hope for is runners like the rams steven jackson or frank gore!! Foster from the texans isn't too shabby either!! I really don't belive we have the runner to really scare teams with our running game!! redman looks promising!! To become a team that will put fear we really need a stud as a runner and obviously some help on the oline!! Then watch out!! Ben with a real threat of a running game and all of his weapons!!

So what would you do if we don't get a runner like that? Because players like that are ... um ... rare.

since we can't count on a RB like that - we must learn to win even if we don't have the superstud RB. Look at the current SB teams - Giants and NE - neither have a super stud at RB - but both teams have elite passing games. Giants passed 64 times yesterday - would Art Rooney be ok with that?

I would like the Steelers to continue what they started ... a pass first offense. Ben needs to be a better passer and not take so many sacks by trying to extend the play. He needs to rely on the speed of the WR and if he places the passes accurately - our WRs have the talent to "EXTEND the play."

ricardisimo
01-23-2012, 11:44 PM
With the Rooneys basically pushing the run,, dont be surprised if Wallace signs an offer sheet elsewhere.
Pats could easy blow late 1st round picks on him n a ton of cash.

We fo not have the rbs or oline to be a running team, nor the cash to bring in players.
I've been saying forever that Wallace is gone (although his mid-season swoon might actually keep him here... maybe) but that has nothing to do with what kind of offense we want to run. The Steelers have resigned only two star receivers since Swann and Stallworth. Two.

As far as us not having the running backs nor the offensive line to be a running team... We have one of the best stables of backs in the league, and the O-line isn't built for passing either, yet somehow we did that. :noidea:

I think most of the posters here have the basic idea: it's not so much the yards that matter as the points. Red zone offense has been despicable, and I swear the goal line plays were purposely sabotaged. Can't say why, but it was ridiculous.

By the way, I agree with Dave Bryan from Steelers Depot that ESPN is making a huge leap in logic in its assumption that Art wants to shift to the running game of decades past. Art wants results, and five years in the bottom half of the league in scoring is not going to cut it with him.

Ricco Suavez
01-24-2012, 06:50 AM
As far as us not having the running backs nor the offensive line to be a running team... We have one of the best stables of backs in the league, and the O-line isn't built for passing either, yet somehow we did that. :noidea:
.[/QUOTE]

A bad line can still produce with the right QB, evident with what Ben has done in the past. Yet even the best RB cannot run if no where to go.

kan_t
01-24-2012, 07:15 AM
You play with your strength. When the team has an elite QB, Brown, Wallace and Sanders, they should be a passing team. It doesn't mean that the Steelers should dump the running game. But the running game should be aimed at opening up the passing plays. They don't need to run more. They need a better O-line to make the running game more efficient and to give Ben time to throw.

However, I'm not against getting back a FB instead of playing 2 TEs formation. We just don't have two good TEs.

lardlad
01-24-2012, 07:34 AM
I love a strong running game like we had during most of Bettis' career. But man do we have great receivers now. Running the ball effectively will absolutely help. But it isn't the only way. I keep thinking our offense is like the golfer that spends most of his time at the driving range rather that practicing chipping and putting. We have no short game, or at least it was never done well. weather it is short passes or running, our short game sucks.

Drive for show putt for dough! I don't care how they get down field, but when the field shrinks, constantly kicking field goals ain't gona cut it.

steelfury02
01-24-2012, 09:50 AM
A well prepared, thought out offense as featured in last year's AFC Champ game v. Jets is exactly what this team needs to be.

The healthy combo of Mendy, Redman with a healthy O-line is very capable of going buck wild over the stoutest of defenses. No - that does not mean 3 yards and a cloud of dust - but in the right situations - the running game is in order so that the defense respects it enough to set up some huge plays to the WRs. That offense that day (along with the offense against the Pats this season) looked like a team that could beat anyone, anywhere, on the biggest of stages.

More of that, and this team will steamroll anyone. Go back and watch highlights from that game. THAT Steelers team on THAT day beats the XLVI SB contenders like a bad habit

FanSince72
01-24-2012, 10:04 AM
I love a strong running game like we had during most of Bettis' career. But man do we have great receivers now. Running the ball effectively will absolutely help. But it isn't the only way. I keep thinking our offense is like the golfer that spends most of his time at the driving range rather that practicing chipping and putting. We have no short game, or at least it was never done well. weather it is short passes or running, our short game sucks.

