PDA

View Full Version : Give Arians some credit



Oviedo
12-07-2009, 09:13 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

JTP53609
12-07-2009, 09:17 AM
i agree, i am not one of the arians haters, he has done good things IMO..its not his fault we threw an interception inside the redzone again, not his fault that we missed a 53 yd fg. maybe some blame for stumbling on 3rd and 1 and 4th and inches, but still, the raiders defense is not horrible, their offense is, but we put up 24...should be enough...

steelblood
12-07-2009, 09:33 AM
Yeah, I think he is ok. Two points continue to drive me nuts though.

Receivers don't seem to have enough hot routes when the blitz is obviously on.

Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.

These are both things that should have been fixed 2 years ago. Otherwise, I think he has provided us with some interesting sets and an effective 2 minute offense. It does seem to me that Ben makes hims look very good with the way he runs the 2 minute offense. But, still the plays are there and the team seems to believe in the structure.

pfelix73
12-07-2009, 10:29 AM
No way Jose. His play calling at times is miserable. Take for example- 2nd down and goal to go in the very first series of the game. Now granted, Ben should have audibled out of it, but BA called the play- It was a running play (and if I'm not mistaken- a one back set) and there 9 men in the box. You can't run on that- someone would've been open on the outside. We don't make the 3rd down play because it is after all, going to be a pass play. We settle for another FG.

This is just one example- and folks can say well, they didn't execute the play, and that is true as well, HOWEVER, the play call has to put them in to a situation where they can succeed and not fail.

:tt1

Ghost
12-07-2009, 10:46 AM
Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.

I'd love for someone to explain this. I watch other teams constantly run these types of plays successfully and the Steelers are completely inept. Head scratching, the level of incompetence at this.

NWNewell
12-07-2009, 10:52 AM
[quote="steelblood"]Yeah, I think he is ok. Two points continue to drive me nuts though.

Receivers don't seem to have enough hot routes when the blitz is obviously on.
Tough to implement when our receiver barely do a good job with the number of hot routes they have now.


Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.
That I agree with.
/quote]

And I'll give BA some credit because he has been moving back to trying to run the ball a bit more. Still more unbalanced than I'd like at times. But with Mendy producing, he seems to have gained some confidence and he seems to try to run with enough balance to keep teams honest now.

LouSteel
12-07-2009, 10:52 AM
Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.

I'd love for someone to explain this. I watch other teams constantly run these types of plays successfully and the Steelers are completely inept. Head scratching, the level of incompetence at this.

Hell, the local high school teams can execute a screen play better than we can :HeadBanger

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 10:59 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

I disagree. If this were still Cowers team, we would have ran the ball more and choked out the clock. We would have definitley won the game. Cower may have played turtle ball, but he knew how to keep a lead and get the win. Arians doesn't use the run effectively. He'd rather pass first and run the ball only as a last resort. I normally blast Arians every chance I get, and he does need to share in the blame for this loss. However, this loss isn't totally on him. I'd say only 30% of it does. The rest falls on this lack luster Defense that looks as if some of the players are seeing the field for the first time in their lives.

Oviedo
12-07-2009, 11:07 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

I disagree. If this were still Cowers team, we would have ran the ball more and choked out the clock. We would have definitley won the game. Cower may have played turtle ball, but he knew how to keep a lead and get the win. Arians doesn't use the run effectively. He'd rather pass first and run the ball only as a last resort. I normally blast Arians every chance I get, and he does need to share in the blame for this loss. However, this loss isn't totally on him. I'd say only 30% of it does. The rest falls on this lack luster Defense that looks as if some of the players are seeing the field for the first time in their lives.

And if the defense gave up three 4th quarter leads we would have never come back to take the lead back under Cowher.

msp26505
12-07-2009, 11:13 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

I disagree. If this were still Cowers team, we would have ran the ball more and choked out the clock. We would have definitley won the game. Cower may have played turtle ball, but he knew how to keep a lead and get the win. Arians doesn't use the run effectively. He'd rather pass first and run the ball only as a last resort. I normally blast Arians every chance I get, and he does need to share in the blame for this loss. However, this loss isn't totally on him. I'd say only 30% of it does. The rest falls on this lack luster Defense that looks as if some of the players are seeing the field for the first time in their lives.

