PDA

View Full Version : Turn the Page



steelz09
06-07-2008, 10:37 AM
Does anyone feel like the Steeler's are "turning the page" from the typical Steelers tradition of dominating Offensive and Defensive Lines.

Seems like we are turning in to more of a finesse team.. particularly on offense.

stlrz d
06-07-2008, 10:46 AM
Does anyone feel like the Steeler's are "turning the page" from the typical Steelers tradition of dominating Offensive and Defensive Lines.

Seems like we are turning in to more of a finesse team.. particularly on offense.

The NFL wants more offense and unfortunately, teams that want to compete have to play by the rules. I think more teams will do the same...bend but don't break defenses and finesse offenses.

NKySteeler
06-07-2008, 11:40 AM
I personally don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with what the NFL wants... It has to do with personnel, coaches, and the given conditions at the time.

There have been teams at various times that have fielded strong squads: The offense of the Cowboys and 49ers come to mind, as well as the defense of the Ratbirds several years ago (yes, I think they had a good squad even though I don't like them).... It was the personnel that made these squads, and the coaches that organized them. Sure the ever-changing rules of the NFL have been to increase fan attention, but they didn't make the team.

As for the Steelers, we have been fortunate to have quality personnel even thru our last Super Bowl run that contributed to dominating... I think the actual rushing attack we posessed with Bettis helped us manage the clock, thus the offense... Now, whether we like it or not, our "Steeler tradition" of offensive and defensive lines started in the '70s, and the use of steroids were involved. IMO, that played a huge part in our dominance. It definitely isn't a popular thought, but it cannot be denied. Now that it has become illegal, you don't see some of the things that were prevalent in past decades... Just my :2c .

Flasteel
06-07-2008, 12:06 PM
I personally don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with what the NFL wants... It has to do with personnel, coaches, and the given conditions at the time.

There have been teams at various times that have fielded strong squads: The offense of the Cowboys and 49ers come to mind, as well as the defense of the Ratbirds several years ago (yes, I think they had a good squad even though I don't like them).... It was the personnel that made these squads, and the coaches that organized them. Sure the ever-changing rules of the NFL have been to increase fan attention, but they didn't make the team.

As for the Steelers, we have been fortunate to have quality personnel even thru our last Super Bowl run that contributed to dominating... I think the actual rushing attack we posessed with Bettis helped us manage the clock, thus the offense... Now, whether we like it or not, our "Steeler tradition" of offensive and defensive lines started in the '70s, and the use of steroids were involved. IMO, that played a huge part in our dominance. It definitely isn't a popular thought, but it cannot be denied. Now that it has become illegal, you don't see some of the things that were prevalent in past decades... Just my :2c .

You're right brother, it's got everything to do with coaches and players. Look at our offense: No matter who Bill Cowher brought in as his OC, his stamp of power football was going to be displayed (the failed Tommy Gun offense noted). We complimented this philosophy by featuring backs such as Barry Foster, Bam Morris, and of course the Bus. Now we have an OC whose reputation is built on the 5 and 7-step passing game and more importantly we have a franchise quarterback that can carry the offense on his back. Hopefully Mendenhall will prove to be a stout inside runner and we can get back to pounding the rock on occasion. Yes the offensive line has been a weakness the past couple of seasons and we've ignored it at the top of the draft, but our skill players and offensive philosophy are what skews us more towards being "finesse" than anything else.

On defense, we are guilty of getting too "cute" with Dick "Bad Word" Lebeau's schemes, but the primary drain in any physicality is completely due to the players on the field. Yeah, we're still a physical defense with guys like Aaron Smith, Silverback, and Polamalu looking take people's heads off, but I think we lost our edge of intimidation. This is something we need to get back and I think that Woodley is going to be carrying a big stick and believe it or not, I think Timmons is going to bring an explosive and violent presence inside as well. These are good starts, but we've got to invest in some premium talent up front in the trenches. Casey Hampton is the only first-day D-lineman we've chosen in this millennium and we sorely lack a physical dominating presence at RDE in my opinion.

Shawn
06-07-2008, 12:41 PM
I definately think Tomlin has brought his own style to this team. Smash mouth ball is not as effective as it once was. Current great teams must be able to pass, spread the field. Now, I do not think that we will get away from having dominating lines. I place that blame squarely on the shoulders of our crappy OL drafts.

SteelerNation1
06-07-2008, 12:42 PM
The question is would you rather have a high scoring, prolific O, or a dominant D? I, like most Steeler fans, would choose dominant D, but those dominant defense days in the NFL are over. Too many rules changes to favor O.

Iron Shiek
06-07-2008, 08:37 PM
The question is would you rather have a high scoring, prolific O, or a dominant D? I, like most Steeler fans, would choose dominant D, but those dominant defense days in the NFL are over. Too many rules changes to favor O.

$$$ :Agree You beat me to it, but I was just going to say the league is designed for the offenses to prevail. They did eliminate that stupid force out rule though, right? That helps a little. But physicality and sending messages to opposing qbs can't happen anymore it seems today. So you adapt, and try to be dam good at it. Talent that we have should help that. I for one am happy with the direction of the team, albeit I hope they try to maintain some semblance of a dominant d, which they are attempting to it appears.

And in honor of the new (I've been away for a day or two so they may be old by now) emoticons, I'll randomly throw :brownssuck out there. Sweet.

SteelHoss
06-07-2008, 10:26 PM
I personally don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with what the NFL wants... It has to do with personnel, coaches, and the given conditions at the time.

There have been teams at various times that have fielded strong squads: The offense of the Cowboys and 49ers come to mind, as well as the defense of the Ratbirds several years ago (yes, I think they had a good squad even though I don't like them).... It was the personnel that made these squads, and the coaches that organized them. Sure the ever-changing rules of the NFL have been to increase fan attention, but they didn't make the team.

As for the Steelers, we have been fortunate to have quality personnel even thru our last Super Bowl run that contributed to dominating... I think the actual rushing attack we posessed with Bettis helped us manage the clock, thus the offense... Now, whether we like it or not, our "Steeler tradition" of offensive and defensive lines started in the '70s, and the use of steroids were involved. IMO, that played a huge part in our dominance. It definitely isn't a popular thought, but it cannot be denied. Now that it has become illegal, you don't see some of the things that were prevalent in past decades... Just my :2c .

