PDA

View Full Version : Bettis On The Steelers: Line Sucks



Jooser
09-15-2009, 09:46 AM
The Bus is now writing for SI, and when I get the next edition, I'll scan it and post this full article, until then, here's the PFT preview of how Bettis sees our crappy OL and our RBs as well......


Bettis gets blunt about the Steelers
Posted by Mike Florio on September 14, 2009 11:07 PM ET
Jerome Bettis, whose NBC gig ended after the 2008 season, is now writing for SI.com.

And his debut column will raise some eyebrows in the 'Burgh.

Bettis explains -- accurately, we might add -- that the biggest flaw with the Steelers is their offensive line.

"This problem isn't anything new," Bettis says, "and I blame the coaching staff for not addressing the line in the offseason. How did they rationalize not doing anything about it? Well, they won a Super Bowl. They won't be so lucky twice in a row. If Ben [Roethlisberger] continues to get hit the way he did Thursday -- the same way he did last year, then this will come back to haunt the Steelers. Ben will get hurt. Ben will miss games. And they don't have a line to run behind without Ben. Pittsburgh can't repeat with the line playing like this."

Bettis also echoes our recent item regarding the possibility that Mewelde Moore will leapfrog Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall on the depth chart. :wft

Though the league source who pointed Bettis' column out to us thinks that Bettis will be required to tone it down soon, that directive surely won't come from SI.com. Instead, Bettis will have to decide whether he wants to continue to be a beloved alumnus of the Steelers organization, or whether he wants to be objective.

Then again, Bettis made waves three years ago by accurately exposing the fact that coach Bill Cowher would be packing it in after the 2006 season, a belief that was an open secret among the folks who cover the team, but it was treated by the beat writers with the discretion that once was afforded to politicians who engaged in periodic peccadillos.

Meanwhile, we agree whole-heartedly with Jerome's five other takes in the wake of Week One.

SidSmythe
09-15-2009, 10:10 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

Oviedo
09-15-2009, 10:12 AM
"This problem isn't anything new," Bettis says, "and I blame the coaching staff for not addressing the line in the offseason.

This is easy to say and hard to do. We were all clamoring for a big free agent signing but the reality is the money wasn't there. Even if you took the money you signed Starks and Kemo with they weren't going to get the top available players. The FO used their 2nd pick (3rd round) in the draft on Urbik, they used a 7th Round pick on Shipley and got one of the top USFAs in Foster. This area wasn't ignored.

The FO and the staff took a chance that stability and familiarity playing together would improve the OL play. I do admit that IMO the resigning of Kemo is a headscratcher because he has failed to impress. Maybe it will but to say they did not address the OL is intellectually dishonest on Bettis' part.

RuthlessBurgher
09-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.

Oviedo
09-15-2009, 10:15 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.

Totally agree.

Jooser
09-15-2009, 10:39 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.


I agree RB, I think we should use Mendy more in the no huddle also as he can catch, just to see what he has....heck after all, he was a first round pick and all..... :!: :idea: :!:

Oviedo
09-15-2009, 10:44 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.


I agree RB, I think we should use Mendy more in the no huddle also as he can catch, just to see what he has....heck after all, he was a first round pick and all..... :!: :idea: :!:

Sooner or later they are going to have to take the training wheels off and give Mendy a legit chance to show what he can do. Even if they are throwing the ball, Mendy is a much better receiver than FWP.

aggiebones
09-15-2009, 11:00 AM
They ran MMoore up the middle on 3rd and 1.
That scared me as far as him possibly leapfrogging the RBs. Or maybe sending a signal. Or maybe just trying to catch Tenn leaning outside with Moore in the game.
All said, if the OL doesn't start clicking and Parker doesn't start seeing some of the holes he missed, something will happen. Just by sheer philosophy shirt, Moore will get more PT in near future.
Yes, there were some holes and especially missed cutbacks by Parker. I think he'll see those more in the near future when the rust comes off, but he does tend to lean to the outside and teams know it. His sheer speed gives him more opportunities on the edge than most RBs. But as he slows down, that won't work.

Shoe
09-15-2009, 11:41 AM
I disagree Ruthless...
The main reason he's not the featured back is cuz his lack of speed & size. They want that HR-capability in there. And durabililty is probably a factor too (for Moore, who isn't a sturdy built guy).

But I just go by the fact that I was every game, and how I feel. I feel better in a tight game right now (as opposed to '06, when I would've been happy with Parker) with Mewelde in the game. He's solid as all heck.

RuthlessBurgher
09-15-2009, 12:08 PM
I disagree Ruthless...
The main reason he's not the featured back is cuz his lack of speed & size. They want that HR-capability in there. And durabililty is probably a factor too (for Moore, who isn't a sturdy built guy).

