PDA

View Full Version : Fans who blame the Offensive Coordinator are Stupid



Lambert
06-24-2009, 09:12 PM
Anytime your listening to a post game show or reading a message board and you
hear or read a fan complaining about the Offensive Coordinator for most of the problems, then you know you are dealing with an idiot. Fans like this are the most unintelligent we have among us. They think "they know better" than the coordinator.

How good would Lebeau's defense be if he had players equal to the ability of Colon and Starks on the outside instead of Harrison and Woodley? Ya think he might have a few problems? How about place bums equal to that of Kendall Simmons and Hartwig up the middle and remove guys like Smith and Hampton? think those 4 changes might make one's defense a bit worse?
Wake up people. Don't be the same average fan that makes his way thru life in such
ignorance. Raise your level of play here.

Acero
06-24-2009, 09:17 PM
Any time you're reading a message board and you read someone who
a) can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're";
b) continually and habitually misspells the names of players on a team he claims to be a fan of;
c) needs to create one or more fake ID's to support his points of view and avoid being banned;
d) starts up inane threads whose basic underlying premise is always "my opinion is right and anybody else's is wrong";

... then you know you're dealing with an idiot.

SidSmythe
06-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Some very valid points.

2 superbowls in the past 4 yrs. something's going right!

Lambert
06-24-2009, 09:28 PM
Some very valid points.

2 superbowls in the past 4 yrs. something's going right!

Thank you. It is pretty hard to win A superbowl when you don't have
much of an offensive line. Arians should be hailed a hero.

Name a Superbowl team that had a worse line then the Steelers offensive line
last year?

steelcityrules!!
06-24-2009, 10:47 PM
I guess having possibly the best defense in decades had nothing to do with it... it was the miracle of Ariens.

:Blah

our offense was questionable all year... and bruce ariens was not the reason we have 6 lombardi's, our defense and the 4th quarter magic of #7 are.

he's not as horrible as I think some of us believe (myself included) but he's not the critical cog by any stretch.

feltdizz
06-24-2009, 10:53 PM
I agree... but there is no need to name call MSM.. I mean Lambert.

NKySteeler
06-24-2009, 11:38 PM
I agree... but there is no need to name call MSM.. I mean Lambert.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! .... Priceless! :lol:

..... Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that Arians hasn't been getting the job done to any adequate level.... He's been "learning on the job" since he moved-up on the coaching staff... How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season) .... And isn't it amazing that we were the first Super Bowl winner in a long time that didn't have our OC targeted for a coaching position elsewhere? ....... Good grief! Arians may have been a part of the staff, but we won INSPITE of him, not BECAUSE of him......

....... What a freakin' joke........

Jom112
06-24-2009, 11:51 PM
Any time you're reading a message board and you read someone who
a) can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're";
b) continually and habitually misspells the names of players on a team he claims to be a fan of;
c) needs to create one or more fake ID's to support his points of view and avoid being banned;
d) starts up inane threads whose basic underlying premise is always "my opinion is right and anybody else's is wrong";

... then you know you're dealing with an idiot.

:Bow

feltdizz
06-25-2009, 12:38 AM
I agree... but there is no need to name call MSM.. I mean Lambert.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! .... Priceless! :lol:

..... Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that Arians hasn't been getting the job done to any adequate level.... He's been "learning on the job" since he moved-up on the coaching staff... How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season) .... And isn't it amazing that we were the first Super Bowl winner in a long time that didn't have our OC targeted for a coaching position elsewhere? ....... Good grief! Arians may have been a part of the staff, but we won INSPITE of him, not BECAUSE of him......

....... What a freakin' joke........

disagree.. while I have hated him at times.. we have also seen what happened when Ben started practicing after the Washington debacle..

Arians isn't the greatest OC but he will do IMO.. all I ask is for a FB when FWP is in the backfield...

NKySteeler
06-25-2009, 12:42 AM
Arians isn't the greatest OC but he will do IMO.. all I ask is for a FB when FWP is in the backfield...

... Good luck with that as long as Arians is at the helm....

fezziwig
06-25-2009, 07:55 AM
Any time you're reading a message board and you read someone who
a) can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're";
b) continually and habitually misspells the names of players on a team he claims to be a fan of;
c) needs to create one or more fake ID's to support his points of view and avoid being banned;
d) starts up inane threads whose basic underlying premise is always "my opinion is right and anybody else's is wrong";

... then you know you're dealing with an idiot.


:Clap

We have won despite Arians. The defense and Bens ability to keep a play alive are the reasons we have won.

As many say, with this offensive line being lack luster, all the more reason any smart O-cord would have a fullback in there with Willie. A real fullback and not Davis. Having Davis on the team shows Arians lack of knowing talent.

Mister Pittsburgh
06-25-2009, 08:04 AM
Bruce A. sucks as an OC! :nono

Oviedo
06-25-2009, 09:24 AM
I agree... but there is no need to name call MSM.. I mean Lambert.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! .... Priceless! :lol:

..... Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that Arians hasn't been getting the job done to any adequate level.... He's been "learning on the job" since he moved-up on the coaching staff... How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season) .... And isn't it amazing that we were the first Super Bowl winner in a long time that didn't have our OC targeted for a coaching position elsewhere? ....... Good grief! Arians may have been a part of the staff, but we won INSPITE of him, not BECAUSE of him......

....... What a freakin' joke........


How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season)

I will guarantee you that Manning, Warner, Favre and Brady "dictate" what they want to do. Really gets down to what you mean by "dictate." I really don't think Ben or any other QB draws up the gameplan but I will guarantee you most all successful veteran QB have significant input into the gameplan.

Arians is not better or worse off than any other OC who has a franshise QB isn this respect. Using this is a weak argument against him just to find fault.

MeetJoeGreene
06-25-2009, 09:27 AM
I don't care for BA that much as an OC.

But, to be totally fair, we do have a "Non-Stellar" offensive line.

So it is hard for me to say, without a doubt, that Arians wouldn't be "better" with a "better" O-line.

But, his lack of imagination and stubborness disturbs me.

And my 3 least favorite words are now "Single Back Set".

But I sincerly hope that something "clicks" in the O-line and with BA and the offense is on par with the defense this year.

Oviedo
06-25-2009, 09:48 AM
I don't care for BA that much as an OC.

But, to be totally fair, we do have a "Non-Stellar" offensive line.

So it is hard for me to say, without a doubt, that Arians wouldn't be "better" with a "better" O-line.

But, his lack of imagination and stubborness disturbs me.

And my 3 least favorite words are now "Single Back Set".

But I sincerly hope that something "clicks" in the O-line and with BA and the offense is on par with the defense this year.

As long as we stay healthy I expect us to have a very good offense this season. The OL will develop together and get better even though they may never be great. Mendenhall will have a huge impact IMO. Sweed and Wallace will improve as the season goes on and they get experience and they will present real challenges to opposing defenses. McDonald will be solid.

I only hope that Ben throws to Miller and Spaeth much more to loosen up the defenses. That is the one element of this offense I want to see much more of.

ramblinjim
06-25-2009, 09:48 AM
I don't care for BA that much as an OC.

But, to be totally fair, we do have a "Non-Stellar" offensive line.

So it is hard for me to say, without a doubt, that Arians wouldn't be "better" with a "better" O-line.

But, his lack of imagination and stubborness disturbs me.

And my 3 least favorite words are now "Single Back Set".

But I sincerly hope that something "clicks" in the O-line and with BA and the offense is on par with the defense this year.


MJG - I'm with you. If the offense is on par with the defense we could be one of the most dominate teams in the history of the NFL. Now let me throw some salt over my shoulder.............

RuthlessBurgher
06-25-2009, 10:13 AM
I agree... but there is no need to name call MSM.. I mean Lambert.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! .... Priceless! :lol:

..... Anyway, anyone with half a brain knows that Arians hasn't been getting the job done to any adequate level.... He's been "learning on the job" since he moved-up on the coaching staff... How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season) .... And isn't it amazing that we were the first Super Bowl winner in a long time that didn't have our OC targeted for a coaching position elsewhere? ....... Good grief! Arians may have been a part of the staff, but we won INSPITE of him, not BECAUSE of him......

....... What a freakin' joke........


How many teams tollerate the qb dictating to the OC as to what to do with the offense? (if, in fact, that actually happened last season)

I will guarantee you that Manning, Warner, Favre and Brady "dictate" what they want to do. Really gets down to what you mean by "dictate." I really don't think Ben or any other QB draws up the gameplan but I will guarantee you most all successful veteran QB have significant input into the gameplan.

Arians is not better or worse off than any other OC who has a franshise QB isn this respect. Using this is a weak argument against him just to find fault.

Nothing was more striking than Peyton Manning telling the punt team to get off the field in the '05 playoff game against us (when they hadn't yet crossed the 50 yard line and there was still plenty of time left in the game). Even though he managed to get the first down, that seemed like a slap in the face to Dungy to me.

fezziwig
06-25-2009, 04:42 PM
If Arians was so good, why doesn't his name ever come up as being a head coach ?

I'm not always big on stats but look up Arians stats as a coach, his stats are pathetic. One of the few times that the stats tell the whole truth.

True Fan
06-25-2009, 05:12 PM
good coaches realize their teams strengths and weaknesses and coach(playcall and scheme) accordingly. BA is mediocre at this.

BURGH86STEEL
06-25-2009, 05:15 PM
If Arians was so good, why doesn't his name ever come up as being a head coach ?

I'm not always big on stats but look up Arians stats as a coach, his stats are pathetic. One of the few times that the stats tell the whole truth.

There are a lot of good OC's and DC's that never get consideration for HC jobs. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. I think some fans place way to much blame on Arians for the offenses struggles. 90% of what happens on the field is on the players. People will always question the play calling. Especially when the players do not execute properly. That was something that happened a lot last year.

The flip side to your statement, if Arians is so bad how did he last this long in the league?

Flasteel
06-25-2009, 05:58 PM
If Arians was so good, why doesn't his name ever come up as being a head coach ?

I'm not always big on stats but look up Arians stats as a coach, his stats are pathetic. One of the few times that the stats tell the whole truth.

There are a lot of good OC's and DC's that never get consideration for HC jobs. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. I think some fans place way to much blame on Arians for the offenses struggles. 90% of what happens on the field is on the players. People will always question the play calling. Especially when the players do not execute properly. That was something that happened a lot last year.

The flip side to your statement, if Arians is so bad how did he last this long in the league?

He's been primarily a position coach his entire time in the league. The only other shot he's ever been given as an OC came after he was Peyton Manning's position coach...that will make anyone look pretty good. He was horrible as the Stains OC and he only got that same gig here because Tomlin wanted some continuity and Arians had the experience at the position. Other than that he's never received an NFL promotion.

He didn't make as many glaring mistakes as his first year on the job but his philosophies and weak play calling are still holding this offense back.

BURGH86STEEL
06-26-2009, 11:07 PM
If Arians was so good, why doesn't his name ever come up as being a head coach ?

I'm not always big on stats but look up Arians stats as a coach, his stats are pathetic. One of the few times that the stats tell the whole truth.

There are a lot of good OC's and DC's that never get consideration for HC jobs. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. I think some fans place way to much blame on Arians for the offenses struggles. 90% of what happens on the field is on the players. People will always question the play calling. Especially when the players do not execute properly. That was something that happened a lot last year.

The flip side to your statement, if Arians is so bad how did he last this long in the league?

He's been primarily a position coach his entire time in the league. The only other shot he's ever been given as an OC came after he was Peyton Manning's position coach...that will make anyone look pretty good. He was horrible as the Stains OC and he only got that same gig here because Tomlin wanted some continuity and Arians had the experience at the position. Other than that he's never received an NFL promotion.

He didn't make as many glaring mistakes as his first year on the job but his philosophies and weak play calling are still holding this offense back.

People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-27-2009, 12:24 AM
Sorry, I disagree with those who think Ariens is decent.

You could take someone who knows nothing about football, some Amazon forest native who's never even seen civilization, sit him down and say something lke:

1) OK, this guy did this, and something bad happened. (Ariens runs FWP up the middle, negative 2 yards).

2) OK, this same guy did the same thing, and something bad happened again.

3) OK, this same guy did the same thing AGAIN, and the SAME bad thing happened.

Jungle man says: Only stupid man does same thing over and over and expect different results.

Ariens seems to be just a card or two short of a full deck when it comes to game planning, or more accurately, to game time adjustments. The only times I remember being impressed with him (and that was VERY rarely) was always before half-time. I can't remember anything but grief after that, where he's concerned.

Flasteel
06-27-2009, 12:40 AM
People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

It does go both ways brother but I don't know where you get 90% falling on the players. I don't even understand how you could arrive at such a skewed estimation. In my opinion it's far more approximate to 50-50 but I agree that you can't win championships without the talent...'cause someone else is always gonna have it. I'm sure if you spent enough time you could come up with plenty of examples where good coaches found some success in the absence of talent. But part of being a good coach is not only recognizing and obtaining said talent, but taking players with untapped potential and turning them into talent. It also involves putting players in a position to maximize their skill set and take advantage of their opponent match-ups. Good coaches win because they do those things.

Less qualified coaches might have their deficiencies masked by falling ass-backwards into talent. Let's look at our offense as an example. A top-3 quarterback (by most of our accounts), Pro Bowl running back, Hall of Fame caliber receiver, an up and coming receiver who happens to be the most recent Super Bowl MVP, one of the best all-around tight ends in the game and our offense still was mediocre at best. Yeah the offensive line was...well, offensive at times, but operated pretty damn well down the stretch. The only times our offense was consistently effective was in the no-huddle and two minute offense. Guess who was removed from the equation in those situations...your boy.

If this were a case of simply looking at the outcomes and assessing blame then I could see how you might think that it's illogical. I (like most of the Steeler fans who have issues with Arians) am basing my opinion on tangible things that I see, or in many cases the things that I don't see. It doesn't take an NFL coach to have sound knowledge of the game. I was a high school coach for many years, no football genius by any stretch, but enough of a rudimentary knowledge to be aghast at some of his playcalling and philosophies. I've argued them many times with you in the past and I don't feel the need to run down the entire list again.

Believe me, I'm not trying to change your opinion now, but you have zero room to call the flack thrown towards Arians illogical.

Captain Lemming
06-27-2009, 03:01 AM
He didn't make as many glaring mistakes as his first year on the job.

Hmmm, you mean the season when despite a bad oline, injuries resulting in a bad run game for half the season, his QB has the best statistical season EVER for a Steeler QB?

The season when Ben played in one less game, has fewer passing attempts, yet threw nearly twice as many TDs as last year? 106 QB rating?

The same year when Willie was leading the league in rushing with a bad line before getting hurt?

Yes, we lost in the playoffs that year. Ben gets sacked 6 times, we still score 29 against a dominant defense, and lose because we let David Garrard look like Jim Brown on the way to 30 plus points. But it is the OCs fault, not the genius who can do no wrong, who coached the D.

Oline has been our weakness for years, and we draft THREE LINEBACKERS in the past couple of drafts ahead of any Olinemen. This oline gets no love and despite a weak oline, NOBODY has stopped this offense in the postseason during the Arians era. NOBODY. But the offense is "carried" by the defense to its championship?

Hmmm, First two seasons as coordinator:
Arians leads a record breaking offense one year, and has a championship the next, despite RB injuries and a bad Oline resulting in a beat up QB both years.

Yeah, fire the bum. :roll:

BURGH86STEEL
06-27-2009, 08:38 AM
People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

It does go both ways brother but I don't know where you get 90% falling on the players. I don't even understand how you could arrive at such a skewed estimation. In my opinion it's far more approximate to 50-50 but I agree that you can't win championships without the talent...'cause someone else is always gonna have it. I'm sure if you spent enough time you could come up with plenty of examples where good coaches found some success in the absence of talent. But part of being a good coach is not only recognizing and obtaining said talent, but taking players with untapped potential and turning them into talent. It also involves putting players in a position to maximize their skill set and take advantage of their opponent match-ups. Good coaches win because they do those things.