I agree with Steeler Mafia. This offense does not impose its will on other teams. Yards and explosiveness are nice, but the offense can take over a game if the right plays are called (and executed) at the right time.

Statistics can be deceptive. It can look like an balanced game in terms of play calling, but Steeler offenses of old would hold onto the ball, protect the QB, and not come away from red zone opportunities empty...REPEATEDLY.

msp26505
12-07-2009, 11:16 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

I disagree. If this were still Cowers team, we would have ran the ball more and choked out the clock. We would have definitley won the game. Cower may have played turtle ball, but he knew how to keep a lead and get the win. Arians doesn't use the run effectively. He'd rather pass first and run the ball only as a last resort. I normally blast Arians every chance I get, and he does need to share in the blame for this loss. However, this loss isn't totally on him. I'd say only 30% of it does. The rest falls on this lack luster Defense that looks as if some of the players are seeing the field for the first time in their lives.

And if the defense gave up three 4th quarter leads we would have never come back to take the lead back under Cowher.

Under Cowher, the offense would never give the other team the opportunity to come back because they would milk the clock...resting the D and giving the opponent less time to pull off their weekly season-defining comeback.

LouSteel
12-07-2009, 11:23 AM
I think our problem is that we spend too much time trying to "impose our will" -- well, impose Arians will. It's as if he makes his plan and sticks to it, come hell or high water.

We need an OC that will take what the other team gives... not an OC that is too busy trying to run his plan no matter what.

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 11:23 AM
He has transformed this offense into a quick strike waepon that kept us in this game. If this was the "old Cowher offense" we would have been out of this long before the last 9 seconds of the game. :stirpot

You may hate him for what "you think" the play calling is but the reality is he should get credit for making this offense formidable. :stirpot

I disagree. If this were still Cowers team, we would have ran the ball more and choked out the clock. We would have definitley won the game. Cower may have played turtle ball, but he knew how to keep a lead and get the win. Arians doesn't use the run effectively. He'd rather pass first and run the ball only as a last resort. I normally blast Arians every chance I get, and he does need to share in the blame for this loss. However, this loss isn't totally on him. I'd say only 30% of it does. The rest falls on this lack luster Defense that looks as if some of the players are seeing the field for the first time in their lives.

And if the defense gave up three 4th quarter leads we would have never come back to take the lead back under Cowher.

Under Cower, the Raiders would not have had the time to take the lead in the 4th quarter. Cower would have had that clock looking like a bax fan. He knew how to protect a lead, even when the defense wasn't playing up to par. Unfortunatley, Arians doesn't believe in the run, so he can't manage the clock as effectively. Cower may have had his issues in big games against big teams, but against teams with a sub par record, he would get the win. It may not be pretty, but he would get the win.

....but again like I said before, this loss does not totally fall on Arians. Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads. How long has it been since we last saw the Steelers win a blowout game? I can't remember.

Ghost
12-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads.

They put up 24 points against both teams. How many points does the O need to put on the board? If there are 24 points on the scoreboard and the Steelers lose - that's on the D. 24 should gurantee a win, especially against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL. Absurd. They had 5 TD's on the road for the entire season and put up 3 in one quarter.

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 12:13 PM
Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads.

They put up 24 points against both teams. How many points does the O need to put on the board? If there are 24 points on the scoreboard and the Steelers lose - that's on the D. 24 should gurantee a win, especially against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL. Absurd. They had 5 TD's on the road for the entire season and put up 3 in one quarter.

It is obvious that with this D, 24 points are not enough. There is no reason that against a sub par defense like Oakland that we can't put up 35 points or more. Yet we had three instances in the red zone where we came away with only 3 points total. That is pathetic. This Steeler Defense has trouble holding a lead, especially when it is only 10 points or less. Can they keep a lead of 20 or more? We won't know because we never get those kids of leads when our offense sputters like they did in the first half.

We have problems on both sides of the ball. However, this game showed us again that our normally tustworthy D is not as trustworthy as they used to be.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-07-2009, 12:15 PM
Sorry, but I can't see how you can praise BA too much. Why did he wait so long in the game to open up the offense?