But I just go by the fact that I was every game, and how I feel. I feel better in a tight game right now (as opposed to '06, when I would've been happy with Parker) with Mewelde in the game. He's solid as all heck.

Speed and size are somewhat important for a RB, no? Right now, I think Moore is filling his particular role as best as can be expected. Totally respect the guy. But I don't see him as an answer as an every-down back on a long-term basis. He filled in admirably there in the short term when Mendenhall and Parker were both injured last year, but I wouldn't want to see him as a feature back on a regular basis except in case of injury. He's fine where he is as a 3rd down back and RB when we go no huddle. Important role player for sure, but not our best RB overall.

ikestops85
09-15-2009, 12:19 PM
I disagree Ruthless...
The main reason he's not the featured back is cuz his lack of speed & size. They want that HR-capability in there. And durabililty is probably a factor too (for Moore, who isn't a sturdy built guy).

But I just go by the fact that I was every game, and how I feel. I feel better in a tight game right now (as opposed to '06, when I would've been happy with Parker) with Mewelde in the game. He's solid as all heck.

Speed and size are somewhat important for a RB, no? Right now, I think Moore is filling his particular role as best as can be expected. Totally respect the guy. But I don't see him as an answer as an every-down back on a long-term basis. He filled in admirably there in the short term when Mendenhall and Parker were both injured last year, but I wouldn't want to see him as a feature back on a regular basis except in case of injury. He's fine where he is as a 3rd down back and RB when we go no huddle. Important role player for sure, but not our best RB overall.

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? What makes you think MM couldn't be the feature back? The reason I ask is to me he always produces when he is in the game. He obviously is a good receiver. He seems to do at least as well if not better than everyone else carrying the rock. I haven't noticed a big weakness in his pass blocking.

Now don't get me wrong because I sorta feel the way you do but I can't put my finger on why. Is it because he isn't proven like Willie or a first rounder like Mendy? If you just look at the results of the 3 backs in question then I can't see why Moore doesn't come out ahead.

Mister Pittsburgh
09-15-2009, 12:27 PM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.

I think Mendenhall should be the starting RB. He would be perfect to use as he would allow us to throw or run on any down, has the size and power to pick up some yards after initial contact, can catch, and has the speed for big gainers. He is the perfect mix of Willie Parker & Mewelde Moore.....Moore just gets a shot to showcase his receiving skills because he is in there on 3rd down and the no huddle but Mendy could be more dynamic in this role.

steelernation77
09-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Mendenhall needs to start and Redman needs to be signed off the practice squad. The line did not do a great job blocking to say the least but Parker looked too hesitant and had no burst. Mendenhall needs to be given a shot.

NorthCoast
09-15-2009, 12:35 PM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.


This is just pure speculation until we try it. Problem is, we have seen no indication that Moore will be given that chance.

RuthlessBurgher
09-15-2009, 12:41 PM
I disagree Ruthless...
The main reason he's not the featured back is cuz his lack of speed & size. They want that HR-capability in there. And durabililty is probably a factor too (for Moore, who isn't a sturdy built guy).

But I just go by the fact that I was every game, and how I feel. I feel better in a tight game right now (as opposed to '06, when I would've been happy with Parker) with Mewelde in the game. He's solid as all heck.

Speed and size are somewhat important for a RB, no? Right now, I think Moore is filling his particular role as best as can be expected. Totally respect the guy. But I don't see him as an answer as an every-down back on a long-term basis. He filled in admirably there in the short term when Mendenhall and Parker were both injured last year, but I wouldn't want to see him as a feature back on a regular basis except in case of injury. He's fine where he is as a 3rd down back and RB when we go no huddle. Important role player for sure, but not our best RB overall.

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? What makes you think MM couldn't be the feature back? The reason I ask is to me he always produces when he is in the game. He obviously is a good receiver. He seems to do at least as well if not better than everyone else carrying the rock. I haven't noticed a big weakness in his pass blocking.

Now don't get me wrong because I sorta feel the way you do but I can't put my finger on why. Is it because he isn't proven like Willie or a first rounder like Mendy? If you just look at the results of the 3 backs in question then I can't see why Moore doesn't come out ahead.

With a little 209 lbs RB (Moore and Parker have the same listed weight), I think you should have some distinguishing quality (like Parker's speed). Moore does a lot of things well (catching balls out of the backfield, picking up a blitzer, etc.) but he doesn't seem to have one elite attribute. In that case, I would prefer to use a 225 lbs RB like Mendenhall to handle the pounding that would come with running between the tackles, thus being able to save Moore for what he does best (3rd down and no huddle). Again, Mewelde plays his role well, which is what you expect in today's age of running back by committee.

pittpete
09-15-2009, 02:21 PM
At what point is the O-line coach held accountable?
Something I'd really like to know.
Last year we couldn't convert on 3rd/4th and 1's,and this year we are 0-2.
When the F_ck is Zierlin going to be replaced?
Somebody please tell me...