Less qualified coaches might have their deficiencies masked by falling ass-backwards into talent. Let's look at our offense as an example. A top-3 quarterback (by most of our accounts), Pro Bowl running back, Hall of Fame caliber receiver, an up and coming receiver who happens to be the most recent Super Bowl MVP, one of the best all-around tight ends in the game and our offense still was mediocre at best. Yeah the offensive line was...well, offensive at times, but operated pretty damn well down the stretch. The only times our offense was consistently effective was in the no-huddle and two minute offense. Guess who was removed from the equation in those situations...your boy.

If this were a case of simply looking at the outcomes and assessing blame then I could see how you might think that it's illogical. I (like most of the Steeler fans who have issues with Arians) am basing my opinion on tangible things that I see, or in many cases the things that I don't see. It doesn't take an NFL coach to have sound knowledge of the game. I was a high school coach for many years, no football genius by any stretch, but enough of a rudimentary knowledge to be aghast at some of his playcalling and philosophies. I've argued them many times with you in the past and I don't feel the need to run down the entire list again.

Believe me, I'm not trying to change your opinion now, but you have zero room to call the flack thrown towards Arians illogical.

90% may be a little extreme but most of what happens falls on how the players perform. I don't believe it is anywhere near 50%. We have witnessed it over and over again throughout the history of the league. Billichick in Cleveland(no talent) and NE (talent), Lebeau in Cincy (no talent), Switzer with the Cowboys(talent), Shanahan with Denver (before and after Elway), there are others. Players make coaches look like "geniuses". Not sure how many coaches you will find that win without talent.

When people want to put most of the blame on Arians, I believe it is illogical. Especially when fans know that the QB and Oline were inconsistent. Injuries (RBs and Oline) and poor execution also played a part in those inconsistencies. We did not have a QB that played like a top 3 QB last season. We did not have an Oline that played consistently well. We did not have a healthy pro-bowl caliber RB last season. Those are the facts that people ignore.

Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is also the same guy that had faith in Ben to give him that freedom. So I don't believe he was removed from the situation. One thing that did happen was the players executed better in those situations. If they had executed better during the coarse of games, they might not had been in that situation at the end.

People have a problem with the way that Arians calls plays right? What I know about fans is that they will never agree 100% with play calling. People complained about the play calling with every OC that coordinated the Steelers.

I think when fans want to give him majority of the blame and call for his job without looking at the other issues on offense is illogical. Lebeau has all he needs to have a number one defense, right? Does Arians have all he needs to make the offense better? I doubt you will find many that agree. There are things Arians can do better but he is not as bad as some make it. People forget the good plays he called. Poor execution by the players usually makes fans forget.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-27-2009, 09:21 AM
People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

It does go both ways brother but I don't know where you get 90% falling on the players. I don't even understand how you could arrive at such a skewed estimation. In my opinion it's far more approximate to 50-50 but I agree that you can't win championships without the talent...'cause someone else is always gonna have it. I'm sure if you spent enough time you could come up with plenty of examples where good coaches found some success in the absence of talent. But part of being a good coach is not only recognizing and obtaining said talent, but taking players with untapped potential and turning them into talent. It also involves putting players in a position to maximize their skill set and take advantage of their opponent match-ups. Good coaches win because they do those things.

Less qualified coaches might have their deficiencies masked by falling ass-backwards into talent. Let's look at our offense as an example. A top-3 quarterback (by most of our accounts), Pro Bowl running back, Hall of Fame caliber receiver, an up and coming receiver who happens to be the most recent Super Bowl MVP, one of the best all-around tight ends in the game and our offense still was mediocre at best. Yeah the offensive line was...well, offensive at times, but operated pretty damn well down the stretch. The only times our offense was consistently effective was in the no-huddle and two minute offense. Guess who was removed from the equation in those situations...your boy.

If this were a case of simply looking at the outcomes and assessing blame then I could see how you might think that it's illogical. I (like most of the Steeler fans who have issues with Arians) am basing my opinion on tangible things that I see, or in many cases the things that I don't see. It doesn't take an NFL coach to have sound knowledge of the game. I was a high school coach for many years, no football genius by any stretch, but enough of a rudimentary knowledge to be aghast at some of his playcalling and philosophies. I've argued them many times with you in the past and I don't feel the need to run down the entire list again.

Believe me, I'm not trying to change your opinion now, but you have zero room to call the flack thrown towards Arians illogical.

90% may be a little extreme but most of what happens falls on how the players perform. I don't believe it is anywhere near 50%. We have witnessed it over and over again throughout the history of the league. Billichick in Cleveland(no talent) and NE (talent), Lebeau in Cincy (no talent), Switzer with the Cowboys(talent), Shanahan with Denver (before and after Elway), there are others. Players make coaches look like "geniuses". Not sure how many coaches you will find that win without talent.

When people want to put most of the blame on Arians, I believe it is illogical. Especially when fans know that the QB and Oline were inconsistent. Injuries (RBs and Oline) and poor execution also played a part in those inconsistencies. We did not have a QB that played like a top 3 QB last season. We did not have an Oline that played consistently well. We did not have a healthy pro-bowl caliber RB last season. Those are the facts that people ignore.

Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is also the same guy that had faith in Ben to give him that freedom. So I don't believe he was removed from the situation. One thing that did happen was the players executed better in those situations. If they had executed better during the coarse of games, they might not had been in that situation at the end.

People have a problem with the way that Arians calls plays right? What I know about fans is that they will never agree 100% with play calling. People complained about the play calling with every OC that coordinated the Steelers.

I think when fans want to give him majority of the blame and call for his job without looking at the other issues on offense is illogical. Lebeau has all he needs to have a number one defense, right? Does Arians have all he needs to make the offense better? I doubt you will find many that agree. There are things Arians can do better but he is not as bad as some make it. People forget the good plays he called. Poor execution by the players usually makes fans forget.

Well, actually, I think he is...

Why did it take, what, two seasons?, for Ariens to stop calling 7 step drop back passes when the O-line is like a sieve? How many seasons will that unnecessarily take off Big Ben's career?

Why does he call the same play over and over and over (FWP up the middle, minus 1 yard average)? How much did that play calling contribute to FWP getting injured?

With the ****ty O-line he has had for most of the past 2 years, why won't he run more plays to keep the D-line from teeing off on Ben - roll outs, sweeps, etc?

Flasteel
06-27-2009, 10:30 AM
He didn't make as many glaring mistakes as his first year on the job.

Hmmm, you mean the season when despite a bad oline, injuries resulting in a bad run game for half the season, his QB has the best statistical season EVER for a Steeler QB?

The season when Ben played in one less game, has fewer passing attempts, yet threw nearly twice as many TDs as last year? 106 QB rating?

The same year when Willie was leading the league in rushing with a bad line before getting hurt?

Yes, we lost in the playoffs that year. Ben gets sacked 6 times, we still score 29 against a dominant defense, and lose because we let David Garrard look like Jim Brown on the way to 30 plus points. But it is the OCs fault, not the genius who can do no wrong, who coached the D.

Oline has been our weakness for years, and we draft THREE LINEBACKERS in the past couple of drafts ahead of any Olinemen. This oline gets no love and despite a weak oline, NOBODY has stopped this offense in the postseason during the Arians era. NOBODY. But the offense is "carried" by the defense to its championship?

Hmmm, First two seasons as coordinator:
Arians leads a record breaking offense one year, and has a championship the next, despite RB injuries and a bad Oline resulting in a beat up QB both years.

Yeah, fire the bum. :roll:

Yeah that's it Lemming, let's equate a player's stats with the overall job performance of the OC. Let's forget about the record number of sacks our quarterback endured while Arians sat by and did absolutely NOTHING to tactically account for the pressure. Blame the oline or Ben holding on to the ball all you want but any pee wee coach can adjust what the offense does to slow down the rush and he did next to nothing. We ran screens maybe twice a game, no quick hitting pass plays (until the first drive of the Jags playoff game....then it disappeared after the TD), no draws, no roll-outs, and the no-huddle was broke out for a series maybe every other game. He could have done any of these things instead of dropping Ben straight back every play, but he didn't.

We won't even go into the under-utilization of Miller, the public dismissing of the three-step drop, or changing out a blocking back to a receiving fullback who never gets the ball. We won't mention the goal line play-calling or the epic turtle job in the playoffs either.

As far as record breaking offenses go, maybe you need to look up some stats before you go touting the job he did. The only records broke were individual passing efficiency and TD pass records by Ben as well as the number of times he got dumped on his ass. The passing TDs took away from the running scores and were actually somewhat symptomatic of his wretched goal line playcalling. We were pedestrian at best this year and our running game was middle of the road in '07 despite Willie's individual success.

I couldn't agree more about the lack of focus along the line and it should give Arians some leeway. Anybody's displeasure with the guy would have to be tempered by that reality. It does not however excuse the obvious mistakes and philosophical incompatibilities with our players (in terms of consistently moving the ball and scoring points).

As much as I thought he was incompetent, I made it a point to say that you don't fire the man after one year on the job. It makes the HC look bad and it doesn't give the OC the chance to learn from his mistakes. After a second year on the job, I've seen some slight improvement in play-calling, but his philosophies and overall tendencies are still hand-cuffing this team in my opinion (which I share with a few million others).

BURGH86STEEL
06-27-2009, 11:43 AM
People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

It does go both ways brother but I don't know where you get 90% falling on the players. I don't even understand how you could arrive at such a skewed estimation. In my opinion it's far more approximate to 50-50 but I agree that you can't win championships without the talent...'cause someone else is always gonna have it. I'm sure if you spent enough time you could come up with plenty of examples where good coaches found some success in the absence of talent. But part of being a good coach is not only recognizing and obtaining said talent, but taking players with untapped potential and turning them into talent. It also involves putting players in a position to maximize their skill set and take advantage of their opponent match-ups. Good coaches win because they do those things.

Less qualified coaches might have their deficiencies masked by falling ass-backwards into talent. Let's look at our offense as an example. A top-3 quarterback (by most of our accounts), Pro Bowl running back, Hall of Fame caliber receiver, an up and coming receiver who happens to be the most recent Super Bowl MVP, one of the best all-around tight ends in the game and our offense still was mediocre at best. Yeah the offensive line was...well, offensive at times, but operated pretty damn well down the stretch. The only times our offense was consistently effective was in the no-huddle and two minute offense. Guess who was removed from the equation in those situations...your boy.

If this were a case of simply looking at the outcomes and assessing blame then I could see how you might think that it's illogical. I (like most of the Steeler fans who have issues with Arians) am basing my opinion on tangible things that I see, or in many cases the things that I don't see. It doesn't take an NFL coach to have sound knowledge of the game. I was a high school coach for many years, no football genius by any stretch, but enough of a rudimentary knowledge to be aghast at some of his playcalling and philosophies. I've argued them many times with you in the past and I don't feel the need to run down the entire list again.

Believe me, I'm not trying to change your opinion now, but you have zero room to call the flack thrown towards Arians illogical.

90% may be a little extreme but most of what happens falls on how the players perform. I don't believe it is anywhere near 50%. We have witnessed it over and over again throughout the history of the league. Billichick in Cleveland(no talent) and NE (talent), Lebeau in Cincy (no talent), Switzer with the Cowboys(talent), Shanahan with Denver (before and after Elway), there are others. Players make coaches look like "geniuses". Not sure how many coaches you will find that win without talent.

When people want to put most of the blame on Arians, I believe it is illogical. Especially when fans know that the QB and Oline were inconsistent. Injuries (RBs and Oline) and poor execution also played a part in those inconsistencies. We did not have a QB that played like a top 3 QB last season. We did not have an Oline that played consistently well. We did not have a healthy pro-bowl caliber RB last season. Those are the facts that people ignore.

Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is also the same guy that had faith in Ben to give him that freedom. So I don't believe he was removed from the situation. One thing that did happen was the players executed better in those situations. If they had executed better during the coarse of games, they might not had been in that situation at the end.

People have a problem with the way that Arians calls plays right? What I know about fans is that they will never agree 100% with play calling. People complained about the play calling with every OC that coordinated the Steelers.

I think when fans want to give him majority of the blame and call for his job without looking at the other issues on offense is illogical. Lebeau has all he needs to have a number one defense, right? Does Arians have all he needs to make the offense better? I doubt you will find many that agree. There are things Arians can do better but he is not as bad as some make it. People forget the good plays he called. Poor execution by the players usually makes fans forget.

Well, actually, I think he is...

Why did it take, what, two seasons?, for Ariens to stop calling 7 step drop back passes when the O-line is like a sieve? How many seasons will that unnecessarily take off Big Ben's career?

Why does he call the same play over and over and over (FWP up the middle, minus 1 yard average)? How much did that play calling contribute to FWP getting injured?

With the ****ty O-line he has had for most of the past 2 years, why won't he run more plays to keep the D-line from teeing off on Ben - roll outs, sweeps, etc?

Arians has been the OC for two years now. I dont believe he stopped calling 7 step drops in that time. There are times that Ben had time on those 7 step drops. There are times he did not. There are times when Ben under threw WRs or the WRs dropped passes. There were times he did not have a lot of time on the 3 step drops or the WR is not open. It would take a lot of analysis and research to determine everything that happened on those plays. We do not get to see the game film to always determine what happened on the field. What seems to stick out in a lot of people's minds are the plays that do not produce. I tend to lean on the side of execution as opposed to play calling. Teams generally know what is going to be called. They have statisticians and computers that compute trends and tendencies in offenses and defenses. Players and coaches watch hours of film. That is why I lean on the side of better execution wins games.

He called the run plays up the middle for a reason. All coaches call run plays up the middle. Should he stop because it is not as successful as some like? Maybe he and Tomlin need to gauge what needs to be improved? After all, the Oline is a work in progress. Only way to improve is to try and try again against opposition. He has to have faith that his guys can get it done. It was successful at times. The consistency and injuries have been a problem. Parker may not be the most successful inside runner but up until last year, he was tough and durable enough to run inside. Whiz ran Parker in the middle, did anyone question him? I suppose they did, just not as much.

Hard to believe that some people suggest play calling injured the most oft injured position in the NFL. There was a long list of RBs that were injured last season. Did those coaches play calling contribute to those RB's injuries? I doubt that was the case based on knowing the short life of RB's in the league. It's one reason why the Steelers drafted Mendenhall.

How many roll outs and sweeps would you suggest the offense run? How many teams have those plays as staples of an offense? Can the current Oline run those plays? I dont think they are the most mobile group the Steelers had. Maybe they feel running roll outs and sweeps would make it easier for defenses? After all, one side of the field is taken away. The options would be limited for Ben. They can run more rolls outs, sweeps, ect but would it make that much of a difference in the amount of hits Ben takes? I am not so sure. One thing that will help extend Ben's career is if he can make quicker decisions with the football. There are many times that he holds onto the ball to long and takes unnecessary hits.

Just remember that Lebeau had/has better ingredients to work with than Arians.

AngryAsian
06-27-2009, 12:18 PM
Yeah that's it Lemming, let's equate a player's stats with the overall job performance of the OC. Let's forget about the record number of sacks our quarterback endured while Arians sat by and did absolutely NOTHING to tactically account for the pressure. Blame the oline or Ben holding on to the ball all you want but any pee wee coach can adjust what the offense does to slow down the rush and he did next to nothing. We ran screens maybe twice a game, no quick hitting pass plays (until the first drive of the Jags playoff game....then it disappeared after the TD), no draws, no roll-outs, and the no-huddle was broke out for a series maybe every other game. He could have done any of these things instead of dropping Ben straight back every play, but he didn't.

We won't even go into the under-utilization of Miller, the public dismissing of the three-step drop, or changing out a blocking back to a receiving fullback who never gets the ball. We won't mention the goal line play-calling or the epic turtle job in the playoffs either.

As far as record breaking offenses go, maybe you need to look up some stats before you go touting the job he did. The only records broke were individual passing efficiency and TD pass records by Ben as well as the number of times he got dumped on his ass. The passing TDs took away from the running scores and were actually somewhat symptomatic of his wretched goal line playcalling. We were pedestrian at best this year and our running game was middle of the road in '07 despite Willie's individual success.

I couldn't agree more about the lack of focus along the line and it should give Arians some leeway. Anybody's displeasure with the guy would have to be tempered by that reality. It does not however excuse the obvious mistakes and philosophical incompatibilities with our players (in terms of consistently moving the ball and scoring points).