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Steroids???? Where did you get the information that those Steeler teams used them? There was one confessed member of those teams that used them. His name escapes me at the moment, but he was killed a couple of years ago while cutting a tree. He was only a backup player. Jon Kolb said, "the thought of using them scared him to death." I have more factual information on this matter that i'll post a little later if you're interested.

AngryAsian
06-08-2008, 08:47 AM
I think that this year will be the measuring stick of what type of offense we'll be fielding for the next couple of years. We've not had a franchise qb since Bradshaw, that's been able to help evolve our offense. We were all pretty regular with the modifier "hybrid" when we were speaking of what Tomlin would do with the defense, but I think that that tag will be more appropriate to what we'll see from our offense this year. Balance is what we'll have this year, with a more reliable receiving corps and a backfield that will generate the most yards from scrimmage this season (I know, quite a prediction). Smashmouth? I think most definitely, how could you not ride the horses in our stable. But I don't think that it will be the same run, run, pass we've seen in the past, I think that on any given day we'll have the talent to execute whatever gameplan that best suits what the opposing defense is willing to give us. I just see us being extremely "adaptive" in our methodology this year.

As for defense, I think that we'll be more effective with our ability to get to the qb, but like most have reverberated, our DLinemen is a concern. Depth is need as well as youth and hopefully that will be addressed in the next draft. A couple of DL positions and one solid CB and we'll be one of the elite again.

SteelerNation1
06-08-2008, 09:28 AM
I think that this year will be the measuring stick of what type of offense we'll be fielding for the next couple of years. We've not had a franchise qb since Bradshaw, that's been able to help evolve our offense. We were all pretty regular with the modifier "hybrid" when we were speaking of what Tomlin would do with the defense, but I think that that tag will be more appropriate to what we'll see from our offense this year. Balance is what we'll have this year, with a more reliable receiving corps and a backfield that will generate the most yards from scrimmage this season (I know, quite a prediction). Smashmouth? I think most definitely, how could you not ride the horses in our stable. But I don't think that it will be the same run, run, pass we've seen in the past, I think that on any given day we'll have the talent to execute whatever gameplan that best suits what the opposing defense is willing to give us. I just see us being extremely "adaptive" in our methodology this year.

As for defense, I think that we'll be more effective with our ability to get to the qb, but like most have reverberated, our DLinemen is a concern. Depth is need as well as youth and hopefully that will be addressed in the next draft. A couple of DL positions and one solid CB and we'll be one of the elite again.
Good points AS and I hope you are right about our backfield leading the league in yards. I'd be happy with around 2000 total yrads from the RB stable and close to 3500 passing from #7.

Chavezz
06-08-2008, 09:50 AM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

BURGH86STEEL
06-08-2008, 10:26 AM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.

SteelerNation1
06-08-2008, 11:34 AM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.
Just think back to the 2005 playoff run. Everyone expected that we come out running, but we came out throwing and that opened up the run game. You can keep the D fresh by throwing just as easily as you can by running.

stlrz d
06-08-2008, 11:49 AM
I personally don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with what the NFL wants... It has to do with personnel, coaches, and the given conditions at the time.

There have been teams at various times that have fielded strong squads: The offense of the Cowboys and 49ers come to mind, as well as the defense of the Ratbirds several years ago (yes, I think they had a good squad even though I don't like them).... It was the personnel that made these squads, and the coaches that organized them. Sure the ever-changing rules of the NFL have been to increase fan attention, but they didn't make the team.

As for the Steelers, we have been fortunate to have quality personnel even thru our last Super Bowl run that contributed to dominating... I think the actual rushing attack we posessed with Bettis helped us manage the clock, thus the offense... Now, whether we like it or not, our "Steeler tradition" of offensive and defensive lines started in the '70s, and the use of steroids were involved. IMO, that played a huge part in our dominance. It definitely isn't a popular thought, but it cannot be denied. Now that it has become illegal, you don't see some of the things that were prevalent in past decades... Just my :2c .

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Steroids???? Where did you get the information that those Steeler teams used them? There was one confessed member of those teams that used them. His name escapes me at the moment, but he was killed a couple of years ago while cutting a tree. He was only a backup player. Jon Kolb said, "the thought of using them scared him to death." I have more factual information on this matter that i'll post a little later if you're interested.

Steve Courson and Jim Haslett are two guys who have come forward...I'd be very interested in that info though...please post!



As for the folks who said it's dictated by the coaches, you're correct but the point I was attempting to make is the NFL is tailoring things for more offense and coaches who understand that will have more success than ones who buck the trend...unless you have very, very talented players in place. Under Cowher we had suffocating defenses so he was able to win an awful lot of games by shutting teams down. But when the D couldn't shut those teams down we didn't have the O to keep up.

NKySteeler
06-08-2008, 12:11 PM
Several of those who died are known to have used steroids, including former offensive guard Steve Courson -- the first NFL player to reveal he used them. He died by accident in November 2005 following years of heart problems. Several others were long rumored to have used steroids, although there has been no definitive proof they did.

Of those Steelers deaths, eight were in their 50s, five were in their 40s and two were in their 30s.

As with all NFL teams that joined the league in its early days -- the Steelers concluded their 75th season earlier this month -- Pittsburgh has lost nearly all of the players from its early teams. Five of the 34 who died since 2000 were in their 80s.

But it is the unusually high number of deaths among players who are relatively young that is uncommon. In 2006, a Los Angeles Times survey found that nearly one-fifth of the NFL players from the 1970s and 1980s who had died since 2000 were former Steelers.

Flasteel
06-08-2008, 12:13 PM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.