Drive for show putt for dough! I don't care how they get down field, but when the field shrinks, constantly kicking field goals ain't gona cut it.

As a golfer, I totally get the analogy.

And like any golfer who can actually play the game, balance is essential. But balance is not the same thing as playing to a strength. I, for example, have always been able to hit a long ball and get a lot out of each club. I can putt and chip and everything else, but whenever there's an opportunity to cut a corner or fly over some obstacle instead of playing around it, I can take advantage of that ability to shorten the game and make it easier to score.

In the case of football, balance is again an essential part of being a complete team. But if the strength of a team lies in its QB and its passing game, then that strength has to be used as often as possible. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a running game or a sound defense or any of the other things that make up a team, it just means that if a passing game is a team's strong point, it should be emphasized and used as often as is practical in order to gain the best advantage. Maybe Ben and BA over-emphasized passing and got a bit too carried away with it, but to now try to take the team back to the blue-collar identity of years past" (read: three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust), when our strength is clearly geared towards passing, would be silly.

It would be like me standing in a fairway knowing that I can easily fly the ball over the trees with a short iron instead opting to add strokes to the hole by going around them because going over would be too "flashy" or "not real golf".

Bullshit!
If I have the ability to go over -- I'm going over and to hell with "tradition" and all that "real golf" nonsense.

Likewise, if we have a QB who loves to throw and a receiver corps who loves to HAVE him throw, then why in the world would we want to put that on a shelf and employ a strategy that disregards that talent? Is some "blue collar image" really that important, or more important than playing to our strength?

jiminpa
01-24-2012, 10:30 AM
I did not say we had bad games on defense, but I did not see the pass rush like I seen from the teams that played this weekend. Our secondary is be-moaned and crucified yet we give opposing QBs (note:Tebow did not even have to wash his jersey) more than enough time to pick them apart. SF was in Elis face all night and they have a better O-Line than we do, plus a two back system.

Listen you score more points it helps your defense. While our offense did not score in relation to the amount of yardage it generated, it did control Time of Possession which is what you want your offense to do to help rest your defense.. Now it just so happens the defense played its worst game in the playoffs, but we also lost on a drive to Baltimore when Flacco went,what, 80 yards in the last minutes of the game. And I find it funny that we moan and groan about the offense when two years ago when we missed the playoffs the defense gave up the winning score in what 4,5,6 games.

I will agree Ben has to protect the ball, along with the receivers and backs. I would like for you to at least acknowledge the Defenses inability to create turnovers themselves. The offense looked good on paper, yards, TOP, Pro Bowl players. The Defense looked more impressive on paper #1 in most categories. Both failed, one in scoring, the other in producing game changing plays. Steeler fan for 40 years+, Favorite all time Steeler is Lambert, and I could very well be wrong but I think we have bigger issues on defense than offense in the coming seasons. My opinion so feel free to knock it.Successive three and outs are game changing. LeBeau made the decision to not get torched, and except for one bad game it worked. A few years ago the defense sucked because they gave up too many lucky big plays, now they suck because they did what it takes to stop doing that. The defense's job is to get the other team's offense off the field without points, everything else is gravy. Yes, forcing turnovers is great, but think about that, with the Steelers offense of the last five years unless the defense got points from the turnover, what was the point? All they did was hand the ball to our non-scoring offense, and more often than not our offense wouldn't score.

jiminpa
01-24-2012, 10:39 AM
You play with your strength. When the team has an elite QB, Brown, Wallace and Sanders, they should be a passing team. It doesn't mean that the Steelers should dump the running game. But the running game should be aimed at opening up the passing plays. They don't need to run more. They need a better O-line to make the running game more efficient and to give Ben time to throw.

However, I'm not against getting back a FB instead of playing 2 TEs formation. We just don't have two good TEs.
Really, like Dan Marino throwing to Clay and Duper. How'd that work out? BR is nowhere near a Marino.

jiminpa
01-24-2012, 10:45 AM
Here's a hypothetical question just to see how pass happy some of you are. If we have a running back that gets exactly 3.5 yards per carry every time, no more, no less, ever, and the current receiving corps, QB, and defense, what it the best pass/run ratio to win games?

kan_t
01-24-2012, 11:29 AM
Really, like Dan Marino throwing to Clay and Duper. How'd that work out? BR is nowhere near a Marino.
Not sure why you bring that up. I haven't said that the Steelers should get rid of their running game.