As much as I thought he was incompetent, I made it a point to say that you don't fire the man after one year on the job. It makes the HC look bad and it doesn't give the OC the chance to learn from his mistakes. After a second year on the job, I've seen some slight improvement in play-calling, but his philosophies and overall tendencies are still hand-cuffing this team in my opinion (which I share with a few million others).


HOME RUN!!!

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08TC6Pm0hG2vb/340x.jpg

RuthlessBurgher
06-27-2009, 04:32 PM
Jungle man says: Only stupid man does same thing over and over and expect different results.

Some dude named Einstein said that once too...

http://newjerseybanditsigns.info/images/insanity-einstein_2.gif

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-27-2009, 08:56 PM
Jungle man says: Only stupid man does same thing over and over and expect different results.

Some dude named Einstein said that once too...

http://newjerseybanditsigns.info/images/insanity-einstein_2.gif


See, Jungle Man is smarter than Ariens!

(Sorry guys, I do hope Ariens does better this year, he is after all our OC. I will give him one or two games, but if he goes back to being a poster child for the uneducable, I will have to consider substance abuse to get through the season).

NorthCoast
06-28-2009, 08:36 PM
If Arians was so good, why doesn't his name ever come up as being a head coach ?

I'm not always big on stats but look up Arians stats as a coach, his stats are pathetic. One of the few times that the stats tell the whole truth.

There are a lot of good OC's and DC's that never get consideration for HC jobs. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. I think some fans place way to much blame on Arians for the offenses struggles. 90% of what happens on the field is on the players. People will always question the play calling. Especially when the players do not execute properly. That was something that happened a lot last year.

The flip side to your statement, if Arians is so bad how did he last this long in the league?

He's been primarily a position coach his entire time in the league. The only other shot he's ever been given as an OC came after he was Peyton Manning's position coach...that will make anyone look pretty good. He was horrible as the Stains OC and he only got that same gig here because Tomlin wanted some continuity and Arians had the experience at the position. Other than that he's never received an NFL promotion.

He didn't make as many glaring mistakes as his first year on the job but his philosophies and weak play calling are still holding this offense back.

People are unfair with their criticisms towards Arians. A lot of people understand that the players on offense were inconsistent. 90% of what happens falls on the players. It starts with poor execution. Have to factor injuries into the equation. The other factors are staring people right in the face, yet they fail to acknowledge those factors. Tomlin takes those factors into consideration and realizes that it is not all on Arians. Yet, we still get fans that want to put a majority of the blame on Arians. This is something that I do not understand. It is illogical.

Have to have the players to succeed in the NFL. Greatest coaches in the league never succeed without the players. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the players perform.

Not buying what you're selling....Arians offenses as an OC over the years have never broken into the top 15. Players come and go, teams come and go, but eventually the mix should be good enough to win consistently. Calling plays that your players and talent are good at executing is the primary responsibility of the coordinator. If you don't have players that fit your system, you change the system or change the players....Arians does neither.

fezziwig
06-29-2009, 11:25 AM
I remember Arians as the Cleveland OC and you can thank him for at least a couple of our Steeler wins against them. Can't recall the exact facts, reasons or games but, I do remember thinking, " their offense does some stupid stuff and their OC must be an idiot. "


I thought so little of him as a Cleveland coach I was ticked to no end when Cowher hired him as our receivers coach. I didn't want him near our players because he is that bad.

Our defense is the reason why we have had success and with a couple of good offensive players and Ben on the fly is why our offense can generate anything at all. If it wasn't for some broken plays that really went againts the odds, we wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl.

For those that think Arians is a good coach, here's just couple of his coaching schemes you can enjoy.

We have a lack luster offensive line, let's get rid of our fullback.

We have a slice and dice runningback in Parker, let's make him try to go up against a stacked box.

Coaches Ben to take practically every snap the second the clock runs out. No sense making the defense second guess on their side of the ball.

Oviedo
07-01-2009, 10:21 AM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Flasteel
07-01-2009, 07:01 PM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Last time I checked nobody was using statistical rankings as the crux of their argument against Arians. I also believe that anyone who criticizes the job he's done has to acknowledge the impact of our offensive and at least place that into the equation. Neither that consideration nor the fact that we hoisted our sixth Lombardi should obfuscate the point that Arians has demonstrated a largely unimaginitive attack and done next to nothing to tactically compensate for the offensive line problems. Those of you who support this guy are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are who call you blind.

Oviedo
07-01-2009, 09:06 PM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Last time I checked nobody was using statistical rankings as the crux of their argument against Arians. I also believe that anyone who criticizes the job he's done has to acknowledge the impact of our offensive and at least place that into the equation. Neither that consideration nor the fact that we hoisted our sixth Lombardi should obfuscate the point that Arians has demonstrated a largely unimaginitive attack and done next to nothing to tactically compensate for the offensive line problems. Those of you who support this guy are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are who call you blind.

Who is getting Mike Tomlin his seeing eye dog because he is clearly in the same company as the rest of us blind ones? But then again his opinion actually matters.

Flasteel
07-01-2009, 09:26 PM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Last time I checked nobody was using statistical rankings as the crux of their argument against Arians. I also believe that anyone who criticizes the job he's done has to acknowledge the impact of our offensive and at least place that into the equation. Neither that consideration nor the fact that we hoisted our sixth Lombardi should obfuscate the point that Arians has demonstrated a largely unimaginitive attack and done next to nothing to tactically compensate for the offensive line problems. Those of you who support this guy are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are who call you blind.

Who is getting Mike Tomlin his seeing eye dog because he is clearly in the same company as the rest of us blind ones? But then again his opinion actually matters.

Because the man was not fired provides no insight as to Tomlin's feelings. Hell, even I advocated that you couldn't fire him after one year or it makes you look bad as the guy who gave him the job in the first place. I also stated that it's tough to fire a coordinator following a Super Bowl victory. Maybe Tomlin saw enough progress in the playoffs to simply put a short leash on his OC for next year and see what transpires. Maybe he isn't quick to pull the trigger on such major decisions and wants to see how Arians can bounce back. Maybe Arians would have been fired had we not won the whole enchilada.

The fact is that we don't know what Mike Tomlin thinks of the job Bruce Arians is doing and he's not going to come out and say anything negative about his performance.

At least those who are critical of Arians can point to tangible evidence to support their argument. Those who think that Arians is doing a good job place the blame on a poor offensive line and cannot support their argument beyond that. I say it's a mix of the two with Arians leading the parade. We'll see how it all unfolds. You guys just remember your position on this and I'll remember mine.

SteelTorch
07-01-2009, 11:23 PM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Last time I checked nobody was using statistical rankings as the crux of their argument against Arians. I also believe that anyone who criticizes the job he's done has to acknowledge the impact of our offensive and at least place that into the equation. Neither that consideration nor the fact that we hoisted our sixth Lombardi should obfuscate the point that Arians has demonstrated a largely unimaginitive attack and done next to nothing to tactically compensate for the offensive line problems. Those of you who support this guy are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are who call you blind.

Who is getting Mike Tomlin his seeing eye dog because he is clearly in the same company as the rest of us blind ones? But then again his opinion actually matters.

Because the man was not fired provides no insight as to Tomlin's feelings. Hell, even I advocated that you couldn't fire him after one year or it makes you look bad as the guy who gave him the job in the first place. I also stated that it's tough to fire a coordinator following a Super Bowl victory. Maybe Tomlin saw enough progress in the playoffs to simply put a short leash on his OC for next year and see what transpires. Maybe he isn't quick to pull the trigger on such major decisions and wants to see how Arians can bounce back. Maybe Arians would have been fired had we not won the whole enchilada.

The fact is that we don't know what Mike Tomlin thinks of the job Bruce Arians is doing and he's not going to come out and say anything negative about his performance.

At least those who are critical of Arians can point to tangible evidence to support their argument. Those who think that Arians is doing a good job place the blame on a poor offensive line and cannot support their argument beyond that. I say it's a mix of the two with Arians leading the parade. We'll see how it all unfolds. You guys just remember your position on this and I'll remember mine.
Great post, and I pretty much agree on all parts.

As has also been said, Arians has never run a competent offense, nor has he demonstrated an adequate understanding of the capabilities of the players. And are we forgetting - this is the same man who ran Willie Parker up the middle on every first down for the entire second half against Baltimore in the AFC playoffs. Is that the kind of mind we want on offense???

Love him or hate him though, please please PLEASE for the love of God do NOT say he was 'good enough to win us an SB'. NO - correlation does not equal causation. He was not good enough. LeBeau and the D, Big Ben, and Tomlin were good enough to fish Arians' sorry ass out of the fire to win us the SB.

BURGH86STEEL
07-01-2009, 11:50 PM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

Last time I checked nobody was using statistical rankings as the crux of their argument against Arians. I also believe that anyone who criticizes the job he's done has to acknowledge the impact of our offensive and at least place that into the equation. Neither that consideration nor the fact that we hoisted our sixth Lombardi should obfuscate the point that Arians has demonstrated a largely unimaginitive attack and done next to nothing to tactically compensate for the offensive line problems. Those of you who support this guy are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are who call you blind.

Who is getting Mike Tomlin his seeing eye dog because he is clearly in the same company as the rest of us blind ones? But then again his opinion actually matters.

Because the man was not fired provides no insight as to Tomlin's feelings. Hell, even I advocated that you couldn't fire him after one year or it makes you look bad as the guy who gave him the job in the first place. I also stated that it's tough to fire a coordinator following a Super Bowl victory. Maybe Tomlin saw enough progress in the playoffs to simply put a short leash on his OC for next year and see what transpires. Maybe he isn't quick to pull the trigger on such major decisions and wants to see how Arians can bounce back. Maybe Arians would have been fired had we not won the whole enchilada.

The fact is that we don't know what Mike Tomlin thinks of the job Bruce Arians is doing and he's not going to come out and say anything negative about his performance.

At least those who are critical of Arians can point to tangible evidence to support their argument. Those who think that Arians is doing a good job place the blame on a poor offensive line and cannot support their argument beyond that. I say it's a mix of the two with Arians leading the parade. We'll see how it all unfolds. You guys just remember your position on this and I'll remember mine.
Great post, and I pretty much agree on all parts.

As has also been said, Arians has never run a competent offense, nor has he demonstrated an adequate understanding of the capabilities of the players. And are we forgetting - this is the same man who ran Willie Parker up the middle on every first down for the entire second half against Baltimore in the AFC playoffs. Is that the kind of mind we want on offense???

Love him or hate him though, please please PLEASE for the love of God do NOT say he was 'good enough to win us an SB'. NO - correlation does not equal causation. He was not good enough. LeBeau and the D, Big Ben, and Tomlin were good enough to fish Arians' sorry bad word out of the fire to win us the SB.

Arians was good enough to help the team win the SB. He called a pretty good game in the SB. Rewatch the game. In a team sport like football, everybody deserves credit. It just goes to show when people don't want to give the guy credit or say he was not good enough, it really shows how badly they have it out for him.

Flasteel
07-02-2009, 12:28 AM
Who is getting Mike Tomlin his seeing eye dog because he is clearly in the same company as the rest of us blind ones? But then again his opinion actually matters.

Because the man was not fired provides no insight as to Tomlin's feelings. Hell, even I advocated that you couldn't fire him after one year or it makes you look bad as the guy who gave him the job in the first place. I also stated that it's tough to fire a coordinator following a Super Bowl victory. Maybe Tomlin saw enough progress in the playoffs to simply put a short leash on his OC for next year and see what transpires. Maybe he isn't quick to pull the trigger on such major decisions and wants to see how Arians can bounce back. Maybe Arians would have been fired had we not won the whole enchilada.

The fact is that we don't know what Mike Tomlin thinks of the job Bruce Arians is doing and he's not going to come out and say anything negative about his performance.

At least those who are critical of Arians can point to tangible evidence to support their argument. Those who think that Arians is doing a good job place the blame on a poor offensive line and cannot support their argument beyond that. I say it's a mix of the two with Arians leading the parade. We'll see how it all unfolds. You guys just remember your position on this and I'll remember mine.
Great post, and I pretty much agree on all parts.

As has also been said, Arians has never run a competent offense, nor has he demonstrated an adequate understanding of the capabilities of the players. And are we forgetting - this is the same man who ran Willie Parker up the middle on every first down for the entire second half against Baltimore in the AFC playoffs. Is that the kind of mind we want on offense???

Love him or hate him though, please please PLEASE for the love of God do NOT say he was 'good enough to win us an SB'. NO - correlation does not equal causation. He was not good enough. LeBeau and the D, Big Ben, and Tomlin were good enough to fish Arians' sorry bad word out of the fire to win us the SB.

Arians was good enough to help the team win the SB. He called a pretty good game in the SB. Rewatch the game. In a team sport like football, everybody deserves credit. It just goes to show when people don't want to give the guy credit or say he was not good enough, it really shows how badly they have it out for him.

I don't think his deficiencies were really on display in the Super Bowl or the playoffs. We ran up against a stout Baltimore defense in the AFCC game and although there were some dull offensive moments, we moved the ball fairly well against a semi-decent Zona defense. Again, this doesn't mask the continual problems we've seen from Arians since he became the OC. It just is what it is gentlemen. Why would any of us be out to get Arians? Did he go around banging all of our girlfiends? Did he get anyone fired from their job? Does he go around beating up old ladies? Does he smell bad? Look weird? WHAT?

Nobody has it in for him for any reason other than their opinion on how poorly our offense has been run for the past two seasons. That's pretty much it. If you want to give him credit for the Super Bowl, then fine, go ahead...hey, he's got a ring just like everyone else. But if you want to say that he's done a good job as the OC and hold the championship as evidence or point to the offensive line problems as an excuse, then you are not seeing the proverbial forest through the trees.

Captain Lemming
07-02-2009, 02:40 AM
Love him or hate him though, please please PLEASE for the love of God do NOT say he was 'good enough to win us an SB'. NO - correlation does not equal causation. He was not good enough. LeBeau and the D, Big Ben, and Tomlin were good enough to fish Arians' sorry bad word out of the fire to win us the SB.

We average about 28 points in the Postseason in two seasons, sure a couple on defense too. Nevertheless, nobody has held our offense in check during the postseason with this OC.

You bet this this OC is "good" enough to win a SB.

Tell me this:

When has a team with a pathetic offensive line done what this offense has done in the playoffs? Ever?

Flasteel
07-02-2009, 09:54 AM
Love him or hate him though, please please PLEASE for the love of God do NOT say he was 'good enough to win us an SB'. NO - correlation does not equal causation. He was not good enough. LeBeau and the D, Big Ben, and Tomlin were good enough to fish Arians' sorry bad word out of the fire to win us the SB.

We average about 28 points in the Postseason in two seasons, sure a couple on defense too. Nevertheless, nobody has held our offense in check during the postseason with this OC.

You bet this this OC is "good" enough to win a SB.

Tell me this:

When has a team with a pathetic offensive line done what this offense has done in the playoffs? Ever?

Our line played well down the stretch and in the postseason this past year...it was far from pathetic (well, except for that safety in the Super Bowl). In '07 Arians shocked everyone by coming out on the first series against the Jags with a bevy of quick passes (something he had not done all year) which resulted in a 7-0 lead. Then inexplicably, he went away from it and started dropping Ben straight back, exposing him to the rush...yet again. The 4th quarter of that game also saw one of the all-time, jaw dropping turtle jobs with the game on the line. Ben deserves some of the blame in the game (despite the comeback) as does the line and the defense...just don't forget about the role your boy played.

Again, all you Arians supporters can do is place the burden of blame on the o-line and you remain blinded by the glare from our 6th Lombardi. You are in the extreme minority of the Steeler Nation for a reason.

AngryAsian
07-02-2009, 10:47 AM
Speaking in general terms, we were below mid-range (22nd) in total offense by season's end. From my perspective, if we hope to contend for multiple championships in the next couple of years (we surely have the pieces on both sides of the ball), this team needs to see greater offensive output. They say defense wins championships, but I think to win multiple championships you need balance... which this current incarnation of the Pittsburgh Steelers does not.

Like multiple posters have pointed out, Arians produced enough, statistically, to merit a repeat at his station after the '07 campaign, and now with a SB under his belt, I don't think that merits being shown the door. I did see SOME improvement in playcalling at the tailend of the season. But his redundancy with certain plays and his inability to exploit the certain talents that some of his offensive weaponry has... is a HUGE concern.