Snatch98
09-15-2009, 02:30 PM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.


I agree RB, I think we should use Mendy more in the no huddle also as he can catch, just to see what he has....heck after all, he was a first round pick and all..... :!: :idea: :!:


Exactly. I'm so amused with all the people labeling Moore our best RB. I like Moore. I liked him when he was with Minnesota and he's certainly a solid back. However Mendenahll hasn't gotten the carries he needs to either prove himself or fall on his face. Now if I were a betting man, I'd bet that if he's given the carries he'll impress well before he disappoints. We drafted the guy in the first round for a reason. He runs hard and contrary to popular belief has good vision. We went up against one of the better run defense in the league Thursday and have another solid but weakened defense Sunday with the Bears (Urlacher out). Our running game will get going and if you ask me Mendenhall gives us the best chance. He's as proficient a pass catcher as Moore and a better RB. I'm glad we have more but just like I wasn't ready to label Timmons a bust like some I'm not about to label Mendenhall second fiddle to Moore.

Give the guy the carries and then pass judgement. He's the real deal.

skyhawk
09-15-2009, 03:21 PM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.

Word.

Discipline of Steel
09-15-2009, 07:00 PM
I disagree Ruthless...
The main reason he's not the featured back is cuz his lack of speed & size. They want that HR-capability in there. And durabililty is probably a factor too (for Moore, who isn't a sturdy built guy).

But I just go by the fact that I was every game, and how I feel. I feel better in a tight game right now (as opposed to '06, when I would've been happy with Parker) with Mewelde in the game. He's solid as all heck.

Speed and size are somewhat important for a RB, no? Right now, I think Moore is filling his particular role as best as can be expected. Totally respect the guy. But I don't see him as an answer as an every-down back on a long-term basis. He filled in admirably there in the short term when Mendenhall and Parker were both injured last year, but I wouldn't want to see him as a feature back on a regular basis except in case of injury. He's fine where he is as a 3rd down back and RB when we go no huddle. Important role player for sure, but not our best RB overall.

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? What makes you think MM couldn't be the feature back? The reason I ask is to me he always produces when he is in the game. He obviously is a good receiver. He seems to do at least as well if not better than everyone else carrying the rock. I haven't noticed a big weakness in his pass blocking.

Now don't get me wrong because I sorta feel the way you do but I can't put my finger on why. Is it because he isn't proven like Willie or a first rounder like Mendy? If you just look at the results of the 3 backs in question then I can't see why Moore doesn't come out ahead.

With a little 209 lbs RB (Moore and Parker have the same listed weight), I think you should have some distinguishing quality (like Parker's speed). Moore does a lot of things well (catching balls out of the backfield, picking up a blitzer, etc.) but he doesn't seem to have one elite attribute. In that case, I would prefer to use a 225 lbs RB like Mendenhall to handle the pounding that would come with running between the tackles, thus being able to save Moore for what he does best (3rd down and no huddle). Again, Mewelde plays his role well, which is what you expect in today's age of running back by committee.

I have to agree Ruthless. Moore is successful in his role, which there happened to be a lot of last Thursday since we were behind toward the end. He is definately by far the best at that role. If we use him up off tackle, he wont be fresh for when he is at his best. Think of it as protecting Moore with Parker and Mendy if you must. BTW, Moore was all but forgotten on this board over the off season so I am glad he has reasserted himself here after the first game.

NorthCoast
09-15-2009, 09:10 PM
How are people drawing the conclusion that Mendenhall is a better pass catcher than Moore? There just is not enough evidence of his play in that role compared with Moore. How many NFL games has Mendenhall caught a pass in compared with Moore??...not even close, so just stop.

Jooser
09-16-2009, 08:58 AM
Bettis knows his audience
Posted by Mike Florio on September 15, 2009 9:08 PM ET

In a recent SI.com column, former Steelers running back Jerome Bettis took the gloves off regarding the team with which he won a Super Bowl before riding off into the sunset of his hometown of Detroit.

Specifically, he teed off on the team's offensive line, which looked not so good in Thursday night's regular-season opener.

"This problem isn't anything new," Bettis said, "and I blame the coaching staff for not addressing the line in the offseason. How did they rationalize not doing anything about it? Well, they won a Super Bowl. They won't be so lucky twice in a row. If Ben [Roethlisberger] continues to get hit the way he did Thursday -- the same way he did last year, then this will come back to haunt the Steelers. Ben will get hurt. Ben will miss games. And they don't have a line to run behind without Ben. Pittsburgh can't repeat with the line playing like this."

But in the September 10 issue of Steelers Digest, Bettis was far more measured in his remarks, even though the point of the article was for Bettis and Hall of Famer Rod Woodson to articule "three things I like about the 2009 Steelers" and "three things about the 2009 Steelers that concern me."