A lot of good points 86, but I think you're stretching things a tad with the 3:1 run pass ratio. Even in our most run-heavy season we still only ran 60.5% of the time. But looking at that number combined with efficiency of the passing game is very revealing as to the offensive evolution under Ben and the team's success. Here's the percentage of running plays (minus quarterback carries), followed by Roethlisberger's QB rating, and team result since '04:

2004 - 60.5%..........98.1.............15-1; lost AFC Championship
2005 - 57.8%..........98.6.............11-5; won SB
2006 - 44.8%..........75.4..............8-8; sucked monkey balls
2007 - 51.2%.........104.1.............10-6; division champs (lost first round)

Obviously as your quarterback matures, he will take on more responsibilities and more of the snaps will progressively be placed in his hands, as long as he demonstrates progress...Ben has. That's hard to do when you come out of the gates with a 98.1 QB rating, but it only illustrates just how efficient the guy has been. The lone exception in 2006 is obviously mitigated by the off-season motorcycle accident, emergency appendectomy, and subsequent concussion in Atlanta, not to mention a myriad of other team-centered factors...blah, blah, blah...

I think it's also important to note that these numbers don't just reflect our conscious effort to run the ball behind a powerful line and backfield, or to protect our maturing quarterback. Over the course of 16 games it also is very revealing of game situations which allow us to run out the clock because we're ahead and increase our number of carries. Itís also important to remember that the efficiency of our quarterback, even in limited opportunities, is what allowed us to be in that position.

With all of these factors in mind you get an idea where the optimal balance of run-pass ratio seems to be. Certainly it isn't going to be anywhere near 75%, but you definitely want to be able to run the ball a majority of the time and in the end, have everything reflect that you were able to run the clock out to protect leads. Therefore a balanced and efficient offense is always going to be skewed more towards the run than the pass; I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 to 55%. Now factor in the progression of a franchise quarterback who is still looking to reach his peak and I'd probably be inclined to bump that down a percentage point or two and say the optimal number should be 53%. Last year we were able to return to a more balanced offense at 51.7 only because our quarterback had a career year, not in terms of how often he threw it, but how efficiently he did it. Our running game didnít do a lot to contribute to this balance being struck because we really lacked the ability to consistently move the chains late in games to hold down leads. This year I expect the evolution of Ben to continue and I also expect the running game to be more effective with the additions of Mendenhall and Hartwig. If that holds true, then it will put us up late in games at an even better rate and allow us to grind out the clock with more consistency than we did last year (especially down the stretch).

It all translates into...53%

BURGH86STEEL
06-08-2008, 12:45 PM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.
Just think back to the 2005 playoff run. Everyone expected that we come out running, but we came out throwing and that opened up the run game. You can keep the D fresh by throwing just as easily as you can by running.

They came out throwing the ball in past play appearances. The difference is what Ben did with the opportunities he had. It is always about the execution of the plays called. He did a fine job in the 05 playoffs.

BURGH86STEEL
06-08-2008, 01:19 PM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.

A lot of good points 86, but I think you're stretching things a tad with the 3:1 run pass ratio. Even in our most run-heavy season we still only ran 60.5% of the time. But looking at that number combined with efficiency of the passing game is very revealing as to the offensive evolution under Ben and the team's success. Here's the percentage of running plays (minus quarterback carries), followed by Roethlisberger's QB rating, and team result since '04:

2004 - 60.5%..........98.1.............15-1; lost AFC Championship
2005 - 57.8%..........98.6.............11-5; won SB
2006 - 44.8%..........75.4..............8-8; sucked monkey balls
2007 - 51.2%.........104.1.............10-6; division champs (lost first round)

Obviously as your quarterback matures, he will take on more responsibilities and more of the snaps will progressively be placed in his hands, as long as he demonstrates progress...Ben has. That's hard to do when you come out of the gates with a 98.1 QB rating, but it only illustrates just how efficient the guy has been. The lone exception in 2006 is obviously mitigated by the off-season motorcycle accident, emergency appendectomy, and subsequent concussion in Atlanta, not to mention a myriad of other team-centered factors...blah, blah, blah...

I think it's also important to note that these numbers don't just reflect our conscious effort to run the ball behind a powerful line and backfield, or to protect our maturing quarterback. Over the course of 16 games it also is very revealing of game situations which allow us to run out the clock because we're ahead and increase our number of carries. Itís also important to remember that the efficiency of our quarterback, even in limited opportunities, is what allowed us to be in that position.

With all of these factors in mind you get an idea where the optimal balance of run-pass ratio seems to be. Certainly it isn't going to be anywhere near 75%, but you definitely want to be able to run the ball a majority of the time and in the end, have everything reflect that you were able to run the clock out to protect leads. Therefore a balanced and efficient offense is always going to be skewed more towards the run than the pass; I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 to 55%. Now factor in the progression of a franchise quarterback who is still looking to reach his peak and I'd probably be inclined to bump that down a percentage point or two and say the optimal number should be 53%. Last year we were able to return to a more balanced offense at 51.7 only because our quarterback had a career year, not in terms of how often he threw it, but how efficiently he did it. Our running game didnít do a lot to contribute to this balance being struck because we really lacked the ability to consistently move the chains late in games to hold down leads. This year I expect the evolution of Ben to continue and I also expect the running game to be more effective with the additions of Mendenhall and Hartwig. If that holds true, then it will put us up late in games at an even better rate and allow us to grind out the clock with more consistency than we did last year (especially down the stretch).

It all translates into...53%

The 3/4 comment was in response to what Chavezz had stated. I know they did not run the ball 3/4 of the time. I said I doubt that was the case and would have to check the stats on that one. People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

Ben was good last season and I agree that more of the offense will fall onto his shoulders. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating Ben and the offense. One example, against the Pats, the offense could not score enough points to gain a lead last season. Defense did all they could to hold the Pats down in the 1st half. The offense left some scoring opportunities out on the field in the 1st half and came up real small in the 2nd half. This was with the aid of a pretty good run game. This season will be a very tough test for Ben and the offense. They are going to face some very tough defensive teams. I guess we will have a better idea of how to evaluate our franchise QB. Will he rise up to the occasion? All eyes and pressure will be on him after the contract extension he got.

NKySteeler
06-08-2008, 02:36 PM
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Steroids???? Where did you get the information that those Steeler teams used them? There was one confessed member of those teams that used them. His name escapes me at the moment, but he was killed a couple of years ago while cutting a tree. He was only a backup player. Jon Kolb said, "the thought of using them scared him to death." I have more factual information on this matter that i'll post a little later if you're interested.