I'm optimistic that we'll be in contention again this season. But unless he evolves, we'll be winning in spite of him, not because of him. On this point... I would love to eat my words.

NorthCoast
07-04-2009, 09:43 AM
This might surprise some of you....I know it surprised me. I picked up a new book about how random events effect everyday life (L. Mlodinow) and there was a blurb in the prologue that states:
"In sports we have developed a culture in which, based on intuitive feelings of correlation, a team's success or failure is often attributed largely to the ability of the coach. As a result, when the team fails, the coach is often fired. Mathematical analysis of firings in all major sports, however, has shown that those firings had, on average, no effect on team performance".

He then sites the reference.....for those of you who are extremely bored, head to your local library: M. Craig Brown, "Administrative Succession and Organizational Performance: The Succession Effect", Admininstrative Science Qtryly 27, no. 1 March 1982

(God I should have chosen management rather than engineering........what a topic for a thesis)

Mister Pittsburgh
07-04-2009, 10:27 AM
I hate Arians--he is so bad that since he has become the OC we have won the AFC North twice and a Super Bowl. Wait...what? :? :? :?

The problems is that we have too many fantasy football geeks who look at stats as a measure of success and grade an OC based on that. With the OL we have had Arians may be a darn genius to get the wins we have gotten. I'll take wins as the only stat that matters.

There is no way in H e l l that you watched some of the idiotic plays he called at moronic times and thought he did a good job. Sorry. No freaking way. We won despite him at times! We could have crushed Baltimore in the AFCCG last year but hims shutting the offense down and going to the run first offense kept Baltimore in the game. We didn't seal that game until Troy's pick yet their secondary was totally depleted.

We have a 6'7" TE in Spaeth that had two great games when called upon to replace Heath, but was rarely used in any other packages the rest of the entire season? We struggled the entire season to run the ball in the redzone/ goalline...yet he didn't once try a fade pass or a jump ball to the same 6'7" TE that showed he can catch?

We drafted a 6'6" WR in the second round, Limas Sweed, and you wouldn't try a jump ball of fade pass to him in the redzone/goalline situations?

Mewelde Moore was known as a pass catching RB, and at a point in the season was our #1 back but we never really went to any single back sets with him and 4 wides to really spread teams out and shred them.

We have/had the personel way more suited to spreading teams out and letting them make plays but played more of a protective offense where we turtled up way too freaking much. Don't even bother bringing up running the ball to run down the clock. That is the type of thing you do when you are up by 3 TD's, not in a 14-10 game.

Somone touched upon Arians problem in a previous post, he doesn't get the most out of the players he has at his disposal. He forces the players into a scheme rather than create an offense around their individual skills.

Flasteel
07-04-2009, 10:36 AM
This might surprise some of you....I know it surprised me. I picked up a new book about how random events effect everyday life (L. Mlodinow) and there was a blurb in the prologue that states:
"In sports we have developed a culture in which, based on intuitive feelings of correlation, a team's success or failure is often attributed largely to the ability of the coach. As a result, when the team fails, the coach is often fired. Mathematical analysis of firings in all major sports, however, has shown that those firings had, on average, no effect on team performance".

He then sites the reference.....for those of you who are extremely bored, head to your local library: M. Craig Brown, "Administrative Succession and Organizational Performance: The Succession Effect", Admininstrative Science Qtryly 27, no. 1 March 1982

(God I should have chosen management rather than engineering........what a topic for a thesis)

Before BURGHSTEEL, Oviedo, & Lemming jump all over this, I think a couple of things warrant mention. First, we're talking about head coaches here, not coordinators. Second, by the time an organization fires a coach there is almost always a pattern or culture of losing which has been deeply established. These coaches usually fail to identify or obtain the necessary talent or in some sports (like football) they can't match the talent to the system they run.

It would be interesting to see how far down the road this statistical analysis looked before trying to develop a correlation. Most often it takes more than a year or two to recover from a regime change. I would also like to look at teams who are perceived to be talented, yet underperform and replace their coach (like your Pens this season).

RuthlessBurgher
07-04-2009, 10:59 AM
This might surprise some of you....I know it surprised me. I picked up a new book about how random events effect everyday life (L. Mlodinow) and there was a blurb in the prologue that states:
"In sports we have developed a culture in which, based on intuitive feelings of correlation, a team's success or failure is often attributed largely to the ability of the coach. As a result, when the team fails, the coach is often fired. Mathematical analysis of firings in all major sports, however, has shown that those firings had, on average, no effect on team performance".

He then sites the reference.....for those of you who are extremely bored, head to your local library: M. Craig Brown, "Administrative Succession and Organizational Performance: The Succession Effect", Admininstrative Science Qtryly 27, no. 1 March 1982

(God I should have chosen management rather than engineering........what a topic for a thesis)

Before BURGHSTEEL, Oviedo, & Lemming jump all over this, I think a couple of things warrant mention. First, we're talking about head coaches here, not coordinators. Second, by the time an organization fires a coach there is almost always a pattern or culture of losing which has been deeply established. These coaches usually fail to identify or obtain the necessary talent or in some sports (like football) they can't match the talent to the system they run.

It would be interesting to see how far down the road this statistical analysis looked before trying to develop a correlation. Most often it takes more than a year or two to recover from a regime change. I would also like to look at teams who are perceived to be talented, yet underperform and replace their coach (like your Pens this season).

Isn't it awesome that the Steelers have not fired a head coach in 4 decades and counting? I'm 34, and I've seen 2 coaches retire, but have never in my lifetime seen the Steelers fire a head coach. Considering that many teams fire coaches an average of once every 3 seasons, that's just amazing.

Captain Lemming
07-05-2009, 01:52 PM
There is no way in H e l l that you watched some of the idiotic plays he called at moronic times and thought he did a good job. Sorry. No freaking way. We won despite him at times! We could have crushed Baltimore in the AFCCG last year but hims shutting the offense down and going to the run first offense kept Baltimore in the game. We didn't seal that game until Troy's pick yet their secondary was totally depleted.

This is the same flawed logic used during the Cowher era.
"Almost" lost? "Should have crushed em?"
And don't give me, "but we had Bettis."
We did it even when he struggled and despite the whines of "almost" lost, nobody is better than the Steelers at holding leads. EVER.


We have a 6'7" TE in Spaeth that had two great games when called upon to replace Heath, but was rarely used in any other packages the rest of the entire season? We struggled the entire season to run the ball in the redzone/ goalline...yet he didn't once try a fade pass or a jump ball to the same 6'7" TE that showed he can catch?

We drafted a 6'6" WR in the second round, Limas Sweed, and you wouldn't try a jump ball of fade pass to him in the redzone/goalline situations?

Yes, rather than creating a size mismatch in the SB as you would have, this moron sends the smallest starting receiver on either team on fade routes TWICE. Any Pee Wee coach knows that this is -

Simply Illogical :roll:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZckZ-8naz0/SU6_UxN8bZI/AAAAAAAACQY/pVCB4MgqUcM/s400/Spock.jpg

See this is where I differ from you "experts".
The proof of my contention is the result not the "theory".

Mister Pittsburgh
07-05-2009, 05:51 PM
I see America's meth problem is still active and strong.

Captain Lemming
07-06-2009, 02:57 AM
I see America's meth problem is still active and strong.
When you respond like this, unable to provide a substantive reply, after seeing your contention crushed with irrefutable logic, and what has actually happened in the game itself, you are basically admitting that: :owned

Mister Pittsburgh
07-06-2009, 09:10 AM
You bring up one play when we were in the hurry up offense. Good call dude! :roll:

Most of what I am talking about is plays designed for the goal line and redzone packages.

Flasteel
07-06-2009, 10:40 AM
[quote="Mister Pittsburgh":2pi3pdj1]I see America's meth problem is still active and strong.
When you respond like this, unable to provide a substantive reply, after seeing your contention crushed with irrefutable logic, and what has actually happened in the game itself, you are basically admitting that: :owned[/quote:2pi3pdj1]

Irrefutable logic? Where did you guys sneak that in? I've been looking for something substantive in your arguments and have yet to find anything beyond the excuse of a poor offensive line and a vindicating Lombardi Trophy.

You guys in the Arians fan club are good posters and not tweaked out meth-heads...you're just blind and disillusioned.
:Boobs :owned

fezziwig
07-06-2009, 12:14 PM
If Arians was to be released today, I doubt he would be hired for nothing more than a positions coach. What has he done besides hold onto the shirttails of Lebeau and his defense ?

aggiebones
07-06-2009, 03:29 PM
Wasn't Whiz the OC in 2005?
So we have different head coaches and different OCs, but the same DC?
And we spend as much on offense as we do on defense.

Look the offense got by last year because the DC kept points off the board and gave them time EVERY week. Some times they'd pop off some points, but mostly they got just enough to win, sometimes with the D scoring.

BA is not a good OC by pro standards. Maybe he's tolerable.
Whiz did it with a very young and inexperienced QB and RB.

BA did it because Harrison scored from 100 yards away and we scored the game winner with Ben calling the plays and scrambling for his life.

BA did little. Maybe he kept just out of the way enough not to damage things. At some near point, Ben will call for his head ...and get it.

sd steel
07-06-2009, 04:24 PM
90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

Flasteel
07-06-2009, 05:30 PM
90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

fezziwig
07-06-2009, 05:31 PM
I guess this means, Ben can't do his job or Hines, or Heath, Santonio, Parker to name a few. Sure the O-line is average at best but not every unit can't be of pro bowl caliber.

It's funny that the same poster that started this string also started the Willie Parker stinks thread. He allows BA to hide behind the O-line as an excuse but Parker, he doesn't get the love and should be bowling over a stacked box.


Had our defense not been so smothering to the opponents, we would have never won our division. The season our defense had was one for the ages and can't always be duplicated. Wait and see once they can no longer hold opponents down to a touchdown and a couple of fieldgoals. Whos fault will it be then , the defense or offenses ? Lebeau has proved he can mastermind with any players or defense, BA has proved he is nothing without a record book defense.

If the play works it's a good play ? His plays don't work. Broken plays with Ben on the fly has worked for us or lead to our wins. The fans are not totally ignorant of the game as you might like to suggest. They're not calling for Bens head, Parkers or Hines, they see the troubles this unit has and it's Arians lack luster ability to mix things up, work to the units strengths.

BURGH86STEEL
07-06-2009, 05:48 PM
90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

I agree that a huge part of the game is won with properly executed plays. That is up to the players when they are on the field. Arians called his share of plays that were executed properly and worked. Some people don't want to acknowledge that fact. There were plays that were execute poorly that did not work. There were plays that were bad calls.

What I know for a fact is that no one will ever agree 100% with the play calling. That is because fans don't know why they called those plays. Some fans always find a guy they like to pick on. They like to find reasons to say he is bad without looking at the whole picture. Most times fans don't want to acknowledge that the other team has players and coaches that get paid to do their jobs. They are all professionals and nothing comes easy in the NFL.

One thing that I find funny is that some people have a problem with Arians running Parker in the middle of the line. Whiz called the same plays. I don't remember anyone attacking Whiz over that issue.

BURGH86STEEL
07-06-2009, 06:14 PM
90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

Blocking fullback? I will say that is not the solution to the offense. I think people make more out of the blocking fullback then is necessary. They implemented the quick passing game into the offense. They can only call those plays a certain number of times. There is only one guy that has the skills to run those plays (Holmes).

No one had a problem when Whiz ran Parker into the middle of the line. I think that an NFL caliber RB needs to have the ability and toughness to run up the middle. Parker had shown that ability before the injuries. The only way to get better in that area is to practice. The coaches need to evaluate how well the Oline and RB's are doing in that area. There are a number of reasons why Arians calls runs up the middle. The short sighted fans don't seem to understand why. If they only took the time to sit back and think about why Arians called those plays, they might come up with some answer to their questions. As opposed to saying Arians is a horrible OC and should be fired.

So, we take carries away from the RB's & WR's (the real play makers in the offense) and give those opportunities to the TE? I think the use Miller just fine. How many balls do you want him to catch, 60, 80, 100?

How can the OC counter the pass rush if guys are getting beat one on one? He cannot help every guy on the line. That is where the individual execution comes into play. Those players have to do a better job blocking. In any event, it is not as simple as you make it sound. There is a multitude of things happening on a given play (blitzing, players on the defense shifting, last minute protection calls, ect).

Imagination never won football games, execution does. Wait, how do you know how much imagination goes into a given play? Do you base this because the play works or if you get to watch game film?

Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is the same guy that offers input to the offensive players when they come to the side line. He has a hand in every offensive play that is called. Just watch the last TD the Steelers scored in the SB and decide for yourself how many plays Arians called himself. You might be surprised.

BURGH86STEEL
07-06-2009, 06:45 PM
I guess this means, Ben can't do his job or Hines, or Heath, Santonio, Parker to name a few. Sure the O-line is average at best but not every unit can't be of pro bowl caliber.

It's funny that the same poster that started this string also started the Willie Parker stinks thread. He allows BA to hide behind the O-line as an excuse but Parker, he doesn't get the love and should be bowling over a stacked box.


Had our defense not been so smothering to the opponents, we would have never won our division. The season our defense had was one for the ages and can't always be duplicated. Wait and see once they can no longer hold opponents down to a touchdown and a couple of fieldgoals. Whos fault will it be then , the defense or offenses ? Lebeau has proved he can mastermind with any players or defense, BA has proved he is nothing without a record book defense.

If the play works it's a good play ? His plays don't work. Broken plays with Ben on the fly has worked for us or lead to our wins. The fans are not totally ignorant of the game as you might like to suggest. They're not calling for Bens head, Parkers or Hines, they see the troubles this unit has and it's Arians lack luster ability to mix things up, work to the units strengths.

Beauty of a team sport like football. Just so happens that I think we had a good enough of a team balance to win the SB. The balance was more on the defensive side but the offense produced enough. Lebeau cannot be a mastermind without the players. I wonder how well he would do with a team like the Bengals? Wait, he was with the Bengals. How did that turn out? Billichick in Cleveland? There are other coaches.

There were a lot of times his plays were successful. Ben does not win games on broken plays a lone. I think you need to rewatch some games. Suggesting that this team wins games on broken plays alone is strange. Just goes to show the level of dislike you have for the guy.

People have been critical of the offensive players. Ben for holding the ball to long, not checking down to open receivers, underthrowing passes, not diagnosing plays quick enough, ect. Parker's lack of vision, poor catching ability, ect. Hines' lack of speed, dropped several balls last year, getting old, ect. A lot of those issues have to do with skills or execution.

What do you mean by mixed things up? I think Arians mixed things up. Considering the injures the offense had and inconsistent Oline & QB play, what were the unit's strengths?

Flasteel
07-06-2009, 08:31 PM
Blocking fullback? I will say that is not the solution to the offense. I think people make more out of the blocking fullback then is necessary. They implemented the quick passing game into the offense. They can only call those plays a certain number of times. There is only one guy that has the skills to run those plays (Holmes).

I'm not saying it's the panacea brother, but when you have an interior line which is struggling with creating holes, it's a pretty good friend for a tailback to have.


No one had a problem when Whiz ran Parker into the middle of the line. I think that an NFL caliber RB needs to have the ability and toughness to run up the middle. Parker had shown that ability before the injuries. The only way to get better in that area is to practice. The coaches need to evaluate how well the Oline and RB's are doing in that area. There are a number of reasons why Arians calls runs up the middle. The short sighted fans don't seem to understand why. If they only took the time to sit back and think about why Arians called those plays, they might come up with some answer to their questions. As opposed to saying Arians is a horrible OC and should be fired.

Whiz did a far superior job of mixing the inside and outside runs. After all, you can't run Willie off-tackle on every play, mo matter what his strengths are. Under Whiz Willie also had Dan Krieder who would meet the linebacker or safety head-on in the hole and open things up inside. Willie enjoyed running inside then and even talked about altering his style to start off inside and look to bounce it out when he saw daylight. He doesn't see a whole lot of daylight now. Regardless of what you think an NFL running back should be, ours is not going to get it done inside behind a zone blocking scheme with no lead blocker. This is precisely why Arians deserves criticism. You run schemes to fit your players not the other way around.