We've lost 5 games by 3 freakin' points apiece. If the Steelers produce just a few more points, we win those games. Yeah, I blame LeBeau and the D for blowing leads late in games, but how does Arians get off the hook? When the team has the potential to put 35 on the scoreboard, why would you be satisfied with 24?

Too little, too late.

steelblood
12-07-2009, 12:23 PM
[quote="NWNewell"][quote="steelblood"]Yeah, I think he is ok. Two points continue to drive me nuts though.

Receivers don't seem to have enough hot routes when the blitz is obviously on.
Tough to implement when our receiver barely do a good job with the number of hot routes they have now.

Unless you are a member of our coaching staff, you can't say if the receivers are constantly missing their hots or if there are not enough hots. Heath and Hines and certainly savvy enough to recognize a blitz. Either way though, this is on the coaches. Either there are not enough effective hot routes to combat the blitz or our coaching staff cannot teach our receivers to recognize the blitz.

NWNewell
12-07-2009, 03:46 PM
Yeah, I think he is ok. Two points continue to drive me nuts though.

Receivers don't seem to have enough hot routes when the blitz is obviously on.

Tough to implement when our receiver barely do a good job with the number of hot routes they have now.

Unless you are a member of our coaching staff, you can't say if the receivers are constantly missing their hots or if there are not enough hots. Heath and Hines and certainly savvy enough to recognize a blitz. Either way though, this is on the coaches. Either there are not enough effective hot routes to combat the blitz or our coaching staff cannot teach our receivers to recognize the blitz.

Wait? What? First you say that the receivers don't have enough hot routes. Then you say, unless you are one of the coaches, you can't say if the there are not enough hot routes?

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Or that must mean you ARE one of the coaches!

feltdizz
12-07-2009, 05:51 PM
You guys who hate Arians contradict themselves at every turn. If we scored
more points then we beat 2 of the worst offenses in the league....

Yet scoring gives the other team the ball... and our D blows it.
We praise Cowher for milking the clock... Yet we controlled the time of possession last game.
We also hated turtle ball and wanted to put up more points...

Do any of you really believe we would win with this D if BA wasn't the OC? It's not the points it's the D in the fourth isn't our usual D. We used to sack the QB or get a stop and call it a game...

Now we must score 30+ against bottom feeders who actually have decent Defenses because our #1 D can't stop the worst offenses in football from going 90 yards.

Jesus Christ my lord and savior what would you do with the obvious?

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 06:07 PM
You guys who hate Arians contradict themselves at every turn. If we scored
more points then we beat 2 of the worst offenses in the league....

Exaxctly!

Yet scoring gives the other team the ball... and our D blows it.
We praise Cowher for milking the clock... Yet we controlled the time of possession last game.
We also hated turtle ball and wanted to put up more points...

There is a time and place for Turtle Ball. One is to seal a win, especially when the Defense can't.

Do any of you really believe we would win with this D if BA wasn't the OC? It's not the points it's the D in the fourth isn't our usual D. We used to sack the QB or get a stop and call it a game...
This game? Yes we win without BA, providing that our offense lights up the scoreboard and places this game out of reach. They shouldn't have been in the game from the start.


Now we must score 30+ against bottom feeders who actually have decent Defenses because our #1 D can't stop the worst offenses in football from going 90 yards.

No. We must score 30+ points on the bottom feeders because we are that much better offensively that these teams. There is no reason the Raiders or Chiefs should have been in this game. If you can't hang 30+ points on the bottom feeders, then there is a probelm. Do you see the Colts, *Pats, or Saints beating these bottom feeders by a score of 20-17 or 27-24? I don't think so. All of our games are close. Where are the blow outs? Where is the domination?

Jesus Christ my lord and savior what would you do with the obvious?
No need for this type of talk here. However it is obvious that you are an Arians fan. Are you two related?

Starlifter
12-07-2009, 06:19 PM
it's hard for me to give much credit to arians. yes, there have been some good gameplans and good series of calls made. the end of the game yesterday showed the good. i submit our 1st 4 drives inside the red zone illustrate the bad. the game plan with a rookie QB against baltimore was very effective and gave us the lead with 6 minutes to go. that's the good arians. then we go to overtime and he decides it's time to unleash the deep ball with a rookie QB. that's not so good.

no coach is bad all the time or good all the time. you can find instances in both directions. the bottom line for me as I've said over and over - if he was considered innovative, or a quality coach - wouldn't he have had at least one interview after the superbowl?