Hoss, I'm surprised that you scoff at this notion... Courson flat out admitted it, and went further by saying that 75% of the squad did... Long failed a test, and was suspended for it.... Now, did Kolb?... I hope not. He was one of my idols... Personally, I don't think Webster did either, but there were plenty that did. And I'm sure that there is info supporting the ones that didn't. Below you will find some of the "information" that I found... Just google "Steelers and steroids" and you'll see more.

I'm not disputing that some didn't, but hey, opinions are what makes this place go 'round... Are you familiar with the Red Bull Inn north of Washington? (since had changed names, and eventually closed)... Many players worked-out in the weight room in the basement back in the '70s, and I was in there once back in H.S. ... If you haven't read it, I suggest checking out "Tales From Behind The Steel Curtain" by Jim Wexell. It's a good read, and also briefly touches on this subject...

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... he_st.html (http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2006/07/curse_of_the_st.html)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A967958260 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE1D91E31F936A25752C1A967958260)
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 62321.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_462321.html)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05083/476887.stm

Djfan
06-08-2008, 05:17 PM
People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

That would be 66% anyway. I think he went to the run, run, pass, punt thing when he was out-coached and didn't know what to do. Don't ask for examples, it was just my impression.

One thing we should keep in mind is that if the pass rush is legit, then the bend don't break D is valid. A 10 yard cushion on the receivers is great if the QB has no protection, or at least worries about the protection. Let's hope the upgraded D line is solid.

steelcityrules!!
06-08-2008, 06:42 PM
the comments about the league changing to a more offensive-flavored entity are correct, and the drafting of the FO the last 3-4 years has reflected our adaptability, especially this year. you need to put a dominant offensive game on the field to compete, but the elite defenses still bring you the championships. I think the way we've drafted the last couple of years has been almost exactly what we needed to build a truely competitive team for the next few years.

BURGH86STEEL
06-08-2008, 06:50 PM
People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

That would be 66% anyway. I think he went to the run, run, pass, punt thing when he was out-coached and didn't know what to do. Don't ask for examples, it was just my impression.

One thing we should keep in mind is that if the pass rush is legit, then the bend don't break D is valid. A 10 yard cushion on the receivers is great if the QB has no protection, or at least worries about the protection. Let's hope the upgraded D line is solid.

I disagree with you about the run, run, pass issue. It really makes in sense in the way you stated it. How could Cowher last so long as a coach not knowing what to do? Sometimes he got out coached but so does every other coach in the league. He won more battles than not.

What you have to remember about the 10 yard cushion is the Steelers are a zone based defense that rely on the CBs to come up and make plays in the run game. Another thing, it is better to give up a 10 or 15 yard pass as opposed to giving up a long TD. A staple of Lebeau's defense is to not give up a long TD. Make the team drive down the field and beat you. I think they do a good job of mixing up the defenses. Sometimes they press and more times it appears they do not. How can anyone complain about the 10 yard cushion when the defense manages to make it into the top 10 almost every year? One area that I hope improves is the pass rush. Hopefully the injection of youth will help in this area.

RuthlessBurgher
06-09-2008, 01:41 PM
Ideally, through the first three quarters of any game, you want to have roughly a 50-50 run/pass ratio. Hopefully, in the 4th quarter, you are protecting a lead, and therefore the overall numbers will be skewed over toward the run side. You don't want to have to play catch-up in the 4th, skewing the overall numbers toward the pass side.

BURGH86STEEL
06-09-2008, 03:59 PM
Ideally, through the first three quarters of any game, you want to have roughly a 50-50 run/pass ratio. Hopefully, in the 4th quarter, you are protecting a lead, and therefore the overall numbers will be skewed over toward the run side. You don't want to have to play catch-up in the 4th, skewing the overall numbers toward the pass side.

I agree with you. Teams may be passing more but there is more than one way to win the SB. Close to 50/50 ratio on either side is what is probably the goal for most teams. If a team relies to heavily on one over the other, defenses know this and take advantage of the situation. Ofcourse the teams playing offense needs to have the players to execute the plays/offense. Defenses will take advantage of these kinds of weaknesses too. Again, there are so many factors to consider when evaluating these types of issues. It may appear that a team runs 2 times more than they pass when in fact they do not.

NKySteeler
06-09-2008, 04:14 PM
I agree that an even mix is ideal, and both need to be effective, but isn't the prudent move to go with whatever works?... I mean, if it takes more of a 75/25 to get the job done, so be it. But the "ideal" situation is whatever gives us more points against the various defenses... I also agree about the numbers being skewed because time after time when we had a lead, we would just run, run, run to work the clock... And in the games we were down, we flat-out aired the ball out in the second half.

BURGH86STEEL
06-09-2008, 04:46 PM
I agree that an even mix is ideal, and both need to be effective, but isn't the prudent move to go with whatever works?... I mean, if it takes more of a 75/25 to get the job done, so be it. But the "ideal" situation is whatever gives us more points against the various defenses... I also agree about the numbers being skewed because time after time when we had a lead, we would just run, run, run to work the clock... And in the games we were down, we flat-out aired the ball out in the second half.

Whatever works is good for me. But I think we have to take into account the rest that the defense gets. Especially our defense that relies more on blitzes from various players to get to the QB. Usually running or balance seems to offer a rest to the defense.

Mr Smartmonies
06-09-2008, 08:13 PM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.

A lot of good points 86, but I think you're stretching things a tad with the 3:1 run pass ratio. Even in our most run-heavy season we still only ran 60.5% of the time. But looking at that number combined with efficiency of the passing game is very revealing as to the offensive evolution under Ben and the team's success. Here's the percentage of running plays (minus quarterback carries), followed by Roethlisberger's QB rating, and team result since '04:

2004 - 60.5%..........98.1.............15-1; lost AFC Championship
2005 - 57.8%..........98.6.............11-5; won SB
2006 - 44.8%..........75.4..............8-8; sucked monkey balls
2007 - 51.2%.........104.1.............10-6; division champs (lost first round)

Obviously as your quarterback matures, he will take on more responsibilities and more of the snaps will progressively be placed in his hands, as long as he demonstrates progress...Ben has. That's hard to do when you come out of the gates with a 98.1 QB rating, but it only illustrates just how efficient the guy has been. The lone exception in 2006 is obviously mitigated by the off-season motorcycle accident, emergency appendectomy, and subsequent concussion in Atlanta, not to mention a myriad of other team-centered factors...blah, blah, blah...