Ricco Suavez
01-24-2012, 05:33 PM
Here's a hypothetical question just to see how pass happy some of you are. If we have a running back that gets exactly 3.5 yards per carry every time, no more, no less, ever, and the current receiving corps, QB, and defense, what it the best pass/run ratio to win games?

Wow genius question. We get 3.5 yds EVERY time. Lets see 3 downs 3.5 that comes out to 10.5 yds, or a first down. Now what coach will not take a first down every time. But your question hypothetical or not is mute. No team averages at least 3.5 every rush. You will have a 15 yd run a 20 yd run and then a bunch of no gains or short gains to reach that avg of 3.5.

Sorry but there is not way you will get me to believe that turnovers caused by good defense should be considered gravy. Too many games hinge on just such situations. We have won numerous games by creating turnovers, how bout Harrisons int return against the Cardinals. Last year the Ravens game were Troy stripped Flacco turned that game around. The playoffs against the Ravens after halftime, how did that game turn around so quick. We rip our offense for turning the ball over but turnovers are not always the result of bad offensive play but great defensive play. I got news for a lot of the fans here, We were not the Superior team every time we took the field, The difference is not always bad coaching either. Sometimes teams are so equal that a turnover is the difference in games, reason players are taught to strip and tip drill interceptions. The biggest difference in this years team and those in the past were the amount of turnovers we made and the lack of creating turnovers. And while I may be in the minority I worry more about the lack of defensive pressure up front than I do about the next version of this offense.

Ricco Suavez
01-24-2012, 05:44 PM
Really, like Dan Marino throwing to Clay and Duper. How'd that work out? BR is nowhere near a Marino.

Last I looked I do not believe he is a Manning or Brady or Brees or Rogers either. But what he is though is a Quarterback that can play behind a swiss cheese line better than all of those with maybe the exception of Rogers. I tell another thing he is all we got unless you plan on playing Batch, Dixon,or Leftwich. Ben has served the Steelers well. While some like to point out his shortcomings like his dismal play in his first SuperBowl I remember a second year QB who put up impressive numbers thru 3 road playoff games. Who in 2008 while the offense struggled, yet Ben lead his team to nearly every comeback win that season including a Superbowl where the Steelers were 80+yds from a TD to win after the Defense gave up two fourth quarter scores. You compare Ben to Marino and ask how did that come out, well not to good for Marino as far as championships but pretty good so far for the Steelers.

Ricco Suavez
01-24-2012, 05:52 PM
A well prepared, thought out offense as featured in last year's AFC Champ game v. Jets is exactly what this team needs to be.

The healthy combo of Mendy, Redman with a healthy O-line is very capable of going buck wild over the stoutest of defenses. No - that does not mean 3 yards and a cloud of dust - but in the right situations - the running game is in order so that the defense respects it enough to set up some huge plays to the WRs. That offense that day (along with the offense against the Pats this season) looked like a team that could beat anyone, anywhere, on the biggest of stages.

More of that, and this team will steamroll anyone. Go back and watch highlights from that game. THAT Steelers team on THAT day beats the XLVI SB contenders like a bad habit


I did watch the game we ran all over them, THE FIRST HALF. The second half the Jets made adjustments and stopped the run and Arians kept running on first and second down and then had Ben try to complete 3rd and long against a very good Jets secondary. We went turtle and in the end nearly let the Jets win the game. If not for a clutch catch by I believe Brown of a roll out pass by Ben we give the ball up and anything could of happened.

6RingsAndCounting
01-24-2012, 06:43 PM
I did watch the game we ran all over them, THE FIRST HALF. The second half the Jets made adjustments and stopped the run and Arians kept running on first and second down and then had Ben try to complete 3rd and long against a very good Jets secondary. We went turtle and in the end nearly let the Jets win the game. If not for a clutch catch by I believe Brown of a roll out pass by Ben we give the ball up and anything could of happened.

Exactly, another example of Arians getting predictable. How can anyone argue for this guy to still be here after seeing Run Run Pass so often.

jiminpa
01-24-2012, 08:26 PM
Wow genius question. We get 3.5 yds EVERY time. Lets see 3 downs 3.5 that comes out to 10.5 yds, or a first down. Now what coach will not take a first down every time. But your question hypothetical or not is mute. No team averages at least 3.5 every rush. You will have a 15 yd run a 20 yd run and then a bunch of no gains or short gains to reach that avg of 3.5.