BURGH86STEEL
12-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads.

They put up 24 points against both teams. How many points does the O need to put on the board? If there are 24 points on the scoreboard and the Steelers lose - that's on the D. 24 should gurantee a win, especially against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL. Absurd. They had 5 TD's on the road for the entire season and put up 3 in one quarter.

It is obvious that with this D, 24 points are not enough. There is no reason that against a sub par defense like Oakland that we can't put up 35 points or more. Yet we had three instances in the red zone where we came away with only 3 points total. That is pathetic. This Steeler Defense has trouble holding a lead, especially when it is only 10 points or less. Can they keep a lead of 20 or more? We won't know because we never get those kids of leads when our offense sputters like they did in the first half.

We have problems on both sides of the ball. However, this game showed us again that our normally tustworthy D is not as trustworthy as they used to be.

It appeared to me that if the Steelers put up 35 points, Oakland would had scored 38 points. I think you are incorrect about the points scored in the red zone.

How many teams would you say put up 20 point leads consistently in the first half of games? I believe that is an unrealistic expectation. No matter how you want to slice it, giving up a lead is giving up a lead.

BURGH86STEEL
12-07-2009, 06:41 PM
it's hard for me to give much credit to arians. yes, there have been some good gameplans and good series of calls made. the end of the game yesterday showed the good. i submit our 1st 4 drives inside the red zone illustrate the bad. the game plan with a rookie QB against baltimore was very effective and gave us the lead with 6 minutes to go. that's the good arians. then we go to overtime and he decides it's time to unleash the deep ball with a rookie QB. that's not so good.

no coach is bad all the time or good all the time. you can find instances in both directions. the bottom line for me as I've said over and over - if he was considered innovative, or a quality coach - wouldn't he have had at least one interview after the superbowl?

Getting or not getting an interview after the SB does not mean anything. It appears to me the NFL is leaning more towards hiring younger head coaches. The Cowher and Shannahan type of coaches will buck that trend because of their track records.

Arians has been in the league for a long time. I doubt he will never be more then an OC or position coach. Some guys are what they are.

Jooser
12-07-2009, 06:49 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d53/azncarsluvor_09/fail.jpg

Starlifter
12-07-2009, 07:09 PM
Getting or not getting an interview after the SB does not mean anything. It appears to me the NFL is leaning more towards hiring younger head coaches. The Cowher and Shannahan type of coaches will buck that trend because of their track records.

Arians has been in the league for a long time. I doubt he will never be more then an OC or position coach. Some guys are what they are.

respectfully i disagree. the NFL is constantly evolving. those that are able to evolve with it are recognized by other teams. denver took a chance on a 33 year old guy with hardly any track record. i think something like that speaks volumes to how the rest of the league views BA. Lebeau has been a head coach. he's had his chance. BA has never been offered one. personally I would like an OC who is respected enough around the league to at least get an interview.

SteelCrazy
12-07-2009, 08:03 PM
This is a situational game...Arians can not stray from his game plan. He ticks me off more than any other OC ever has...and from a fan stand point a OC should not enter my mind during a game.

Jooser
12-07-2009, 08:14 PM
I'll give BA no praise, and you can't make me!

-Joos out

RuthlessBurgher
12-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Getting or not getting an interview after the SB does not mean anything. It appears to me the NFL is leaning more towards hiring younger head coaches. The Cowher and Shannahan type of coaches will buck that trend because of their track records.

Arians has been in the league for a long time. I doubt he will never be more then an OC or position coach. Some guys are what they are.

respectfully i disagree. the NFL is constantly evolving. those that are able to evolve with it are recognized by other teams. denver took a chance on a 33 year old guy with hardly any track record. i think something like that speaks volumes to how the rest of the league views BA. Lebeau has been a head coach. he's had his chance. BA has never been offered one. personally I would like an OC who is respected enough around the league to at least get an interview.

Dude is 58 years old! Owner hire young, hot coordinators in their 30's and 40's. The only guys in their 50's who will get any consideration for head jobs are guys who are Super Bowl winning head coaches already like Shanahan or Cowher. Does Indy's O.C. Tom Moore suck because he does interview for head coaching jobs? No...he's old!