I think it's also important to note that these numbers don't just reflect our conscious effort to run the ball behind a powerful line and backfield, or to protect our maturing quarterback. Over the course of 16 games it also is very revealing of game situations which allow us to run out the clock because we're ahead and increase our number of carries. Itís also important to remember that the efficiency of our quarterback, even in limited opportunities, is what allowed us to be in that position.

With all of these factors in mind you get an idea where the optimal balance of run-pass ratio seems to be. Certainly it isn't going to be anywhere near 75%, but you definitely want to be able to run the ball a majority of the time and in the end, have everything reflect that you were able to run the clock out to protect leads. Therefore a balanced and efficient offense is always going to be skewed more towards the run than the pass; I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 to 55%. Now factor in the progression of a franchise quarterback who is still looking to reach his peak and I'd probably be inclined to bump that down a percentage point or two and say the optimal number should be 53%. Last year we were able to return to a more balanced offense at 51.7 only because our quarterback had a career year, not in terms of how often he threw it, but how efficiently he did it. Our running game didnít do a lot to contribute to this balance being struck because we really lacked the ability to consistently move the chains late in games to hold down leads. This year I expect the evolution of Ben to continue and I also expect the running game to be more effective with the additions of Mendenhall and Hartwig. If that holds true, then it will put us up late in games at an even better rate and allow us to grind out the clock with more consistency than we did last year (especially down the stretch).

It all translates into...53%

The 3/4 comment was in response to what Chavezz had stated. I know they did not run the ball 3/4 of the time. I said I doubt that was the case and would have to check the stats on that one. People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

Ben was good last season and I agree that more of the offense will fall onto his shoulders. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating Ben and the offense. One example, against the Pats, the offense could not score enough points to gain a lead last season. Defense did all they could to hold the Pats down in the 1st half. The offense left some scoring opportunities out on the field in the 1st half and came up real small in the 2nd half. This was with the aid of a pretty good run game. This season will be a very tough test for Ben and the offense. They are going to face some very tough defensive teams. I guess we will have a better idea of how to evaluate our franchise QB. Will he rise up to the occasion? All eyes and pressure will be on him after the contract extension he got.

I'm having more fun sitting back and LMAO at 2 squares arguing over statistics that they know nothing about. Please keep it up. Much needed entertainment. :D

NKySteeler
06-09-2008, 08:18 PM
Whatever works is good for me. But I think we have to take into account the rest that the defense gets. Especially our defense that relies more on blitzes from various players to get to the QB. Usually running or balance seems to offer a rest to the defense.

Oh, without a doubt!... I guess my point about it is that thru the course of a game it can be balanced, or even closely balanced... But the 4th quarter, or even the 3rd as well for that matter, could skew the final results and not be a completely accurate account of the majority of the game.

Mr Smartmonies
06-09-2008, 08:46 PM
I agree that an even mix is ideal, and both need to be effective, but isn't the prudent move to go with whatever works?... I mean, if it takes more of a 75/25 to get the job done, so be it. But the "ideal" situation is whatever gives us more points against the various defenses... I also agree about the numbers being skewed because time after time when we had a lead, we would just run, run, run to work the clock... And in the games we were down, we flat-out aired the ball out in the second half.

Whatever works is good for me. But I think we have to take into account the rest that the defense gets. Especially our defense that relies more on blitzes from various players to get to the QB. Usually running or balance seems to offer a rest to the defense.

What keeps the defense fresh is moving the chains. Doesn't matter if its a 3rd down run or completion. Its moving the chains that keeps a defense fresh. And you can't use stats
like over all pass/ run ratio to make a point. It often doesn't tell the whole story because you need to know at what point of the games are those passes and runs coming from. For example, people think the Steelers were this almighty run team in 2004. . Why? Cause they racked up excessive amount of rushing yards.

2004 Bettis rushing yards by QTR

1st 165
2nd 233
3rd 217
4th 326

2005 Parker Rushing Yards by QTR

2005 Parker

1st QTR 226
2nd QTR 236
3rd QTR 491

Sure , they racked up a lot of rushing yards. But they didn't win by lining up and just slamming the ball down the opponents throat like the rushing yards would leave you to believe. They threw early and often , picked up 1st downs, got leads, and then Cowher shoved the ball down their throats in a very excessive amount of rushing attempts. He literally would shut it down in the 2nd half. But the damage had already been down .A very efficient passing game. But pass/ run ratio would not give you that kind of story. Hence you can be misled very easily.

06-12-2008, 06:26 PM
Does anyone feel like the Steeler's are "turning the page" from the typical Steelers tradition of dominating Offensive and Defensive Lines.

Seems like we are turning in to more of a finesse team.. particularly on offense.

This has a two fold answer for why.

One, the Steelers drafted a QB who can throw the football. A franchise type QB. One who makes more money than any player in the history of the Steelers. They have invested heavilt in him and are now surrounding him wiht pass catching weapons. Typical Steelers tradition was based primarily on the fact that from 1983 to 2004 the Steelers had nothing but scrubs as QB's.

Second, the power running is only applicable if you hae a power running back who can move the pile and run inside the tackles with authority. Willie has been a solid contributer however he is what he is. We now have a more complete back in Mendenhall who can bring some of that typical Steeler tradition you alluded too.

But for as long as Ben is our QB this offense is going to lean towards what he does best. And handing the ball off isnt that.

Flasteel
06-12-2008, 07:04 PM
The day that we spent a 1st Rd pick on a QB was the beginning of the change IMO. You cannot have a franchise QB that is just a game manager. You don't pay a guy what Ben is being paid to hand the ball off 3/4 of the time. We've invested in offensive weapons early and often recently and I think that in 1-2 years (if we get some oline help) we'll be a top 3 offense easily.