Sorry but there is not way you will get me to believe that turnovers caused by good defense should be considered gravy. Too many games hinge on just such situations. We have won numerous games by creating turnovers, how bout Harrisons int return against the Cardinals. Last year the Ravens game were Troy stripped Flacco turned that game around. The playoffs against the Ravens after halftime, how did that game turn around so quick. We rip our offense for turning the ball over but turnovers are not always the result of bad offensive play but great defensive play. I got news for a lot of the fans here, We were not the Superior team every time we took the field, The difference is not always bad coaching either. Sometimes teams are so equal that a turnover is the difference in games, reason players are taught to strip and tip drill interceptions. The biggest difference in this years team and those in the past were the amount of turnovers we made and the lack of creating turnovers. And while I may be in the minority I worry more about the lack of defensive pressure up front than I do about the next version of this offense.I'm not saying I don't want a defense to force turnovers, but it's the offense's job to score not the defense's, unless that offense is run by Arians, and then the defense had better score, because offense sure won't. It's a not a defensive breakdown when the offense can't or, as in Arians case, won't put points on the board, and the defense that is scored on least in the NFL has done the absolute most important job of a defense. If you had to choose would you rather have a defense that keeps points off the board or one that can be scored on easily but creates turnovers? Especially with when the payoff is a short punting field resulting in a touchback. The defense has been the least of our problems for the last 5 years.

It's funny that you should mention Harrison's Superbowl touchdown, because I cite that as one more example of the offense's inability to produce. Harrison should have been the MVP of that game.

jiminpa
01-24-2012, 08:36 PM
Wow genius question. We get 3.5 yds EVERY time. Lets see 3 downs 3.5 that comes out to 10.5 yds, or a first down. Now what coach will not take a first down every time. But your question hypothetical or not is mute. No team averages at least 3.5 every rush. You will have a 15 yd run a 20 yd run and then a bunch of no gains or short gains to reach that avg of 3.5.

I wasn't talking averages. I'm not saying it's possible. I'm just trying to determine how dedicated to passing all the time people are. I fully believe that if Arians had a running back that was capable of 3.5 yards every carry, he would still have called long bombs most of the time, even with a lead and less than 2 minutes in the game.

lardlad
01-25-2012, 06:48 AM
Likewise, if we have a QB who loves to throw and a receiver corps who loves to HAVE him throw, then why in the world would we want to put that on a shelf and employ a strategy that disregards that talent? Is some "blue collar image" really that important, or more important than playing to our strength?[/QUOTE]

I believe our strength is the receivers as well. But you could argue that is because they have been featured in our play book, maybe not but it is worth mentioning. I do agree bigger plays can nullify pounding the rock and the only reason you might question the long drive is if you are on in two and you three putt. On in two doesn't show up inthe score.

I don't think we need To go all the way back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Run shorter routes, leave safety valves and check to them. Just seems to me the short game is being ignored. When the field shrinks, the offense stalls. All you have to do is see two 1000 yard receivers a 3000 yd qb and where we finished on offense. I don't see how it could be more obvious.

Kanata-Steeler
01-25-2012, 01:40 PM
.... AND, does anyone NOT Blame him for wanting a "real" Steelers' Offense ?
Yep, 'dats what I thought.

Ricco Suavez
01-25-2012, 08:45 PM
I want a balance between offense and defense. An offense that does not turn the ball over very much, a defense that not only plays tough defense, keeps the other teams offense out of the end zone as much as possible and if that means downs or causing turnovers great. I want a defense that is not last in the league in causing turnovers. I want a team that is not near the bottom in turnover differential. I dont have to have a defense score, but it would be a plus. I do not need an offense so run heavy that we lead the league in rushing yet score less points than what we do now, and have a worse record. (See my post What is Steeler Football) I want a special team that can score more than once every three years to help. I want an O-Line that can create holes for our backs to run and perhaps give Ben more than 2.5 seconds sometimes. Actually 2.5 would be nice just keep a three man rush off of him til he drops back. I do not give a crap what you call it I want what will win games, and advance us in playoffs. But I am sick of having 12-4 records and when the Defense Craps the bed in a playoff game, One time all year OK, Injuries OK, but do not put the blame on the offense for
THAT game. Complain about the years worth of offense problems, but do not deflect the Defenses part in what happened at the end.