So, we take carries away from the RB's & WR's (the real play makers in the offense) and give those opportunities to the TE? I think the use Miller just fine. How many balls do you want him to catch, 60, 80, 100?

I agree that there are only so many balls to go around, but it's not the number of balls as much as it is the right balls (:shock:). They call him big money for a reason and we all know he's clutch. Now I'll be the first to say that we relied too much on the passing game in the red zone, but of the 55 tosses to the endzone made by Roethlisberger last year, only 6 were directed at Miller (3 went for scores). He's 6'5" and has great hands. We need to target him more in the red zone in my opinion.


How can the OC counter the pass rush if guys are getting beat one on one? He cannot help every guy on the line. That is where the individual execution comes into play. Those players have to do a better job blocking. In any event, it is not as simple as you make it sound. There is a multitude of things happening on a given play (blitzing, players on the defense shifting, last minute protection calls, ect).

This is actually my biggest problem with the guy. You are 100% correct my friend, that our line is and has been substandard in pass protection the past several seasons. The OC HAS to do something with his playcalling when his linemen are getting beat and there are many, many things he can do to help. I've mentioned many, many times the 3-step drops, screens, draws, no-huddle, moving pocket, or misdirection which can be incorporated. Of course one of the best things is an effective running game and we just discussed that one. Arians came out and publicly stated that he did not like the 3-step drop during his first year as OC (while Ben was getting killed). He turned around and used it for the first series against Jax in the playoffs to great success (then abandoned it) and actually used it sporadically this past season (hooray!). The problem is he doesn't have a feel for using it, nor these other tactical options, to keep the rush of Ben's back and help his line out. Yes, the line has to do a better job of blocking and Arians is getting sandbagged by those guys. It doesn't compare however to the position he is putting them in.


Imagination never won football games, execution does. Wait, how do you know how much imagination goes into a given play? Do you base this because the play works or if you get to watch game film?

Imagination is doing something different when what you game-planned isn't working. Why don't you dial up the Philly game from last year as a classic example (viewer discretion advised).


Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is the same guy that offers input to the offensive players when they come to the side line. He has a hand in every offensive play that is called. Just watch the last TD the Steelers scored in the SB and decide for yourself how many plays Arians called himself. You might be surprised.

Like I stated before, I'm sure his plays are fine for the most part. It's when he calls them and knowing where to attack. Don't you ever wonder why we can look so stagnant offensively for long periods of time, then all of the sudden shred defenses in the no-huddle or two-minute drill? They are the same plays Arians has in his back pocket, but in these situations it's Ben running the show. I don't mind Arians being in Ben's ear to offer input or advice, I just don't want the guy calling plays or unleashing his philosophies on us.

fezziwig
07-06-2009, 10:48 PM
1. Lebeau didn't have the owners in Cincy that he had in Pittsburgh.
2. I can't recall the players Lebeau had but I'm sure they were not the caliber players that would cut the mustard or be obtained by the Steelers.
3. Bellicheat did a good job with what players he had in Cleveland. He managed to get them to the playoffs. I always thought he squeezed blood from a rock with that crew.
4. Team balance for the Super Bowl ? If it wasn't for the defense the offense would have been behind the eight ball all four quarters instead of the last 5 minutes.
5. Ben running for his life is the most correct identity for our offense along with Willie trying to be used as a bulldozer without a fullback. then there's Heath Miller a TE that is probably one of the top 5 TE's in the league with never any consistant attempts to get him the ball.
6. Mixing things up goes as far as, defenses rushing 7 and BA insisting upon having 4 or 5 guys in there to protect Ben. Eagles did it, and i clearly recall Suggs from two seasons ago laughing about it.
Ravens made chum out of Ben one game and when Suggs was interviewed he called it right. He said they were going to rush 7 all day if the Sttelers were so willing or stupid to only protect with five. He also added he likes that Willie has no fullback, no guessing, no hesitation just go after Willie.

Just like the Kordell days, he was our guy and right or wrong he was backed by the blind. The blind forgetting or not knowing what a good quarterback is supposed to accomplish. Same goes for BA.

BURGH86STEEL
07-06-2009, 11:42 PM
1. Lebeau didn't have the owners in Cincy that he had in Pittsburgh.
2. I can't recall the players Lebeau had but I'm sure they were not the caliber players that would cut the mustard or be obtained by the Steelers.
3. Bellicheat did a good job with what players he had in Cleveland. He managed to get them to the playoffs. I always thought he squeezed blood from a rock with that crew.
4. Team balance for the Super Bowl ? If it wasn't for the defense the offense would have been behind the eight ball all four quarters instead of the last 5 minutes.
5. Ben running for his life is the most correct identity for our offense along with Willie trying to be used as a bulldozer without a fullback. then there's Heath Miller a TE that is probably one of the top 5 TE's in the league with never any consistant attempts to get him the ball.
6. Mixing things up goes as far as, defenses rushing 7 and BA insisting upon having 4 or 5 guys in there to protect Ben. Eagles did it, and i clearly recall Suggs from two seasons ago laughing about it.
Ravens made chum out of Ben one game and when Suggs was interviewed he called it right. He said they were going to rush 7 all day if the Sttelers were so willing or stupid to only protect with five. He also added he likes that Willie has no fullback, no guessing, no hesitation just go after Willie.

Just like the Kordell days, he was our guy and right or wrong he was backed by the blind. The blind forgetting or not knowing what a good quarterback is supposed to accomplish. Same goes for BA.

1,2. I think you should add Lebeau did not have the players. Players make coaches look smarter.

3. Most people acknowledge that BB was not a good coach in Cleveland. He had one good season there. He's always had pretty good defensive players when he was DC.

4. The bottom line on this one is the offense scored enough points to help the team win. The defense has been the backbone of the team for years. Nothing new there.

5. Ben ran for his life since 2004. He did it under Whiz. Why do people think a FB is the answer to an offense? Parker was leading the league in rushing in 2007 in the same style of offense. I am not concerned if they have or don't have a FB in the back field. I am more concerned about the execution of the blocking up front. A FB will not solve that problem. Those are where the breakdowns happen.

6. The 08 Eagles game was a bad game. It happens. They had a similar game against the Colts in the 05 season when Whiz was the OC. Hey genius, Whiz was the OC when they were destroyed by the Ravens 2 times in 06. Are those the games in which you refer Suggs was laughing about? People did not hang anything on Whiz. Instead they put it all on Cowher. If you are going to put the blame, put it on the right OC.

In fairness, Kordell showed flashes of being a good QB. Consistency and not playing well in the playoffs was his biggest downfall.

sd steel
07-06-2009, 11:49 PM
90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

BURGH86STEEL
07-07-2009, 12:09 AM
Blocking fullback? I will say that is not the solution to the offense. I think people make more out of the blocking fullback then is necessary. They implemented the quick passing game into the offense. They can only call those plays a certain number of times. There is only one guy that has the skills to run those plays (Holmes).

I'm not saying it's the panacea brother, but when you have an interior line which is struggling with creating holes, it's a pretty good friend for a tailback to have.

A FB is not going to make a difference if the Oline and TE's have break downs.


No one had a problem when Whiz ran Parker into the middle of the line. I think that an NFL caliber RB needs to have the ability and toughness to run up the middle. Parker had shown that ability before the injuries. The only way to get better in that area is to practice. The coaches need to evaluate how well the Oline and RB's are doing in that area. There are a number of reasons why Arians calls runs up the middle. The short sighted fans don't seem to understand why. If they only took the time to sit back and think about why Arians called those plays, they might come up with some answer to their questions. As opposed to saying Arians is a horrible OC and should be fired.

Whiz did a far superior job of mixing the inside and outside runs. After all, you can't run Willie off-tackle on every play, mo matter what his strengths are. Under Whiz Willie also had Dan Krieder who would meet the linebacker or safety head-on in the hole and open things up inside. Willie enjoyed running inside then and even talked about altering his style to start off inside and look to bounce it out when he saw daylight. He doesn't see a whole lot of daylight now. Regardless of what you think an NFL running back should be, ours is not going to get it done inside behind a zone blocking scheme with no lead blocker. This is precisely why Arians deserves criticism. You run schemes to fit your players not the other way around.

I am not sure Whiz did a superior job of mixing up the inside and outside runs. Do you have the research to back up your claim? I do know the Oline was a better unit under Whiz because he had better players. How did Willie lead the league in rushing in 06 till the final game if the scheme is so bad?


So, we take carries away from the RB's & WR's (the real play makers in the offense) and give those opportunities to the TE? I think the use Miller just fine. How many balls do you want him to catch, 60, 80, 100?

I agree that there are only so many balls to go around, but it's not the number of balls as much as it is the right balls (:shock:). They call him big money for a reason and we all know he's clutch. Now I'll be the first to say that we relied too much on the passing game in the red zone, but of the 55 tosses to the endzone made by Roethlisberger last year, only 6 were directed at Miller (3 went for scores). He's 6'5" and has great hands. We need to target him more in the red zone in my opinion.

How do you know that there were not more plays designed for Miller? Maybe the defense did a good job taking him away? It happens. [/b]


How can the OC counter the pass rush if guys are getting beat one on one? He cannot help every guy on the line. That is where the individual execution comes into play. Those players have to do a better job blocking. In any event, it is not as simple as you make it sound. There is a multitude of things happening on a given play (blitzing, players on the defense shifting, last minute protection calls, ect).

This is actually my biggest problem with the guy. You are 100% correct my friend, that our line is and has been substandard in pass protection the past several seasons. The OC [b]HAS to do something with his playcalling when his linemen are getting beat and there are many, many things he can do to help. I've mentioned many, many times the 3-step drops, screens, draws, no-huddle, moving pocket, or misdirection which can be incorporated. Of course one of the best things is an effective running game and we just discussed that one. Arians came out and publicly stated that he did not like the 3-step drop during his first year as OC (while Ben was getting killed). He turned around and used it for the first series against Jax in the playoffs to great success (then abandoned it) and actually used it sporadically this past season (hooray!). The problem is he doesn't have a feel for using it, nor these other tactical options, to keep the rush of Ben's back and help his line out. Yes, the line has to do a better job of blocking and Arians is getting sandbagged by those guys. It doesn't compare however to the position he is putting them in.

If the inside guys are getting beat right off the snap, what can Arians do about that? If Ben calls the wrong protection, what can he do? If Ben does not recognize the DB or LB coming off the edge, what can Arians do? What if the RB does not recognize where the blitz is coming from? Arians incorporated a lot of different plays within the offense. You hate the guy so much that you fail to see it. What team has the short passing attack as a staple in an offense? I really can't think of any teams. Ben got killed under Whiz more than once.



Imagination never won football games, execution does. Wait, how do you know how much imagination goes into a given play? Do you base this because the play works or if you get to watch game film?

Imagination is doing something different when what you game-planned isn't working. Why don't you dial up the Philly game from last year as a classic example (viewer discretion advised)

Are you sure they don't try different things when the game plan is not working? You would not know without watching game film. I know there are a lot of times they don't execute properly. That can be seen right on the TV.
All of the offensive players had a bad game against the Eagles. It happens. Happened under Whiz more than once. The worse games in recent memory were the beatings they took at the hands of the Ravens in 06. Whiz as the OC in 06.


Arians is the same guy that helped to design that 2 minute offense. He is the same guy that offers input to the offensive players when they come to the side line. He has a hand in every offensive play that is called. Just watch the last TD the Steelers scored in the SB and decide for yourself how many plays Arians called himself. You might be surprised.

Like I stated before, I'm sure his plays are fine for the most part. It's when he calls them and knowing where to attack. Don't you ever wonder why we can look so stagnant offensively for long periods of time, then all of the sudden shred defenses in the no-huddle or two-minute drill? They are the same plays Arians has in his back pocket, but in these situations it's Ben running the show. I don't mind Arians being in Ben's ear to offer input or advice, I just don't want the guy calling plays or unleashing his philosophies on us.

No, I don't wonder why we look so stagnant. I realize that a lot of times our players don't execute (WR's drop passes, Ben misses or underthrows open WR's, don't hold blocks, ect. ect., most of it is on the execution side). I also realize that the other team has players and coaches that are paid to stop our offense. Come to think about it, when is the last time this team had a really great offense?

If Arians is as incompetent as you make him sound, how in the world did Tomlin hire this guy? Better yet, why is he still working under Tomlin?

Captain Lemming
07-07-2009, 01:10 AM
2. I can't recall the players Lebeau had but I'm sure they were not the caliber players that would cut the mustard or be obtained by the Steelers.

This is the point. Talent!
You guys give Lebeau the props because the defense was great, when he has a ton more talent.

Don't get me wrong. Lebeau is the best coordinator in the league bar none. I am not arguing that Arians is his equal on offense. But to dismiss the contributions of offensive coaching with much less talent is to ignore the facts.

We have probowl talent all over the defense.

The fact is we have a horrible Oline, a backup RB for much of the year, no elite receivers and Ben injured early on which lingered for the season.

On defense we have the best player, the best LBer corps, and the best strong safety, and the most physically gifted corner. We have no defensive weakness.

Oline and RB (due to injuries) were downright weak.

Any time we lose Aaron Smith (one guy) on defense and our defense is much worse. Ditto for when Troy goes down. What if more than on UNIT on defense was on the level of our oline AND running backs?

Flasteel
07-07-2009, 01:26 AM
[b]A FB is not going to make a difference if the Oline and TE's have break downs.
There's always going to be breakdowns or missed assignments, especially in a zone blocking scheme. The fullback is going to hit the hole quick, whether a free DT is sitting there or a linebacker has filled the hole, it's another line of blocking for a RB to have in front of him. A guy like Parker doesn't shed first contact easily and needs that extra help in opening up a seam. How do you not see the benefit? Arians eschews the lead back because it's one less eligible receiver in pattern. As you stated previously, how many ball are there? How many times does Carey Davis actually have it thrown to him?


I am not sure Whiz did a superior job of mixing up the inside and outside runs. Do you have the research to back up your claim? I do know the Oline was a better unit under Whiz because he had better players. How did Willie lead the league in rushing in 06 till the final game if the scheme is so bad?

Hold on man, I'm not doing a research paper here. My assertion is based on memory and the fact that Parker constantly was used on the edge or was able to bounce it outside. His long run in 2005 was 80 yards (4.7 ypc on the year) and in 2006 was 76 (4.4ypc). Since Arians arrived he hasn't broken a run for more than 40 yards and his ypc has gone down to 4.1 ypc in 2006 to 3.8 last year. Parker has been missing the homerun ball because he's not used on the edge or able to get enough steam to break it outside. He wasn't too bad in 2007, but was leading the league in yards because he was also leading the league in carries at the time.


How do you know that there were not more plays designed for Miller? Maybe the defense did a good job taking him away? It does happen.
A valid point brother...I don't know. I can only assume that throughout the course of a season he would be isolated enough on matchups (if the right plays were being called) to warrant more than six pulls of the trigger.


If the inside guys are getting beat right off the snap, what can Arians do about that? If Ben calls the wrong protection, what can he do? If Ben does not recognize the DB or LB coming off the edge, what can Arians do? What if the RB does not recognize where the blitz is coming from? Arians has incorporated a lot of different plays within the offense. You hate the guy so much that you fail to see it. What team has the short passing attack as a staple in an offense? I really can't think of any teams. Ben got killed under Whiz more than once.

First of all, I don't hate Arians...at least not all that much. I advocated keeping him after year one and admitted it would be tough to let him go after last year despite the problems. I am vehemently attacking him due to the irrational defense being thrown out by a few of you guys and I'm not about to let you win the argument.

We're not talking about Ben missing hot reads (which rarely happens). If our interior linemen are being beat right off the snap then you do move the pocket, you mix in three-step drops or screens more liberally, you keep the back in to chip, and you attack the perimeter...you know mix it up.

By the way, New England makes a pretty good living off the quick passing game. But I'm not advocating that it becomes a staple, just a regular tool in his tool box that we use more effectively. Even Arians has seen some merit in this as evidenced by him at least using it from time to time less than a year after he publicly dismissed it. He just needs to use it more aptly.


Are you sure they don't try different things when the game plan is not working? You would not know without watching game film. I know there are a lot of times they don't execute properly. That can be seen right on the TV.
All of the offensive players had a bad game against the Eagles. It happens. Happened under Whiz more than once. The worse games in recent memory were the beatings they took at the hands of the Ravens in 06. Whiz as the OC in 06.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08266/914127-87.stm


No, I don't wonder why we look so stagnant.