Having said that I don't think we'll ever abandon the run. We'll just continue to move to a more balanced offense. The days of 3yards and a cloud of dust are gone and personally I'm ok with that.

The offense has not changed since Ben was drafted. Outside of one season, they ran more than they passed. All QBs are game managers. It is the level at which each can manage the game. Ben has not reached his peak being a complete QB. I am ok with Ben handing off to the RB 3/4 times a game as long as the team wins. Outside of a few times, I doubt that was the case. Would have to check the stats. The most important thing is what Ben does with the opportunities he has passing the ball. Not the amount of passes. Have to remember that running the ball keeps the defense fresh.

A lot of good points 86, but I think you're stretching things a tad with the 3:1 run pass ratio. Even in our most run-heavy season we still only ran 60.5% of the time. But looking at that number combined with efficiency of the passing game is very revealing as to the offensive evolution under Ben and the team's success. Here's the percentage of running plays (minus quarterback carries), followed by Roethlisberger's QB rating, and team result since '04:

2004 - 60.5%..........98.1.............15-1; lost AFC Championship
2005 - 57.8%..........98.6.............11-5; won SB
2006 - 44.8%..........75.4..............8-8; sucked monkey balls
2007 - 51.2%.........104.1.............10-6; division champs (lost first round)

Obviously as your quarterback matures, he will take on more responsibilities and more of the snaps will progressively be placed in his hands, as long as he demonstrates progress...Ben has. That's hard to do when you come out of the gates with a 98.1 QB rating, but it only illustrates just how efficient the guy has been. The lone exception in 2006 is obviously mitigated by the off-season motorcycle accident, emergency appendectomy, and subsequent concussion in Atlanta, not to mention a myriad of other team-centered factors...blah, blah, blah...

I think it's also important to note that these numbers don't just reflect our conscious effort to run the ball behind a powerful line and backfield, or to protect our maturing quarterback. Over the course of 16 games it also is very revealing of game situations which allow us to run out the clock because we're ahead and increase our number of carries. Itís also important to remember that the efficiency of our quarterback, even in limited opportunities, is what allowed us to be in that position.

With all of these factors in mind you get an idea where the optimal balance of run-pass ratio seems to be. Certainly it isn't going to be anywhere near 75%, but you definitely want to be able to run the ball a majority of the time and in the end, have everything reflect that you were able to run the clock out to protect leads. Therefore a balanced and efficient offense is always going to be skewed more towards the run than the pass; I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 to 55%. Now factor in the progression of a franchise quarterback who is still looking to reach his peak and I'd probably be inclined to bump that down a percentage point or two and say the optimal number should be 53%. Last year we were able to return to a more balanced offense at 51.7 only because our quarterback had a career year, not in terms of how often he threw it, but how efficiently he did it. Our running game didnít do a lot to contribute to this balance being struck because we really lacked the ability to consistently move the chains late in games to hold down leads. This year I expect the evolution of Ben to continue and I also expect the running game to be more effective with the additions of Mendenhall and Hartwig. If that holds true, then it will put us up late in games at an even better rate and allow us to grind out the clock with more consistency than we did last year (especially down the stretch).

It all translates into...53%

The 3/4 comment was in response to what Chavezz had stated. I know they did not run the ball 3/4 of the time. I said I doubt that was the case and would have to check the stats on that one. People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

Ben was good last season and I agree that more of the offense will fall onto his shoulders. There are so many factors to consider when evaluating Ben and the offense. One example, against the Pats, the offense could not score enough points to gain a lead last season. Defense did all they could to hold the Pats down in the 1st half. The offense left some scoring opportunities out on the field in the 1st half and came up real small in the 2nd half. This was with the aid of a pretty good run game. This season will be a very tough test for Ben and the offense. They are going to face some very tough defensive teams. I guess we will have a better idea of how to evaluate our franchise QB. Will he rise up to the occasion? All eyes and pressure will be on him after the contract extension he got.

I'm having more fun sitting back and LMAO at 2 squares arguing over statistics that they know nothing about. Please keep it up. Much needed entertainment. :D

Why don't you point out just exactly what it is that you're talking about; then we could really have some fun? Let me also address a couple of your other ridiculous comments:
1. You telling me that I know nothing about football is beyond laughable. I know for a fact that you have never played nor coached the game, let alone sniffed a football field (although I will give you a pass on any jock straps). This is based on the entirety of your pathetic comments since you darkened our collective doorsteps and if there is any aspect of the game other than gambling that you'd like to discuss, then bring it.
2. Square? Nice retort for my comment on the other board that you live in your mom's basement...but really, who uses the word square? Oh, that's right a stat geek like yourself who's trying to compensate for his obvious lack of masculinity by lashing out at others. I would imagine that you're also hampered by a limited vocabulary and serious psychological trauma stemming from a lifetime of staring at a male imposter each day in the mirror.

If you want to keep coming here and running your pie-hole Poindexter, then I'll have something for your monkey-ass each time you show up. I do want to apologize to my brethren on this board for playing in the gutter and contributing to the degradation of quality posting, but I refuse to sit by quietly while this troll hides behind his anonymity and runs his mouth.

Djfan
06-12-2008, 07:07 PM
People seem to think all the Steelers did under Cowher was run, run, pass. This was simply not the case. I guess that is why some people come up with 3/4 statements.

That would be 66% anyway. I think he went to the run, run, pass, punt thing when he was out-coached and didn't know what to do. Don't ask for examples, it was just my impression.

One thing we should keep in mind is that if the pass rush is legit, then the bend don't break D is valid. A 10 yard cushion on the receivers is great if the QB has no protection, or at least worries about the protection. Let's hope the upgraded D line is solid.

I disagree with you about the run, run, pass issue. It really makes in sense in the way you stated it. How could Cowher last so long as a coach not knowing what to do? Sometimes he got out coached but so does every other coach in the league. He won more battles than not.

