View Single Post
Old 01-24-2012, 09:04 AM   #51
FanSince72
Team Owner
 
FanSince72's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 2,595
Member Number: 17502
Thanks: 488
Thanked 1,527 Times in 676 Posts
Default Re: Rooney wants old Steelers offense

Quote:
Originally Posted by lardlad View Post
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?
FanSince72 is offline   Reply With Quote