Uh, wow. I really don't know how to respond to that.


Come to think about it, when is the last time this team had a really great offense?

The last two minutes of every half.


If Arians is as incompetent as you make him sound, how in the world did Tomlin hire this guy? Better yet, why is he still working under Tomlin?

He's not the worst OC we've ever had (see Joe Walton or Ray Sherman), but he's not threatening to ever be remembered fondly either. I've already addressed why he got the job and why he's still got it...go dig it up.

I really am pulling for the guy to get it straight and learn from his mistakes, just like I stated last year. I just don't believe it's going to happen and I'm pointing that out. All you fan club members can go on stand-by with your heaping plates of undercooked crow and I'll glady swallow every last bite if he turns it around. You just be ready to do the same when he is fired.

Captain Lemming
07-07-2009, 01:50 AM
What could the greatest defense in the history of the game do with a HOF QB, two HOF receivers, and the best center ever leading a great Oline?
Five shutouts, and Eight games with no TDs allowed, 1976. That was a great defense.
Lose the greatest RB tandem ever, and we score SEVEN in getting crushed by the Raiders.

Arians has dealt with backups for half of his games as OC, and an oline that simply cannot make holes.

Please explain again how THIS defense won the SB by itself?

Captain Lemming
07-07-2009, 02:54 AM
Hold on man, I'm not doing a research paper here. My assertion is based on memory and the fact that Parker constantly was used on the edge or was able to bounce it outside. His long run in 2005 was 80 yards (4.7 ypc on the year) and in 2006 was 76 (4.4ypc). Since Arians arrived he hasn't broken a run for more than 40 yards and his ypc has gone down to 4.1 ypc in 2006 to 3.8 last year. Parker has been missing the homerun ball because he's not used on the edge or able to get enough steam to break it outside. He wasn't too bad in 2007, but was leading the league in yards because he was also leading the league in carries at the time.

Actually, I seem to recall Faneca being central to many long runs, into the interior of the line sometimes later bounced outside. It is actually harder for a bad oline to sustain blocks on a sweep which takes longer to develop.


He's not the worst OC we've ever had (see Joe Walton or Ray Sherman)

Those who imagine we don't use the tight end an RBs as a receivers enough should love Walton. He would sit little Santonio for a tight end so he could have two "big" targets near the goal line.

Come on, which one of you guys is Joe Walton?
Envy is not cool.
Don't rag on Arians because he has a ring and you dont. :lol:

papillon
07-07-2009, 08:10 AM
[quote="sd steel":ge7xzsnh]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.[/quote:ge7xzsnh]

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy

fezziwig
07-07-2009, 09:16 AM
The reincarnation of Mike Webster, the fountain of youth for Jerry Rice along with many of the HOF linemen will do wonders for BA. Life is tough on the guy when he doesn't have all the conditions.

BA is the best, I surrender.

RuthlessBurgher
07-07-2009, 10:04 AM
My eyes surrendered trying to read blue type on a black background. :lol:

grotonsteel
07-07-2009, 10:21 AM
I guess this means, Ben can't do his job or Hines, or Heath, Santonio, Parker to name a few. Sure the O-line is average at best but not every unit can't be of pro bowl caliber.

It's funny that the same poster that started this string also started the Willie Parker stinks thread. He allows BA to hide behind the O-line as an excuse but Parker, he doesn't get the love and should be bowling over a stacked box.


Had our defense not been so smothering to the opponents, we would have never won our division. The season our defense had was one for the ages and can't always be duplicated. Wait and see once they can no longer hold opponents down to a touchdown and a couple of fieldgoals. Whos fault will it be then , the defense or offenses ? Lebeau has proved he can mastermind with any players or defense, BA has proved he is nothing without a record book defense.

If the play works it's a good play ? His plays don't work. Broken plays with Ben on the fly has worked for us or lead to our wins. The fans are not totally ignorant of the game as you might like to suggest. They're not calling for Bens head, Parkers or Hines, they see the troubles this unit has and it's Arians lack luster ability to mix things up, work to the units strengths.

There were a lot of times his plays were successful. Ben does not win games on broken plays a lone. I think you need to rewatch some games. Suggesting that this team wins games on broken plays alone is strange. Just goes to show the level of dislike you have for the guy.



Well according to few people on this board Big Ben is responsible for half the sacks because he holds the ball too long..Well few people on this board even criticize Big Ben for not smiling at some kid....go figure... :roll:

grotonsteel
07-07-2009, 10:30 AM
What could the greatest defense in the history of the game do with a HOF QB, two HOF receivers, and the best center ever leading a great Oline?
Five shutouts, and Eight games with no TDs allowed, 1976. That was a great defense.
Lose the greatest RB tandem ever, and we score SEVEN in getting crushed by the Raiders.

Arians has dealt with backups for half of his games as OC, and an oline that simply cannot make holes.

Please explain again how THIS defense won the SB by itself?

Offense gets no love. Just look at the TOP Steelers Offense had each game. A better play by O-line and RB should resolve Steelers Red Zone woes..

Flasteel
07-07-2009, 10:57 AM
[quote="sd steel":1g4j7vnw]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy[/quote:1g4j7vnw]

You've got to be kidding me Pap. You don't just blindly plow between the tackles to cheat the linebackers up and in or to make them sell out on 1st and 2nd down for half the game, just to hit 'em up with a play action waggle.

You want to consistently attack the line of scrimmage at different points and you want to do it effectively. You DO NOT want to create tendencies, but you want to run different plays from the same formation in similar down and distance scenarios. Not just within a singular game, but across games so those defenders who are studying you on tape think you'll do something, then you hit 'em with that curveball SD was talking about.

Running it between the tackles is a necessity and I even pointed that out in a conversation with BURGHSTEEL. Anyone who implies that you don't jam it behind the guards and center with consistency is a fool. Arians takes it beyond consistency and runs his tailback there an inordinate amount of time, especially as it compares to the number of off-tackle plays or tosses to Parker where he can utilize his God-given speed. To many of these runs are ineffective. When your interior line isn't generating enough push and your running back is publicly begging for a fullback, don't you think that it might be a good idea to get someone who can bulldoze that path? It's common friggin' sense.

Now I don't want to come off as some type of nut case who does nothing but complain about the lack of a lead blocker. It's one small issue that I have with Arians which comes in a package set with several other problems (all of which I've delineated far too many times). I'm not saying he's devoid of any good qualities and he deserves no credit for the Super Bowl. That's just hyperbole from those who take the opposite position on Arians. He is in my opinion holding this offense back however. We were good enough to win it all with this formula, but don't count on that staying the same for very long.

papillon
07-07-2009, 12:28 PM
[quote="sd steel":6h3fppgv]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy

You've got to be kidding me Pap. You don't just blindly plow between the tackles to cheat the linebackers up and in or to make them sell out on 1st and 2nd down for half the game, just to hit 'em up with a play action waggle.

You want to consistently attack the line of scrimmage at different points and you want to do it effectively. You DO NOT want to create tendencies, but you want to run different plays from the same formation in similar down and distance scenarios. Not just within a singular game, but across games so those defenders who are studying you on tape think you'll do something, then you hit 'em with that curveball SD was talking about.

Running it between the tackles is a necessity and I even pointed that out in a conversation with BURGHSTEEL. Anyone who implies that you don't jam it behind the guards and center with consistency is a fool. Arians takes it beyond consistency and runs his tailback there an inordinate amount of time, especially as it compares to the number of off-tackle plays or tosses to Parker where he can utilize his God-given speed. To many of these runs are ineffective. When your interior line isn't generating enough push and your running back is publicly begging for a fullback, don't you think that it might be a good idea to get someone who can bulldoze that path? It's common friggin' sense.

Now I don't want to come off as some type of nut case who does nothing but complain about the lack of a lead blocker. It's one small issue that I have with Arians which comes in a package set with several other problems (all of which I've delineated far too many times). I'm not saying he's devoid of any good qualities and he deserves no credit for the Super Bowl. That's just hyperbole from those who take the opposite position on Arians. He is in my opinion holding this offense back however. We were good enough to win it all with this formula, but don't count on that staying the same for very long.[/quote:6h3fppgv]

I guess my point is that Arians doesn't do it blindly that he, indeed, does have a purpose to his play calling. Unless, this highly talented offense sputters and grinds to a halt or loses games for the Steelers it is difficult to criticize the offense. For whatever reason, the offense always took account of itself and showed up when the Steelers needed them most.

Even though it appeared that Ben was sole reason for their late game heroics that isn't the case. I'd like to see a lead blocker, especially, since I watched the 2004 Giants game last night and watched Dan Kreider pancake at least 3 guys and create seams for Bettis multiple others. On the other hand, even with the lead blocker the running game was inconsistent in that game.

Jerome wasn't the automatic 3 yards that everyone believes he was. He was stuffed a few times and a couple for losses as well. It's not wine and roses all the time, we just remember the way want to remember things.

Bottom line for me at this point is to let Tomlin and Arians get this offense moving. He's going to look like a genius this year, I believe the offense will be difficult to stop.

Pappy

sd steel
07-07-2009, 04:44 PM
[quote="sd steel":3p43nnrs]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy[/quote:3p43nnrs]

Thanks for the props Pappy! Trufully though this is an argument that no one is gonna win, it's based on opinions with neither side having enough real info to support their argument.

Flasteel
07-07-2009, 05:12 PM
[quote=Flasteel][quote="sd steel":3v14lq28]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy[/quote:3v14lq28]

Thanks for the props Pappy! Trufully though this is an argument that no one is gonna win, it's based on opinions with neither side having enough real info to support their argument.[/quote:3v14lq28]

I agree it is difficult to win the argument but I'm glad everyone who has weighed in on it has done so respectfully. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind about Arians and I hope he actually changes my opinion about him this season.

BURGH86STEEL
07-07-2009, 05:58 PM
[quote=Flasteel][quote="sd steel":1f28oraw]90% of the time execution wins games, not coordinators. In the mind of the average fan, if a play works the offense is great, if a play fails, the coordinator sucks. So although the title of this thread is calling out a majority of football fans, and is insulting, there is some truth to it.

We're not boiling this argument down to whether or not a singular play is successful. The debate centers on a pattern of ineffective offense and (at times) mind-numbing play-calling. I'll agree whole-heartedly that for any play or offense to succeed, you have to have orchestrated execution by the players (barring a defensive breakdown or dumb luck). I'll even take it a step further and say that all offensive plays run by NFL teams are designed to be successful against specific defenses if they are executed properly.

The disfunction of an offensive coordinator doesn't come in the design of a play, it comes in matching the plays to best suit his talent and matching them against the right defense and personnel. I could guarantee you that on paper Arians' plays are sound and exploit specific defensive weaknesses. Once those plays are put into action, we find however that his philosophies of not having a blocking fullback or lack of a quick passing game don't match the strengths (or weaknesses) of his offensive players. The same could be said for his lack of imagination in continually pounding a lightning-fast 205 lb RB between the tackles, under-utilizing a play-making TE, or doing nothing to counter the pass rush from an opposing defense.

Who on this board is pointing to a specific play or looking solely at our offensive rankings and saying the OC must suck? It's a long line of stubborn play-calling, ill-fitting philosophies, and an overall lack of imagination, all of which have been spelled out here in detail.

I'm not happy with the guy and the satisfaction from a sixth Lombardi Trophy isn't going to sprinkle magic pixie dust on the situation. I'm glad you and the rest of the fan club are cool with him, but I wonder if you'd be so happy had our defense or two-minute offense (which curiously leaves BA out of the equation) not bailed us out so many times. I hate playing the "what if" game...but WHAT IF? :wink:

I'm not basing my statement on one play, but it's the way fans think. I am not in the huddle, I am not in the meetings breaking down film, and I'm pretty sure you aren't as well. Unless I know exactly what is being called, the checkdowns, the options, the audibles etc., I would be hard pressed to throw blame on a second year OC who just won the Super Bowl. Couple that with the fact that we did it against the toughest schedule of all time, which would mean that we probably played against the highest ranking defenses ever on one schedule in a season, and I think the offense did a damn good job, which inturn means Arians should get some credit.

I understand that you would like to bring back the fullback, and we should utilize our TE's more effectively, and most guys who dislike Arians always point to running FWP between the tackles. But there is a purpose to running someone there, it creates a tendency that the other team has to always account for on 1st and 2nd down, so the other team will sell out to stop it, which opens up other things which we normally take advantage of later in the game. Every play is designed to score, and when they draw them up the coaches are not saying "that will never work", "so we will call it 7 times next game", but at the same time as a coordinator you do try to create tendencies so you can throw a curveball later in the game. Does Arians do this effectively? I don't know, I don't know the game plan, and I'm not in the huddle. But the results as a team have been pretty good. As Lombardi said the game comes down to 2 things, blocking and tackling, the team that does it best will win. And some argue that he might be the greatest football coach ever. His philosophy was we can run the same play over and over and over, and if we execute it properly we will win. That doesn't sound very imaginative, but I think it was pretty successful.

This is probably one of the best posts about Bruce Arians and running an offense that I have read. I will admit that I haven't been enamored at all times with Bruce Arians, however SD STEEL makes some valid points about setting up the team you are playing by creating tendencies. This will also create a tendency chart for games that aren't even on the radar yet, that is, future opponents will see the same tendencies.

None of us (I don't think) are privy to the film room, game plan, hell, we're don't even know the audibles, blocking schemes based on the defense, receiver progressions, responsibilities for any one play let alone an entire game plan.

For you SD STEEL :Bow :Bow Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Pappy[/quote:1f28oraw]

Thanks for the props Pappy! Trufully though this is an argument that no one is gonna win, it's based on opinions with neither side having enough real info to support their argument.[/quote:1f28oraw]

I don't think we want to win. We want people to think logically before they throw the guy under the bus. Why pick and choose singular plays or games to define a guys coaching ability? They need to remember and think about all the plays that worked out on offense. They should think about the plays that failed because the players failed to execute. For the most part, those are plays that we can see without looking at game film. It's not based on speculation. They also seem to forget that this team had bad games under every OC that coached the Steelers. This is the NFL and not every thing always goes as planned. That is why Tomlin did not over react after the Eagles loss. They like to forget that the other team has coaches and players that get paid to do their jobs.

Arians may not be the best OC in the league but he is far from the incompetent play caller some try to prove. We can hit them with facts. Facts like Arians gets Heath the ball more often then Whiz (did it ever cross anyone's mind that maybe he wanted to go to more 2 TE sets to give Miller more opportunities?), this team had bad games under Whiz (fans gave Cowher grief over poor offensive performances), Parker had a fine season in 07 before being injured, Ben had his best individual season in 07, Arians was involved in the play calling on the final drive of the SB (it was not all two minute drill by Ben), had to deal with injuries to the RB's and Olinemen last season, and there are other facts.

I hope Arians can continue to work with the offensive unit to make them better. Quiet as kept, there will be fans that hope he fails.

NorthCoast
07-07-2009, 07:24 PM
While I have no proof (so don't ask me to supply), it seems our best offensive output is very early in games. I thought I read one time that BA scripted about 15 plays to start the game. But it just seems after the script runs out, or if it isn't working, then BA is just at a loss as to how to overcome the problem.
Those that say execution is the key.....well I agree to a point. However, let's take it to the extreme and say we only have two plays in our playbook. How well do you think the defense of the other team will play against us? It makes it that much easier when you know what is coming (ask the Patriots). Unpredictably and going against trends will frustrate a defense just as easily as executing perfectly. Since we agree we don't have the talent for perfect execution on O, then it stands to reason that play calling will become even more important.

papillon
07-07-2009, 10:57 PM
While I have no proof (so don't ask me to supply), it seems our best offensive output is very early in games. I thought I read one time that BA scripted about 15 plays to start the game. But it just seems after the script runs out, or if it isn't working, then BA is just at a loss as to how to overcome the problem.
Those that say execution is the key.....well I agree to a point. However, let's take it to the extreme and say we only have two plays in our playbook. How well do you think the defense of the other team will play against us? It makes it that much easier when you know what is coming (ask the Patriots). Unpredictably and going against trends will frustrate a defense just as easily as executing perfectly. Since we agree we don't have the talent for perfect execution on O, then it stands to reason that play calling will become even more important.