What you have to remember about the 10 yard cushion is the Steelers are a zone based defense that rely on the CBs to come up and make plays in the run game. Another thing, it is better to give up a 10 or 15 yard pass as opposed to giving up a long TD. A staple of Lebeau's defense is to not give up a long TD. Make the team drive down the field and beat you. I think they do a good job of mixing up the defenses. Sometimes they press and more times it appears they do not. How can anyone complain about the 10 yard cushion when the defense manages to make it into the top 10 almost every year? One area that I hope improves is the pass rush. Hopefully the injection of youth will help in this area.

Sounds like we're saying the same thing.

RuthlessBurgher
06-12-2008, 08:06 PM
Why don't you point out just exactly what it is that you're talking about; then we could really have some fun? Let me also address a couple of your other ridiculous comments:
1. You telling me that I know nothing about football is beyond laughable. I know for a fact that you have never played nor coached the game, let alone sniffed a football field (although I will give you a pass on any jock straps). This is based on the entirety of your pathetic comments since you darkened our collective doorsteps and if there is any aspect of the game other than gambling that you'd like to discuss, then bring it.
2. Square? Nice retort for my comment on the other board that you live in your mom's basement...but really, who uses the word square? Oh, that's right a stat geek like yourself who's trying to compensate for his obvious lack of masculinity by lashing out at others. I would imagine that you're also hampered by a limited vocabulary and serious psychological trauma stemming from a lifetime of staring at a male imposter each day in the mirror.

If you want to keep coming here and running your pie-hole Poindexter, then I'll have something for your monkey-ass each time you show up. I do want to apologize to my brethren on this board for playing in the gutter and contributing to the degradation of quality posting, but I refuse to sit by quietly while this troll hides behind his anonymity and runs his mouth.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/275000/275417SxAW_w.jpg

http://www.squaredancingtoday.com/images/header-slogan.gif

http://www.pacificcitizen.org/content/2007/national/photos/feb2-rubiks.jpg

http://eil.com/newgallery/Huey-Lewis--The-News-Hip-To-Be-Square-298160.jpg

http://www.starwars.com/community/fun/caption/2006/11/img/caption268.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51V8RWKT4WL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://www.uneasysilence.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/watermelon.jpg

Mr Smartmonies
06-13-2008, 02:47 PM
Why don't you point out just exactly what it is that you're talking about; then we could really have some fun? Let me also address a couple of your other ridiculous comments:
1. You telling me that I know nothing about football is beyond laughable. I know for a fact that you have never played nor coached the game, let alone sniffed a football field (although I will give you a pass on any jock straps). This is based on the entirety of your pathetic comments since you darkened our collective doorsteps and if there is any aspect of the game other than gambling that you'd like to discuss, then bring it.
2. Square? Nice retort for my comment on the other board that you live in your mom's basement...but really, who uses the word square? Oh, that's right a stat geek like yourself who's trying to compensate for his obvious lack of masculinity by lashing out at others. I would imagine that you're also hampered by a limited vocabulary and serious psychological trauma stemming from a lifetime of staring at a male imposter each day in the mirror.

If you want to keep coming here and running your pie-hole Poindexter, then I'll have something for your monkey-ass each time you show up. I do want to apologize to my brethren on this board for playing in the gutter and contributing to the degradation of quality posting, but I refuse to sit by quietly while this troll hides behind his anonymity and runs his mouth.

ME

1. I played football
2. Had uncle who played 13 yrs in the NFL and Rooney came to his funeral
3. I bet on sports for a living (another words my opinion is worth more than yours)
4. I did sports commentary on T.V for local news for 2 years
5. I have a radio show.

you

1. failed in the Radio business and would consistently show up in my posts trying to get my attention by saying something negative due to jealousy that eats at you.

Get over it. :D

Flasteel
06-13-2008, 03:57 PM
ME

1. I played football
2. Had uncle who played 13 yrs in the NFL and Rooney came to his funeral
3. I bet on sports for a living (another words my opinion is worth more than yours)
4. I did sports commentary on T.V for local news for 2 years
5. I have a radio show.

you

1. failed in the Radio business and would consistently show up in my posts trying to get my attention by saying something negative due to jealousy that eats at you.

Get over it. :D

1. Pop Warner doesn't count.
2. Knowledge of the game isn't genetically inherited.
3. What?? Your opinion is worth more than mine? I don't really know how to respond to such an ego-centric, misguided statement.
4. I was a television play-by-play announcer for five years (and color for one year on radio) and covered the NFL for ten years on the radio...it doesn't make my opinions more valid than yours or anyone else's. I also coached for one of the most storied high school programs in the state of Florida for six years (left for the radio & TV stuff).
5. Yes I've heard your radio show. You actually have a decent delivery, but I wasn't exactly impressed by anything heard.

I stopped doing radio and television when the opportunities locally dried up. I moved to DC to work at a small TV station in Fairfax and hated every moment of it. I've been back in education now for six years and have found my life's work. As far as jealously over your show on some 500-watt adult easy-listening station...are you kidding me?? :lol: The only negative thing I ever said about your show (aside from the above statement) is that you were living in a fantasy world if you thought Ben Roethlisberger would be a guest on your show...YOUR GAMBLING SHOW. In typical MSM fashion you got worked into a tizzy, put me on ignore, then started cracking on my screen name every chance you got.

That doesn't even come close to explaining the depths of my disdain for you. You are one of the most egotistical (without cause no less) no-it-alls (again without cause) I've ever encountered here or anywhere else. You attack other posters, call names and insult anyone's intelligence simply because they disagree with you (see above), or for no reason at all. You spin wild speculation and try to pass it off as fact, citing your inside knowledge due to gambling.

You are one of the most nauseating and inflammatory individuals I've encountered anywhere and I'm pretty sure a preponderance of the posting community here or on the Trib board would concur. One more thing that I can guarantee is that you wouldn't be so disrespectful to my face...you can make that your lock of the week.

By the way, nice job of pinpointing the comments in my original post which made you "laugh your ass off". Any time you want to debate the nuances of the game dude...bring it.