Mister Pittsburgh
12-07-2009, 08:41 PM
Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.

I'd love for someone to explain this. I watch other teams constantly run these types of plays successfully and the Steelers are completely inept. Head scratching, the level of incompetence at this.

The way the Steelers run them my 4 year old daughter can see them developing.....when you have four 300 pounders rambling to get out in front of the RB it is transparent. When you have the RB come up and chip someone like they are blocking only to peel out into the flat, then that is sneaky. We do the former, and not the latter.

feltdizz
12-07-2009, 08:43 PM
This is a situational game...Arians can not stray from his game plan. He ticks me off more than any other OC ever has...and from a fan stand point a OC should not enter my mind during a game.

I don't see why.. Arians calls a run and Mendenhall gets 30 yards.... luck, Arians sucks
Arians calls a run and the Guard whifs and it's a 2 yard loss.. he is an idiot
Arians calls a pass and we score.. Arians sucks it was all Ben
Arians calls a pass and Ben throws an INT.. Arians sucks why did we throw it?

it's the players who muck it up 9/10 of the time....

When fans say we need to score more then 24 to beat KC and Oakland then the hate is placed in the wrong direction..

feltdizz
12-07-2009, 08:44 PM
Our screen plays to RBs and TEs are among the worst I've ever seen at any level.

I'd love for someone to explain this. I watch other teams constantly run these types of plays successfully and the Steelers are completely inept. Head scratching, the level of incompetence at this.

The way the Steelers run them my 4 year old daughter can see them developing.....when you have four 300 pounders rambling to get out in front of the RB it is transparent. When you have the RB come up and chip someone like they are blocking only to peel out into the flat, then that is sneaky. We do the former, and not the latter.

I hate them regardless... we don't have the OL to do it.. Ben doesn't sell it very well either..

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 09:23 PM
Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads.

They put up 24 points against both teams. How many points does the O need to put on the board? If there are 24 points on the scoreboard and the Steelers lose - that's on the D. 24 should gurantee a win, especially against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL. Absurd. They had 5 TD's on the road for the entire season and put up 3 in one quarter.

It is obvious that with this D, 24 points are not enough. There is no reason that against a sub par defense like Oakland that we can't put up 35 points or more. Yet we had three instances in the red zone where we came away with only 3 points total. That is pathetic. This Steeler Defense has trouble holding a lead, especially when it is only 10 points or less. Can they keep a lead of 20 or more? We won't know because we never get those kids of leads when our offense sputters like they did in the first half.

We have problems on both sides of the ball. However, this game showed us again that our normally tustworthy D is not as trustworthy as they used to be.

It appeared to me that if the Steelers put up 35 points, Oakland would had scored 38 points. I think you are incorrect about the points scored in the red zone.

How many teams would you say put up 20 point leads consistently in the first half of games? I believe that is an unrealistic expectation. No matter how you want to slice it, giving up a lead is giving up a lead.

Unrealistic? No it isn't! First off, I didn't say that we needed to put up all the points in the first half. Second, putting up these kind of points on crap teams isn't impossible. It is only impossible for the Steelers and the Arians run offense. The top tier teams seems to crush the lower teams reather easily, why can't we? It isn't all on the Defense.

Steeler Mafia
12-07-2009, 09:30 PM
This is a situational game...Arians can not stray from his game plan. He ticks me off more than any other OC ever has...and from a fan stand point a OC should not enter my mind during a game.

I don't see why.. Arians calls a run and Mendenhall gets 30 yards.... luck, Arians sucks
Arians calls a run and the Guard whifs and it's a 2 yard loss.. he is an idiot
Arians calls a pass and we score.. Arians sucks it was all Ben
Arians calls a pass and Ben throws an INT.. Arians sucks why did we throw it?

it's the players who muck it up 9/10 of the time....

When fans say we need to score more then 24 to beat KC and Oakland then the hate is placed in the wrong direction..

So if we have the ball, it is 3rd and 10, and we throw a screen pass or run the ball in that hideous two TE set and the play gets stuffed, is that on the players or the coaches that call the plays?