Just remember, before you can go against a trend, "tendency", you have to establish one. :tt2

Pappy

NKySteeler
07-08-2009, 12:09 AM
Monday, November 19th 2007.... After a loss to the Jets Arians states he failed to make needed adjustments and use offensive tools... Says it won't happen again.

December 9th, 2007.... Loss to New England, not his fault...

Monday, December 16th 2007, after a loss to Jax.... Once again states that he didn't utilize appropriate targets and once again says he won't let it happen again... At this point, we (or some of us) realize he is not utilizing the on-field talent at his disposal. He is running an offense that does not make adjustments accordingly to the opposition late in the game.

Sunday, January 5th 2008.... Steelers lose to Jacksonville in the wildcard game. In some opinion, the playcalling was suspect in the second half to say the least. Granted, Ben had some of the blame, but the playcalling was attrocious... No corrections, no adjustments, no nothing.

.... I became an Arians "detractor" at this point, and not before.

.
.
.

I am not an Arians fan, and think we won IN SPITE of him during the past season. We have a great team with extremely talented players... If folks like Oveido think I have a weak argument, so be it, but it is my opinion nonetheless... BTW, isn't it rather strange that the Super Bowl winning OC didn't get even a nibble from other coaching vacancies?... Yea, some of the "top" qbs can dictate their desires, but does anyone remember the "meeting" supposedly held between the "minds" and the qb last season?... That just doesn't happen with an OC that is getting the job done.... In fact, several media outlets (Trib, PG) has insinuated that Arians is "learning on the job".... Sorry, but this is just unacceptable on this level...

Could he improve and dig his head out of his butt?... Yes... But that still doesn't change the facts, nor what is/has been happening.... In my own opinion, he is not a quality OC. Period.... I love this team, and it's players.... I just feel that it is a hinderance having him at the helm.... Unfortunately, we have no choice at this point... Hopefully this upcoming season is going to be a different story and he proves me wrong on all accounts... Time will tell.

Our offense lacks originality, as well as a fullback. ... I am no where near an "expert", but this is just my opinion... That's what these boards are for, are they not?... I'll let others explain their "expert" opinions and rationales...

Captain Lemming
07-08-2009, 02:15 AM
Sunday, January 5th 2008.... Steelers lose to Jacksonville in the wildcard game. In some opinion, the playcalling was suspect in the second half to say the least. Granted, Ben had some of the blame, but the playcalling was attrocious... No corrections, no adjustments, no nothing.

OK, this statement shows without question that you are so quick to blame Arians, you suffer from post game amnesia and have no recall whatsoever as to why we lost.
You are correct about Bens picks. Three in the first half contributed to our being down 21-7 at halftime.

No corrections, no adjustments? Are you serious?

We scored TWENTY THREE POINTS after halftime my friend. We came storming back to take the lead with THREE 4th quarter touchdowns.

We had Najeh starting averaging like 2 yards a carry and an Oline getting manhandled, Ben throwing three picks, and we score 29.

1 Ben throws 3 picks- not his fault

2 Tomlin calls for not one but TWO 2 point conversions, rather than kick, WE Lost by two points- not his fault.

3. We haven't drafted a high Olineman in years. We did spend two top picks on linebackers that year. Of course linebackers can't create holes for the backup at running back. And of course Linebackers can't keep Ben from being sacked 6 times in that game. The last sack resulted in the fumble that ended the game. Not Colberts fault of course.

4. Our star studded defense gives up a ridiculous 32 yard 4th down run by Gerard, who suddenly has become Mike Vick. We are ahead and time is short. If we stop him, we win, period. They get within field good range a kick a game winning FG. But it is not the fault of the defense, or the genius d coordinator is it?


We have a great team with extremely talented players.

We have extremely talent defensive players.
Our offense is not outstanding in talent.
We have a great QB, with some pretty good players and some pretty bad players.



I am not an Arians fan....

Oh that my friend is clear.
If you can lay the blame him for that loss, and claim he made no adjustments, in spite of scoring all but 7 of our 29 points in the second half, you are simply wrong.

Nearly every part of this team had a worse game than Arians (receivers were excellent) and contributed more to the loss than he did.
You could not pick a worse example to try to pin on him.

The truth is, Arians has yet to coach a bad playoff game. Period!
Yes, I said it.
As much as that makes some cringe, you think about it.

BURGH86STEEL
07-08-2009, 06:16 AM
Monday, November 19th 2007.... After a loss to the Jets Arians states he failed to make needed adjustments and use offensive tools... Says it won't happen again.

December 9th, 2007.... Loss to New England, not his fault...

Monday, December 16th 2007, after a loss to Jax.... Once again states that he didn't utilize appropriate targets and once again says he won't let it happen again... At this point, we (or some of us) realize he is not utilizing the on-field talent at his disposal. He is running an offense that does not make adjustments accordingly to the opposition late in the game.

Sunday, January 5th 2008.... Steelers lose to Jacksonville in the wildcard game. In some opinion, the playcalling was suspect in the second half to say the least. Granted, Ben had some of the blame, but the playcalling was attrocious... No corrections, no adjustments, no nothing.

.... I became an Arians "detractor" at this point, and not before.

.
.
.

I am not an Arians fan, and think we won IN SPITE of him during the past season. We have a great team with extremely talented players... If folks like Oveido think I have a weak argument, so be it, but it is my opinion nonetheless... BTW, isn't it rather strange that the Super Bowl winning OC didn't get even a nibble from other coaching vacancies?... Yea, some of the "top" qbs can dictate their desires, but does anyone remember the "meeting" supposedly held between the "minds" and the qb last season?... That just doesn't happen with an OC that is getting the job done.... In fact, several media outlets (Trib, PG) has insinuated that Arians is "learning on the job".... Sorry, but this is just unacceptable on this level...

Could he improve and dig his head out of his butt?... Yes... But that still doesn't change the facts, nor what is/has been happening.... In my own opinion, he is not a quality OC. Period.... I love this team, and it's players.... I just feel that it is a hinderance having him at the helm.... Unfortunately, we have no choice at this point... Hopefully this upcoming season is going to be a different story and he proves me wrong on all accounts... Time will tell.

Our offense lacks originality, as well as a fullback. ... I am no where near an "expert", but this is just my opinion... That's what these boards are for, are they not?... I'll let others explain their "expert" opinions and rationales...

I wonder why people show so much bias. It is ok for the defense to give up XX amount of points and no one attacks Lebeau. They usually go after the defense players. There were several games in the 07 season that the defense did not play well and gave up a lot of points. The NE game of 07 being one of those games. The defense gave up 31 points to Devner in 07. Ben threw INT's so I sure they contributed to the loss in Denver. The offense scored 21 or more points in 12 games that season. They averaged 26 ppg that year.

The offense took a step back in 08. I suspect that injuries to the RB, Oline, and the loss of Faneca played parts in taking that step back. You can add in that the QB did not play consistently well last year and the WR's had key drops in several games. They also had to face several of the best defenses in the league. It is usually multifactorial when units take steps back.

What exactly is an offense that shows originality? Is it trick plays? I prefer that the players execute better as opposed to originality. After all, you can only run or throw the football. I believe that most of the problems with the offense were due to lack of execution by the players. No one ever agrees with the play calling 100% of the time. Will having a FB in the back field guarantee this offense will be success? I don't believe that it will. Arians seems to prefer 2 TE sets because it gives him more flexibility in the passing game.

There are a lot of coaches that don't get nibbles. Some guys are not meant to be head coaches. That is a weak argument. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Tomlin learning on the job? Cowher learned on the job. Andy Reid learned on the job. There are other HC, OC, DC, or position coaches the learn on the job at this level. So, it must not be totally unacceptable.

I find it strange that some of you cannot be fair about this. Its like picking out bits and pieces of information and passing judgement. Take a look at the whole picture and be fair in your assessment. I believe it is one reason why Arians still has a job. Tomlin understands this philosophy. The owners of the team have this philosophy. It seems to be a philosophy that makes most Steelers fans are proud.

Flasteel
07-08-2009, 08:52 AM
[quote]Sunday, January 5th 2008.... Steelers lose to Jacksonville in the wildcard game. In some opinion, the playcalling was suspect in the second half to say the least. Granted, Ben had some of the blame, but the playcalling was attrocious... No corrections, no adjustments, no nothing.

OK, this statement shows without question that you are so quick to blame Arians, you suffer from post game amnesia and have no recall whatsoever as to why we lost.
You are correct about Bens picks. Three in the first half contributed to our being down 21-7 at halftime.

No corrections, no adjustments? Are you serious?

We scored TWENTY THREE POINTS after halftime my friend. We came storming back to take the lead with THREE 4th quarter touchdowns.

We had Najeh starting averaging like 2 yards a carry and an Oline getting manhandled, Ben throwing three picks, and we score 29.

1 Ben throws 3 picks- not his fault

2 Tomlin calls for not one but TWO 2 point conversions, rather than kick, WE Lost by two points- not his fault.

3. We haven't drafted a high Olineman in years. We did spend two top picks on linebackers that year. Of course linebackers can't create holes for the backup at running back. And of course Linebackers can't keep Ben from being sacked 6 times in that game. The last sack resulted in the fumble that ended the game. Not Colberts fault of course.

4. Our star studded defense gives up a ridiculous 32 yard 4th down run by Gerard, who suddenly has become Mike Vick. We are ahead and time is short. If we stop him, we win, period. They get within field good range a kick a game winning FG. But it is not the fault of the defense, or the genius d coordinator is it?


We have a great team with extremely talented players.

We have extremely talent defensive players.
Our offense is not outstanding in talent.
We have a great QB, with some pretty good players and some pretty bad players.



I am not an Arians fan....

Oh that my friend is clear.
If you can lay the blame him for that loss, and claim he made no adjustments, in spite of scoring all but 7 of our 29 points in the second half, you are simply wrong.

Nearly every part of this team had a worse game than Arians (receivers were excellent) and contributed more to the loss than he did.
You could not pick a worse example to try to pin on him.

The truth is, Arians has yet to coach a bad playoff game. Period!
Yes, I said it.
As much as that makes some cringe, you think about it.[/quote:cadc3o23]

You need to lay off the Maui Wowie Lemming...you could not be more wrong. I think NKy misspoke (or mistyped...or misremembered) when he was talking about the adjustments the 2nd half. Either that or he was referring to the epic turtle job with the game on the line or the second and third quarters where our offense was simply pathetic.

Our defense and running attack were decimated in that game, our special teams back then were anything but special, and Tomlin did indeed whip out one of the all-time worst coaching decisions I've ever seen. As far as Ben, well he threw the three picks in the first half, but was brilliant the rest of the way.

Now for numbnuts. Arians shocked me (and I'm sure everyone else) by coming out with a quick hitting passing game and we marched right down the field for six. I stated before the game that if we didn't start mixing in the three step drop and quick passes, I'd drive up to the 'Burgh and beat his ass. Ben had been getting killed and we just continued to drop him straight back, game after game...it was maddening. As far as that Jags playoff game...well, that first drive was the last we saw of the quick passing attack until we had no choice but to go to the hurry-up in the 4th quarter. On our second series we went back to the five and seven step drops, Ben was pressured and he threw some bad passes as a result.

That game proved Arians is fool and while it wasn't the genesis of my disdain for him, it cemented the fact that he was out of his league. I really love how you can spread the blame all over the place (and rightfully so), but leave out perhaps the most egregious offender in that game.

I don't know what your fascination with Arians is, but your myopic defense of him is bordering on the ridiculous. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's starting to make you look foolish.

NKySteeler
07-08-2009, 10:51 PM
You've had too many brews in Lahina..... But I won't rule-out some post game amnesia... :lol:


We scored TWENTY THREE POINTS after halftime my friend. We came storming back to take the lead with THREE 4th quarter touchdowns.

Yet they continued to go to the deep pass instead of looking for the shorter yardage and higher percentage completions with open targets... Go deep and ignore the short pass to move the chains... Repeatedly.

3. We haven't drafted a high Olineman in years. We did spend two top picks on linebackers that year. Of course linebackers can't create holes for the backup at running back. And of course Linebackers can't keep Ben from being sacked 6 times in that game. The last sack resulted in the fumble that ended the game. Not Colberts fault of course.

I never made any comment about the line, but please don't get me started on that topic... Nice job bringing-up Colbert, though, because I didn't. But that is neither here nor there when discussing the offensive playcalling and lack of originality.

4. Our star studded defense gives up a ridiculous 32 yard 4th down run by Gerard, who suddenly has become Mike Vick. We are ahead and time is short. If we stop him, we win, period. They get within field good range a kick a game winning FG. But it is not the fault of the defense, or the genius d coordinator is it?

Smith was out, if I recall (know he missed time, but don't recall if he was out or back for that game). And that fact alone hampered our D. How many times (including this past season) should they have to win the game?

We have extremely talent defensive players.
Our offense is not outstanding in talent.
We have a great QB, with some pretty good players and some pretty bad players.

Disagree... We have talent as far as offensive weapons, just no one to amply design the plays. Minor changes, such as utilizing a blocking back would make some of the talent look even better.

If you can lay the blame him for that loss, and claim he made no adjustments, in spite of scoring all but 7 of our 29 points in the second half, you are simply wrong.

Thanx for your expert opinion. I didn't know you were an expert that can judge my own opinion for me... Hey, it's just my opinion. And we each are entitled to it... I wouldn't say one's opinion is "wrong", but just different. ... I don't fault you for yours even though I disagree with it.

Mine is that Arians is a hinderance rather than a positive contribution.... Sorry.

sd steel
07-09-2009, 01:02 AM
Ok we are now gonna argue about 2007-08, Arians first year on the job? Ok, I guess I was mistaken that this argument is unable to be won.

Arians supporters only need to say "scoreboard", the Steelers, his team, won the Super Bowl. Do I give him all the credit for that? No, but at the same time he had a hand in number 7, and without insider info, you don't know what part he played or whether he was a detriment. You don't know if Arians is Tomlins puppet, or if Rooney is calling the plays from the booth. But you do know that the Steelers won the Championship, Arians was the OC, and everything else is speculation at best.

My question to those who continue to bash the OC even after he was a part of a Championship season, Do you really think that you are smarter and know more about football than a guy who has been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, was a QB at VA Tech, and Coached under Bear Bryant? I understand the dissention, and I question play calls, and I also, (especially during the Philly game last year), cuss the SOB, but they are not winning inspite of the guy. Now are there better guys who could be OC? I am sure there are, but as long as we are winning championships or going deep in the playoffs, you will never find out. Then when a change is made you end up with an OC genius like Kevin Gibride, who by all accounts is an offensive genius, except when he was our OC. That fact only leads me to believe that it's not really about the OC, it's about being able to execute what the OC is drawing up. Games are won by players, not coaches. Coaches direct, teach and motivate players, and if we are winning he is doing his job.

The last question I have would be to ask the guys who dislike Arians and the fact that we don't use a old school fullback anymore in favor of a two tight set. If Big Ben said he liked it better because it gave him more options, would you still hate it? On a side note I come from a power running background where I played fullback, and I miss the Kreiders and Witmans and Lesters, but what if that was Ben's decision? Would you still be hating on Arians?

Oviedo
07-09-2009, 08:06 AM
Ok we are now gonna argue about 2007-08, Arians first year on the job? Ok, I guess I was mistaken that this argument is unable to be won.

Arians supporters only need to say "scoreboard", the Steelers, his team, won the Super Bowl. Do I give him all the credit for that? No, but at the same time he had a hand in number 7, and without insider info, you don't know what part he played or whether he was a detriment. You don't know if Arians is Tomlins puppet, or if Rooney is calling the plays from the booth. But you do know that the Steelers won the Championship, Arians was the OC, and everything else is speculation at best.

My question to those who continue to bash the OC even after he was a part of a Championship season, Do you really think that you are smarter and know more about football than a guy who has been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, was a QB at VA Tech, and Coached under Bear Bryant? I understand the dissention, and I question play calls, and I also, (especially during the Philly game last year), cuss the SOB, but they are not winning inspite of the guy. Now are there better guys who could be OC? I am sure there are, but as long as we are winning championships or going deep in the playoffs, you will never find out. Then when a change is made you end up with an OC genius like Kevin Gibride, who by all accounts is an offensive genius, except when he was our OC. That fact only leads me to believe that it's not really about the OC, it's about being able to execute what the OC is drawing up. Games are won by players, not coaches. Coaches direct, teach and motivate players, and if we are winning he is doing his job.