RuthlessBurgher
06-13-2008, 04:14 PM
ME

1. I played football
2. Had uncle who played 13 yrs in the NFL and Rooney came to his funeral
3. I bet on sports for a living (another words my opinion is worth more than yours)
4. I did sports commentary on T.V for local news for 2 years
5. I have a radio show.

you

1. failed in the Radio business and would consistently show up in my posts trying to get my attention by saying something negative due to jealousy that eats at you.

Get over it. :D

1. Pop Warner doesn't count.
2. Knowledge of the game isn't genetically inherited.
3. What?? Your opinion is worth more than mine? I don't really know how to respond to such an ego-centric, misguided statement.
4. I was a television play-by-play announcer for five years (and color for one year on radio) and covered the NFL for ten years on the radio...it doesn't make my opinions more valid than yours or anyone else's. I also coached for one of the most storied high school programs in the state of Florida for six years (left for the radio & TV stuff).
5. Yes I've heard your radio show. You actually have a decent delivery, but I wasn't exactly impressed by anything heard.

I stopped doing radio and television when the opportunities locally dried up. I moved to DC to work at a small TV station in Fairfax and hated every moment of it. I've been back in education now for six years and have found my life's work. As far as jealously over your show on some 500-watt adult easy-listening station...are you kidding me?? :lol: The only negative thing I ever said about your show (aside from the above statement) is that you were living in a fantasy world if you thought Ben Roethlisberger would be a guest on your show...YOUR GAMBLING SHOW. In typical MSM fashion you got worked into a tizzy, put me on ignore, then started cracking on my screen name every chance you got.

That doesn't even come close to explaining the depths of my disdain for you. You are one of the most egotistical (without cause no less) no-it-alls (again without cause) I've ever encountered here or anywhere else. You attack other posters, call names and insult anyone's intelligence simply because they disagree with you (see above), or for no reason at all. You spin wild speculation and try to pass it off as fact, citing your inside knowledge due to gambling.

You are one of the most nauseating and inflammatory individuals I've encountered anywhere and I'm pretty sure a preponderance of the posting community here or on the Trib board would concur. One more thing that I can guarantee is that you wouldn't be so disrespectful to my face...you can make that your lock of the week.

By the way, nice job of pinpointing the comments in my original post which made you "laugh your ass off". Any time you want to debate the nuances of the game dude...bring it.

C'mon, FlaSteel. Don't hold anything back. Tell us how you really feel. :wink:

BURGH86STEEL
06-13-2008, 05:50 PM
[

You mean you are still betting on the "fixed" games? :HeadBanger

Mr Smartmonies
06-13-2008, 06:20 PM
ME

1. I played football
2. Had uncle who played 13 yrs in the NFL and Rooney came to his funeral
3. I bet on sports for a living (another words my opinion is worth more than yours)
4. I did sports commentary on T.V for local news for 2 years
5. I have a radio show.

you

1. failed in the Radio business and would consistently show up in my posts trying to get my attention by saying something negative due to jealousy that eats at you.

Get over it. :D

1. Pop Warner doesn't count.
2. Knowledge of the game isn't genetically inherited.
3. What?? Your opinion is worth more than mine? I don't really know how to respond to such an ego-centric, misguided statement.
4. I was a television play-by-play announcer for five years (and color for one year on radio) and covered the NFL for ten years on the radio...it doesn't make my opinions more valid than yours or anyone else's. I also coached for one of the most storied high school programs in the state of Florida for six years (left for the radio & TV stuff).
5. Yes I've heard your radio show. You actually have a decent delivery, but I wasn't exactly impressed by anything heard.

I stopped doing radio and television when the opportunities locally dried up. I moved to DC to work at a small TV station in Fairfax and hated every moment of it. I've been back in education now for six years and have found my life's work. As far as jealously over your show on some 500-watt adult easy-listening station...are you kidding me?? :lol: The only negative thing I ever said about your show (aside from the above statement) is that you were living in a fantasy world if you thought Ben Roethlisberger would be a guest on your show...YOUR GAMBLING SHOW. In typical MSM fashion you got worked into a tizzy, put me on ignore, then started cracking on my screen name every chance you got.

That doesn't even come close to explaining the depths of my disdain for you. You are one of the most egotistical (without cause no less) no-it-alls (again without cause) I've ever encountered here or anywhere else. You attack other posters, call names and insult anyone's intelligence simply because they disagree with you (see above), or for no reason at all. You spin wild speculation and try to pass it off as fact, citing your inside knowledge due to gambling.

You are one of the most nauseating and inflammatory individuals I've encountered anywhere and I'm pretty sure a preponderance of the posting community here or on the Trib board would concur. One more thing that I can guarantee is that you wouldn't be so disrespectful to my face...you can make that your lock of the week.

By the way, nice job of pinpointing the comments in my original post which made you "laugh your ass off". Any time you want to debate the nuances of the game dude...bring it.

Like I said, don't let it eat at ya. :D

Flasteel
06-13-2008, 07:24 PM
Like I said, don't let it eat at ya. :D

Don't flatter yourself troll.

Shawn
06-13-2008, 07:44 PM
I don't know maybe I'm in the minority here but I like reading the opinion of both MSM and Fla.

Aight guys...you said your piece. You hate each other. Lets try to live in harmony...if we don't like each other can we ignore each other?

AngryAsian
06-14-2008, 09:03 AM
I don't know maybe I'm in the minority here but I like reading the opinion of both MSM and Fla.

Aight guys...you said your piece. You hate each other. Lets try to live in harmony...if we don't like each other can we ignore each other?


You are not in the minority, SMG. I too like the completely polar opposite vantage points both these posters give... but I will say this. MSM, stick to the commentary that's your forte'.... the gambling skew. I don't know what happened but as of late you have a tendency to attack people because they express a different view from yours... and a lot of times without provocation. What's the point of expressing your opinion on a particular subject when your delivery is presented passive-aggressively or directly confrontational. If you have an opinion, by all means, share it but why go on the offensive towards someone who wasn't even talking to you. That's not the behavior of a rational adult who has viewpoint... that's a bully who is looking for a fight or just wants to stand on his soap box and spew to the masses. Hope you return to your old ways, because your latest incarnation just isn't nice.