Your love of Arians has you blinded my man. Is he the sole reason we lost, no. But he isn't completely innocent by any definition of the word.

BURGH86STEEL
12-08-2009, 12:09 AM
[quote]Then again, if our offense could put up big points against poor teams such as the Chiefs or Raiders, we wouldn't have to worry about our defense trying to protect slim to marginal leads.

They put up 24 points against both teams. How many points does the O need to put on the board? If there are 24 points on the scoreboard and the Steelers lose - that's on the D. 24 should gurantee a win, especially against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL. Absurd. They had 5 TD's on the road for the entire season and put up 3 in one quarter.

It is obvious that with this D, 24 points are not enough. There is no reason that against a sub par defense like Oakland that we can't put up 35 points or more. Yet we had three instances in the red zone where we came away with only 3 points total. That is pathetic. This Steeler Defense has trouble holding a lead, especially when it is only 10 points or less. Can they keep a lead of 20 or more? We won't know because we never get those kids of leads when our offense sputters like they did in the first half.

We have problems on both sides of the ball. However, this game showed us again that our normally tustworthy D is not as trustworthy as they used to be.

It appeared to me that if the Steelers put up 35 points, Oakland would had scored 38 points. I think you are incorrect about the points scored in the red zone.

How many teams would you say put up 20 point leads consistently in the first half of games? I believe that is an unrealistic expectation. No matter how you want to slice it, giving up a lead is giving up a lead.

Unrealistic? No it isn't! First off, I didn't say that we needed to put up all the points in the first half. Second, putting up these kind of points on crap teams isn't impossible. It is only impossible for the Steelers and the Arians run offense. The top tier teams seems to crush the lower teams reather easily, why can't we? It isn't all on the Defense.[/quote:rzidxkke]

I guess I took what you wrote in regards to points scored the wrong way, my bad.

I know it is not impossible to put up points on crap teams. You have to remember that those crap teams have talent. Under the right circumstances, those bad teams can play well enough to win. The Eagles and Bengals are 2 other good teams the Raiders beat. They held the Bengals to 17 points and the Eagles to 9 points. It appeared they gave the Chargers two pretty good games.

All teams have their share of close games. Could be against good teams or bad teams. Take a look from the scores yesterday. Pats vs Phins, Saints vs Skins, Cleveland vs Chargers , NY vs Dallas, Seattle vs 49ners, Detroi vs Cincy. Most games in the league will be close. I really don't care if the Steelers blow teams out or win by one point, wins are wins.

24 point should had been enough to defeat the Raiders and the Chiefs. I still find it hard to believe that some people want to put all the blame on one person. A person that does not step one foot out on the field. He does not make the costly mistakes on the field. He does not throw the INT's, kick the FG's, make the blocks, ect. ect. ect.

We can disagree with plays called or over analyze the plays called. If you went around the league, I am sure you can find the same with every team. No one ever agrees
100% of the time in regards to play calling. People always complained about the play calling for this team. People will always complain about the play calling. It goes back to no one agrees with play calling 100% of the time. Show me games OC where you agreed with every call. Easier yet, find me one game where you agreed with every call.

It is not all on the defense. It is not all on Arians either. There are fans that will have others believe that everything is Arians fault. Anytime the defense can't keep the other teams from scoring at the end of games, the pendulum swings slightly in their favor.

_SteeL_CurtaiN_
12-08-2009, 01:05 AM
No way Jose. His play calling at times is miserable. Take for example- 2nd down and goal to go in the very first series of the game. Now granted, Ben should have audibled out of it, but BA called the play- It was a running play (and if I'm not mistaken- a one back set) and there 9 men in the box. You can't run on that- someone would've been open on the outside. We don't make the 3rd down play because it is after all, going to be a pass play. We settle for another FG.

This is just one example- and folks can say well, they didn't execute the play, and that is true as well, HOWEVER, the play call has to put them in to a situation where they can succeed and not fail.

:tt1

:Cheers and :Clap , well said

pfelix73
12-08-2009, 10:35 AM
Thanks.-- and keep up the good work with your pics...... :lol:

Steeler Mafia
12-08-2009, 11:07 AM
Thanks.-- and keep up the good work with your pics...... :lol:

AMEN!