The last question I have would be to ask the guys who dislike Arians and the fact that we don't use a old school fullback anymore in favor of a two tight set. If Big Ben said he liked it better because it gave him more options, would you still hate it? On a side note I come from a power running background where I played fullback, and I miss the Kreiders and Witmans and Lesters, but what if that was Ben's decision? Would you still be hating on Arians?

The league has evolved beyong the bruising lead blocking FB offenses. I'll bet if you look at the Top 10 offenses in the NFL last year thre clear majority (if not all) do not use a lead blocking FB as their primary offensive set. The NFL rules pretty much dictate that that type of offense is less effective because the rules have been implemented to increase offensive output not encourage 3 yard gains.

Like the Wing-T, the days of Franco and Rocky are long gone and I just can't understand why that is so hard to accept by so many fans. We have a franchise QB for the first time in 25 years who is getting paid $102M and we still have fans who want him to hand off the ball 35-40 times per game to a RB behind a lead blocking FB because they have this notion that "Steelers' football" is about "power running game." Steelers football is defense first and foremost and winning which we have done quite consistently since Arians became the OC. Is he perfect--no way, but I do believe he has done decent job in implementing the type of offense that wins and will continue to win in the NFL of 2008, 2009 and going forward.

Keep in mind the offense of Whiz and Cowher couldn't consistently beat the Patriots who run an offense very similar to what we have under Arians.

I guess I'm just confused. :HeadBanger :HeadBanger

Flasteel
07-09-2009, 09:48 AM
Ok we are now gonna argue about 2007-08, Arians first year on the job? Ok, I guess I was mistaken that this argument is unable to be won.

Arians supporters only need to say "scoreboard", the Steelers, his team, won the Super Bowl. Do I give him all the credit for that? No, but at the same time he had a hand in number 7, and without insider info, you don't know what part he played or whether he was a detriment. You don't know if Arians is Tomlins puppet, or if Rooney is calling the plays from the booth. But you do know that the Steelers won the Championship, Arians was the OC, and everything else is speculation at best.

My question to those who continue to bash the OC even after he was a part of a Championship season, Do you really think that you are smarter and know more about football than a guy who has been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, was a QB at VA Tech, and Coached under Bear Bryant? I understand the dissention, and I question play calls, and I also, (especially during the Philly game last year), cuss the SOB, but they are not winning inspite of the guy. Now are there better guys who could be OC? I am sure there are, but as long as we are winning championships or going deep in the playoffs, you will never find out. Then when a change is made you end up with an OC genius like Kevin Gibride, who by all accounts is an offensive genius, except when he was our OC. That fact only leads me to believe that it's not really about the OC, it's about being able to execute what the OC is drawing up. Games are won by players, not coaches. Coaches direct, teach and motivate players, and if we are winning he is doing his job.

The last question I have would be to ask the guys who dislike Arians and the fact that we don't use a old school fullback anymore in favor of a two tight set. If Big Ben said he liked it better because it gave him more options, would you still hate it? On a side note I come from a power running background where I played fullback, and I miss the Kreiders and Witmans and Lesters, but what if that was Ben's decision? Would you still be hating on Arians?

There's no way I'm trying to imply that I've got a higher football IQ or more accumulated knowledge than Arians. I spent six years as a high school coach and a lifetime of playing and watching to boot...not exactly a resume that I could stack up against his. This is simply about the man's philosophies not fitting our talent and his penchant for not being able to consistently call effective plays. I arrive at my opinion based on the offensive results and not what I perceive to be the right call from our playbook. The evidence I'm tossing out has to do with our quarterback getting killed for two years with little variance in style to compensate. It has to do with our offense getting bogged down for long stretches in nearly every game, yet coming alive in the last two minutes or on the rare occasions we run the no-huddle. It has to do with seeing Parker in single back sets being jammed between the tackles far more than getting him on the edge. It has to do with the fact that we are incredibly talented on offense (with the noted exception of the line) yet ranked in the bottom half of the league statistically...and that's also with a big assist by our top-ranked defense. It has to do with a combination of many things and it traces his ineffective legacy back to Cleveland and even Temple.

Scoreboard doesn't do anything to address these points, it only serves to say that with all of the other pieces in place it was good enough this past season. Without late game heroics by number 7 and the offense (when Arians is normally removed from play-calling) it wouldn't have been. We could have easily wasted one of the all-time great defenses...even the Rats with Trent Dilfer couldn't do that.

I love how nearly all of you guys who support Arians acknowledge that he isn't the best OC in the league. Why is that? What are you seeing that knocks him down a peg or two on the coordinator food chain? Well, whatever that is, I see it too and I'm just not willing to let a championship make me look the other way.

I agree with your assessment the other day SD. This is a difficult argument to win because none of us are in the huddle or privy to the tools needed to truly evaluate the job. I'm formulating my opinion on the trail of breadcrumbs I see and if someone else wants to look at different evidence, that's their perogotive. I just want to reitterate that I'm not, nor have been calling for his job (with a couple of momentary exceptions) and I'm not hoping that he fails this season just to make me right. I hope the guy is finally able to get a stronger match between what he wants to do and what are players do best and we raise up Lombardi number 7.

feltdizz
07-09-2009, 10:20 AM
no one can blame Arians for the Jags loss in the wild card when Ben had 3 INT's in the first half...

that in itself shows blind allegiance..

seriously.. when you look at the schedule last year most of you guys sound like Madden FF type fans in ripping Arians.. dude isn't the greatest but he isn't the worst.

we won 12 games in the regular season and another SB... we played the NFC East and the Titans, Chargers 2X, Pats and the Ravens 3 times..

just sayin'

Oviedo
07-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Ok we are now gonna argue about 2007-08, Arians first year on the job? Ok, I guess I was mistaken that this argument is unable to be won.

Arians supporters only need to say "scoreboard", the Steelers, his team, won the Super Bowl. Do I give him all the credit for that? No, but at the same time he had a hand in number 7, and without insider info, you don't know what part he played or whether he was a detriment. You don't know if Arians is Tomlins puppet, or if Rooney is calling the plays from the booth. But you do know that the Steelers won the Championship, Arians was the OC, and everything else is speculation at best.

My question to those who continue to bash the OC even after he was a part of a Championship season, Do you really think that you are smarter and know more about football than a guy who has been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, was a QB at VA Tech, and Coached under Bear Bryant? I understand the dissention, and I question play calls, and I also, (especially during the Philly game last year), cuss the SOB, but they are not winning inspite of the guy. Now are there better guys who could be OC? I am sure there are, but as long as we are winning championships or going deep in the playoffs, you will never find out. Then when a change is made you end up with an OC genius like Kevin Gibride, who by all accounts is an offensive genius, except when he was our OC. That fact only leads me to believe that it's not really about the OC, it's about being able to execute what the OC is drawing up. Games are won by players, not coaches. Coaches direct, teach and motivate players, and if we are winning he is doing his job.

The last question I have would be to ask the guys who dislike Arians and the fact that we don't use a old school fullback anymore in favor of a two tight set. If Big Ben said he liked it better because it gave him more options, would you still hate it? On a side note I come from a power running background where I played fullback, and I miss the Kreiders and Witmans and Lesters, but what if that was Ben's decision? Would you still be hating on Arians?

There's no way I'm trying to imply that I've got a higher football IQ or more accumulated knowledge than Arians. I spent six years as a high school coach and a lifetime of playing and watching to boot...not exactly a resume that I could stack up against his. This is simply about the man's philosophies not fitting our talent and his penchant for not being able to consistently call effective plays. I arrive at my opinion based on the offensive results and not what I perceive to be the right call from our playbook. The evidence I'm tossing out has to do with our quarterback getting killed for two years with little variance in style to compensate. It has to do with our offense getting bogged down for long stretches in nearly every game, yet coming alive in the last two minutes or on the rare occasions we run the no-huddle. It has to do with seeing Parker in single back sets being jammed between the tackles far more than getting him on the edge. It has to do with the fact that we are incredibly talented on offense (with the noted exception of the line) yet ranked in the bottom half of the league statistically...and that's also with a big assist by our top-ranked defense. It has to do with a combination of many things and it traces his ineffective legacy back to Cleveland and even Temple.

Scoreboard doesn't do anything to address these points, it only serves to say that with all of the other pieces in place it was good enough this past season. Without late game heroics by number 7 and the offense (when Arians is normally removed from play-calling) it wouldn't have been. We could have easily wasted one of the all-time great defenses...even the Rats with Trent Dilfer couldn't do that.

I love how nearly all of you guys who support Arians acknowledge that he isn't the best OC in the league. Why is that? What are you seeing that knocks him down a peg or two on the coordinator food chain? Well, whatever that is, I see it too and I'm just not willing to let a championship make me look the other way.

I agree with your assessment the other day SD. This is a difficult argument to win because none of us are in the huddle or privy to the tools needed to truly evaluate the job. I'm formulating my opinion on the trail of breadcrumbs I see and if someone else wants to look at different evidence, that's their perogotive. I just want to reitterate that I'm not, nor have been calling for his job (with a couple of momentary exceptions) and I'm not hoping that he fails this season just to make me right. I hope the guy is finally able to get a stronger match between what he wants to do and what are players do best and we raise up Lombardi number 7.

You bring up a good point about talent and I think some of the problems we see on offense is an artifact of transitioning to a new wide open offense that takes advanatage of ben but still having some talent that was suited to Cowher's way of doing things. This is not a one year transition because of contracts and needing to acquire and develop players that are better fits for what Arians is trying to do. I think we see a big step forward this year.

Captain Lemming
07-10-2009, 03:51 AM
You need to lay off the Maui Wowie Lemming...you could not be more wrong.
Are you sure? I could not be more wrong? Lets see.

You said:

I think NKy misspoke (or mistyped...or misremembered) when he was talking about the adjustments the 2nd half.

Translation:
When I said he was incorrect I was right.


Our defense and running attack were decimated in that game, our special teams back then were anything but special, and Tomlin did indeed whip out one of the all-time worst coaching decisions I've ever seen.

You agree with me again.


As far as Ben, well he threw the three picks in the first half, but was brilliant the rest of the way.

You again admit that I was factually correct. I agree Ben played awesome at the end. That is what happens when the OC makes the proper adjustments. :D


I really love how you can spread the blame all over the place (and rightfully so),

Agree again.


but leave out perhaps the most egregious offender in that game.

Florida, you just admitted:


Our defense and running attack were decimated in that game, our special teams back then were anything but special, and Tomlin did indeed whip out one of the all-time worst coaching decisions I've ever seen.

We had no run game
We had no a pathetic oline
the QB threw three first half picks

And we scored 29 despite the challenges above.

If you can average 29 with a great line, and a great running game you have an elite offense. It was supposed to be 31.

We would have had 31, if we Just kicked the extra points.

A top defense gives up that late lead, because off letting a QB run for 30 on 4th down.

We scored more any Steeler Season average that I can recall. We gave up nearly twice our season average.

Think about it this way, what would you think if you knew the Steelers would average four TDs and a field goal every playoff? Would you be disappointed?
Now ask yourself would you be happy with giving up 24 points on average?

We lose 7-3 I aint ever gonna lay the loss on the defensive coach. The defense did what it needs to do to win. Conversely, if we lose with both teams at around 30 I lay the loss more on the defense.

With the talent we have on defense and the coaching prowess on that side we should never score 30 and lose.


I don't know what your fascination with Arians is, but your myopic defense of him is bordering on the ridiculous. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's starting to make you look foolish.

Look at the cartoon Lemming.
"Steeler Defender"
I am defending BA because there is a ridiculous amount of criticism of him.
Look closely. I have said in this thread that Lebeau is a better coach. I love the Job Tomlin is doing. Of the three Arians is most expendable.

Nevertheless, he has contributed to our championship. Of the three coaches he is the least responsible for the loss to the Jags.

He contributed because his offense has yet to be stopped in the playoffs.
You think that this is easy?
How soon we forget that our offense would struggle almost every year in the postseason.

Captain Lemming
07-10-2009, 04:20 AM
Smith was out, if I recall (know he missed time, but don't recall if he was out or back for that game). And that fact alone hampered our D.

Smith? You talkin Smith?
We lose our 2nd best safety, heck our second best "Smith" on defense, one guy and we can't slow the Jags?


How many times (including this past season) should they have to win the game?

Newsflash dude, we win 10-7 tell me "the defense" won the game.

When the offense just scored three tds in one quarter to take the lead, allowing the 31st Jag point it is blowing the game.

I get your point.
As long as they are outscored it is always the fault of the offensive play calling. :D

Flasteel
07-10-2009, 10:34 AM
[quote]You need to lay off the Maui Wowie Lemming...you could not be more wrong.
Are you sure? I could not be more wrong? Lets see.

You said:

I think NKy misspoke (or mistyped...or misremembered) when he was talking about the adjustments the 2nd half.

Translation:
When I said he was incorrect I was right.


Our defense and running attack were decimated in that game, our special teams back then were anything but special, and Tomlin did indeed whip out one of the all-time worst coaching decisions I've ever seen.

You agree with me again.


As far as Ben, well he threw the three picks in the first half, but was brilliant the rest of the way.

You again admit that I was factually correct. I agree Ben played awesome at the end. That is what happens when the OC makes the proper adjustments. :D


I really love how you can spread the blame all over the place (and rightfully so),

Agree again.


but leave out perhaps the most egregious offender in that game.

Florida, you just admitted:


Our defense and running attack were decimated in that game, our special teams back then were anything but special, and Tomlin did indeed whip out one of the all-time worst coaching decisions I've ever seen.

We had no run game
We had no a pathetic oline
the QB threw three first half picks

And we scored 29 despite the challenges above.

If you can average 29 with a great line, and a great running game you have an elite offense. It was supposed to be 31.

We would have had 31, if we Just kicked the extra points.

A top defense gives up that late lead, because off letting a QB run for 30 on 4th down.

We scored more any Steeler Season average that I can recall. We gave up nearly twice our season average.

Think about it this way, what would you think if you knew the Steelers would average four TDs and a field goal every playoff? Would you be disappointed?
Now ask yourself would you be happy with giving up 24 points on average?

We lose 7-3 I aint ever gonna lay the loss on the defensive coach. The defense did what it needs to do to win. Conversely, if we lose with both teams at around 30 I lay the loss more on the defense.

With the talent we have on defense and the coaching prowess on that side we should never score 30 and lose.


I don't know what your fascination with Arians is, but your myopic defense of him is bordering on the ridiculous. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's starting to make you look foolish.

Look at the cartoon Lemming.
"Steeler Defender"
I am defending BA because there is a ridiculous amount of criticism of him.
Look closely. I have said in this thread that Lebeau is a better coach. I love the Job Tomlin is doing. Of the three Arians is most expendable.

Nevertheless, he has contributed to our championship. Of the three coaches he is the least responsible for the loss to the Jags.

He contributed because his offense has yet to be stopped in the playoffs.
You think that this is easy?
How soon we forget that our offense would struggle almost every year in the postseason.[/quote:u2qdas3k]

Okay...you could be more wrong. :D

NorthCoast
07-20-2009, 08:43 AM
At the risk of making them sound intelligent, I can count on one hand the number of times an announcer made the comment "gee, that was a really well-designed play" when referring to our offense in the last two years.

On the other hand, those kinds of comments are routinely made about the defense....

grotonsteel
07-20-2009, 11:59 AM
no one can blame Arians for the Jags loss in the wild card when Ben had 3 INT's in the first half...


Steelers D also laid a big egg in that game. They could not stop David gerrad on 4th and 1. Steelers D made David Gerrad look like Michael Vick on that play...

BTW if i am not mistaken David gerrad too threw 2 INTS in that game.

grotonsteel
07-20-2009, 12:04 PM
With a better O-line and healthy Rashard Mendenhall Steelers Offense should look much better this season. Bruce Arians is taking Steelers O in right direction. Bruce Arians need to be more creative on goal line offense though.