Said Bettis regarding the same topic about which he sounded the alarm after one game: "The offensive line was serviceable last year and with another year should be better, but they still have to play well in order for the team to win. That's the challenge. You worry about the number of sacks that Ben takes, becaue the more hits he takes, the less effective he is going to be. That's the nature of the game. The goal is to get to the quarterback, and if an opponent gets to him with any kind of frequency it's a problem for the quarterback."

So why the remarkably different content and tone? Some might say Bettis dramatically altered his assessment based on the opening game, but we'd hate to see what Bettis would have said about the offensive line if the Steelers hadn't, you know, won the game.

The more fundamental reality is that Steelers Digest has a far different audience than SI.com, and Bettis would have run a much greater risk of alienating the folks from whom he still makes a decent amount of money if he had demonstrated the same candor that was on display in his more recent item for SI.com.

Still, though it's smart for Bettis to gauge his message to his audience, consistency of message is fairly important, too.

fezziwig
09-16-2009, 11:25 AM
"This problem isn't anything new," Bettis says, "and I blame the coaching staff for not addressing the line in the offseason.

This is easy to say and hard to do. We were all clamoring for a big free agent signing but the reality is the money wasn't there. Even if you took the money you signed Starks and Kemo with they weren't going to get the top available players. The FO used their 2nd pick (3rd round) in the draft on Urbik, they used a 7th Round pick on Shipley and got one of the top USFAs in Foster. This area wasn't ignored.

The FO and the staff took a chance that stability and familiarity playing together would improve the OL play. I do admit that IMO the resigning of Kemo is a headscratcher because he has failed to impress. Maybe it will but to say they did not address the OL is intellectually dishonest on Bettis' part.


x2

fezziwig
09-16-2009, 11:25 AM
Everything he said is true, including Mewelde Moore. He's the best RB on our roster right now

He's not the best RB necessarily. He's just the RB that we use when our offense is at its best in the no huddle. If we tried to run Moore the same way we run Parker or Mendenhall, he would be no better than they are in those situations.

Totally agree.


x3

Oviedo
09-16-2009, 11:33 AM
How are people drawing the conclusion that Mendenhall is a better pass catcher than Moore? There just is not enough evidence of his play in that role compared with Moore. How many NFL games has Mendenhall caught a pass in compared with Moore??...not even close, so just stop.

The same way they draw the conclusion he is a bust after about 5 NFL games because he has not had a 100 yard rushing game yet. Plus all young Steelers players are busts initially. Just part of the process.

Unless Hood has at least 5 sack or K Lewis has 3 INTs or Joe Burnett returns 3 punts for TDs they will all at one point or another this season be either a "bust" or a "bad draft pick" that illustrates the front office can't evaluate talent to the same level as some members of the board.

fezziwig
09-16-2009, 11:50 AM
At what point is the O-line coach held accountable?
Something I'd really like to know.
Last year we couldn't convert on 3rd/4th and 1's,and this year we are 0-2.
When the F_ck is Zierlin going to be replaced?
Somebody please tell me...

I think many feel like myself, you can't squeeze blood from a rock. Grimm wasn't exactly making a name for himself with these guys either.


These guys are just not that talented and the worse of all is Kemo in my opinion. I hope Essexs improves with time but, how good could he be if he has been the backup to one of the worse lines in the NFL ?
I used to say that about DeWayne Washington and Chad Scott. Actually, I would say, " put Townsend in there, he's got to be better. ' I was right.

Is Starks that bad that he couldn't make it on another team as starter ? I'm sitting the fence with that one.

Is Colon so bad that he couldn't make it as a starter on another team ? I think he could and especially if they're already good at having a top line.

How about Essexs ? I doubt he could crack the starting squad.

Hartwig ? Like us guys or the Steelers, good enough but hoping someone better comes along.

Kemo ? I really doubt it. Maybe, just maybe if some team is stupid enough, desperate enough for a right tackle. They'll learn and get rid of him soon.

Ben makes up for these guys along with the receivers and we still win. They stack nine in the box against the run and Ben gets pass happy on them and as long as he can scramble.

What if Ben does get hurt, God forbid ? Batch is good but he can't keep the plays alive like Ben ? Ben gets hurt and we are a 8-8 team only because of our defense. Maybe 10-6 because these guys are great on defense.

back to the o-line: If our starting o-line was our backups, we would have one of the best backup squads in the league.


Then I think about all the times our o-line had their backs against the wall and came through. They came through with a large part of Ben moving around like a jumping bean but still, we won the Super Bowl with them or despite them.

JTP53609
09-16-2009, 01:07 PM
can't get mad at a man that speaks the truth...we are a very good team, this team may be the most talented team I can remember, but that line is dreadful and if we could of upgraded it this offseason than we would be that much better....