Ronaldo
01-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Does Arians watch this current team play, at all? He wants a power running game with some of the scrubs we currently call our starting o line? Good Luck I guess

jiminpa
01-26-2012, 12:03 AM
I want a balance between offense and defense. An offense that does not turn the ball over very much, a defense that not only plays tough defense, keeps the other teams offense out of the end zone as much as possible and if that means downs or causing turnovers great. I want a defense that is not last in the league in causing turnovers. I want a team that is not near the bottom in turnover differential. I dont have to have a defense score, but it would be a plus. I do not need an offense so run heavy that we lead the league in rushing yet score less points than what we do now, and have a worse record. (See my post What is Steeler Football) I want a special team that can score more than once every three years to help. I want an O-Line that can create holes for our backs to run and perhaps give Ben more than 2.5 seconds sometimes. Actually 2.5 would be nice just keep a three man rush off of him til he drops back. I do not give a crap what you call it I want what will win games, and advance us in playoffs. But I am sick of having 12-4 records and when the Defense Craps the bed in a playoff game, One time all year OK, Injuries OK, but do not put the blame on the offense for
THAT game. Complain about the years worth of offense problems, but do not deflect the Defenses part in what happened at the end.Right, so what you want is to blame everyone but the long-term cause--gotcha. Yes, the defense had a bad game, but if Tomlin and the offense had played to win, instead of tie, we would have had to put with Arians as OC at least one more week. We don't really know what the O-line is capable of since they were running garbage blocking schemes drawn up by the OC who was trying to force broken pass plays. Part of the turnover differential is the fact the offense had entire games where the QB had more turnovers than the whole offense had points, so to just blame the defense is, well, again, avoiding the real problem. Fortunately the Rooneys didn't avoid the most immediate part of the real problem, who is currently not exactly enjoying his retirement.

Ricco Suavez
01-26-2012, 06:56 AM
Right, so what you want is to blame everyone but the long-term cause--gotcha. Yes, the defense had a bad game, but if Tomlin and the offense had played to win, instead of tie, we would have had to put with Arians as OC at least one more week. We don't really know what the O-line is capable of since they were running garbage blocking schemes drawn up by the OC who was trying to force broken pass plays. Part of the turnover differential is the fact the offense had entire games where the QB had more turnovers than the whole offense had points, so to just blame the defense is, well, again, avoiding the real problem. Fortunately the Rooneys didn't avoid the most immediate part of the real problem, who is currently not exactly enjoying his retirement.

All I know is "Steeler Footbal" like you and others want , the kind Cowher preached with a run first mentality yielded less points and even less wins than what Tomlin and Arians has produced. The two SupeBowls that Cowher went too one with O'Donnell was more pass oriented, and the other with Ben during the post season they took the cuffs off of hem and he had three great games before sliding into a SuperBowl win.

My point all along is some fans find no fault with the defense ever!!!!!!!!!!!
I acknowledge the offenses shortcomings and I have stated this year that I believe a change in OC is needed, but when it comes to this last lost, the blame lies more with the defense than offense. In 2009 Timlins worst season at 9=7 the defense gave up over 20 points a game and the offense scored 23 a game yet some still say that season was Arians and the offense fault. While a few called for LeBeau to retire, I did not. I think he has some credit built up to with stand one bad season. But the point is I call it exactly as I see it and while everyone is on a mission to return to "Steeler Football" we have scored more on average than during Cowhers years.

Ricco Suavez
01-26-2012, 07:04 AM
BTW the year Foster lead the Steelers in rushing. The most yards by a Steeler ever 92 we avg 18.7 ppg and the defense gave up 14 ppg. We had an 11-5 record and did not win a SuperBowl. This year we avg 20.3 ppg and the defense gave up 15.9 ppg and had a 12-4 record and the only thing in common is we did not go to the Superbowl.

In 2000 bettis lead us in Rushing either the second or third highest total ever, we scored 20ppg and the defense gave up 16 ppg and our record was 9-7. Running for running sake will not yield more points or wins.
The only constant with the Steelers has been great defense. And I will disagree with anyone who does not see the importance of not having turnovers and the importance of a defense that creates turnovers. They are the game changing plays that can not be planned for.