PDA

View Full Version : Batch tips Steelers hand on starting QB?



SteelCrazy
07-15-2010, 11:55 AM
http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/20 ... e-steelers (http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2010/7/14/1570200/did-charlie-batch-tip-the-steelers)

So, I do a little bit of writing each week for SportsRadioInterviews.com, a website devoted to bringing fans transcriptions of the best interviews on the airwaves across the country each week. Yesterday I listened and transcribed a recent interview Charlie Batch did on a Tampa radio station. The reason we did so was because we were told by the producers that Batch had some interesting things to say about the possibility of a work stoppage in the NFL in 2011. Batch's take? There's a 100 percent chance that there won't be games played next year. Interesting. Actually, depressing rather.

But that's not why I'm mentioning the interview. (Though I'd like to comment on the possibility of a lockout sometime soon). Instead, I picked up on a couple of interesting thoughts from Batch about the quarterback situation in Pittsburgh for the first part of the season while Ben Roethlisberger is serving his suspension. Here's what Batch had to say after being asked how the competition was going, whether or not he felt he had any chance to see the field over Byron Leftwich and Dennis Dixon, and if there was even a slight chance of any of the three retaining the job when Big Ben returned - like say, if they went undefeated and tore it up.

"Well I mean right now you really don't know. One thing that they're trying to do..I mean, Dennis Dixon is a great talent and I think he showed that in the game that he played last year against Baltimore on Sunday. So I think at some point they're going to try to get him ready as much as possible because he is the future. Granted, I'm not going to be play for a number of more years down the line. Byron of course, he's starting to get up there in years as well.

So Dennis is the next up and coming, and I think the way that everything has gone, they want to give Dennis as many repetitions in training camp as possible, just to see what you have. Whether that was a one-game wonder, or if he's capable of carrying the load throughout the long haul of the season. And I think watching him as he really progressed over the last couple of years, he's really going to be a talent - whether that's with Pittsburgh or some other team, you will hear Dennis Dixon's name a lot more in the future."

Interesting. Firstly, I thought it was interesting that Batch didn't have much to say about Leftwich other than the fact that he getting up there in years. I doubt Leftwich looks at himself in that way. He's 30 years old, or slightly younger than Drew Brees. Secondly, I was enthused to see him have such effusive praise for Dennis Dixon. In a recent back and forth on Twitter with Emmanuel Sanders, the rookie wide receiver called Dixon a beast and that he threw an amazing ball. Now Batch has high praise for him.

I've said all spring that I think Dixon will be the guy under center when the lights go on for real on September 7th at Heinz Field., That's my story and I'm sticking to it after hearing the veteran Batch talk about how impressed he's been with Dixon's development.

Almost forgot, since there's been some discussion in recent days about the first three years of Coach Tomlin's tenure in Pittsburgh, here's what Batch had to say about Tomlin and watching him develop as a young head coach in the demanding NFL

"Oh it's been great. Coming in, of course looking back you had Coach Cowher that was here; everybody loved Coach Cowher. Anytime you go through a coaching change like that, we the players wanted in house. We wanted Russ Grimm, we wanted Ken Whisehunt to take over the job. But as the Rooneys went over those discussions, when they ultimately went with their decision to go for Coach Tomlin, from the players' side, we said if Mr. Rooney made this decision, we're going with it because they felt that Coach Tomlin was the best guy for the job regardless of race, color, it doesn't matter. They knew he was the best guy for the job and ultimately it paid off with him winning a Super Bowl in his second year. So when I saw him come into the room for the first meeting, the respect that he commanded as he walked into that room, being able to get his message across, that came instantly. And I think a lot of people understood that and respected him from day one as it related to him trying to take over this team.

And it's just one of those things from a Pittsburgh fan growing up here in Pittsburgh, being from Pittsburgh, I look at it and say we have the right the man for the job. And I don't say that because I work for the man; I say that as a I sit back three to five years from now, sitting back on the couch watching the Stillers play knowing that the right man is there and knowing that I had a chance to work for him and knowing that he was the right man for the job and able to get the job done."
.................................................. .................................................. .................

I like that Dixon is impressing everyone, but is he going to sit behind Ben for 5-8 more years? No. We lose him after his contract is up......Oh yea, we are not getting rid of Ben, unless he gets in another scandal or is injured severely.

cruzer8
07-15-2010, 12:12 PM
I still think it will be Lefty.

Crash
07-15-2010, 12:20 PM
That doesn't bode well for Ben's future on this team at all.

Leftwich isn't old, he's 29.

If Batch is saying Dixon is "the future" then Ben won't be here.

proudpittsburgher
07-15-2010, 12:24 PM
I think it is lefty too, and unless Dixon shows a lot in preseason, that is the way to go. The Steelers are not grooming Dixon to take over for Ben, it'll be too long a grooming period, so the Steelers need to do whatever it takes to win as many of the 4-6 games as they can, and that means putting the best QB out there for now. If Dixon was being groomed to be the starter, well, then you can justify sacrificing a few games at the expense of his growth in live game action. The Steelers are not in that boat right now.

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 12:30 PM
If they went with Dixon, it would be to get some good tape of him out there to ultimately increase his trade value. Teams will pay for up-and-coming backups such as Matt Schaub, Matt Cassel, Charlie Whitehurst, etc. I still think they ultimately go with Leftwich, though (unless Dixon tears it up in the preseason).

proudpittsburgher
07-15-2010, 12:42 PM
If they went with Dixon, it would be to get some good tape of him out there to ultimately increase his trade value. Teams will pay for up-and-coming backups such as Matt Schaub, Matt Cassel, Charlie Whitehurst, etc. I still think they ultimately go with Leftwich, though (unless Dixon tears it up in the preseason).

man, Charlie Whitehurst . . . I nearly crashed my car when I heard about that trade.

Oviedo
07-15-2010, 12:49 PM
I still think it will be Lefty.

I agree. Doing well in the first four games is too important. They are going to go with experience.

ANPSTEEL
07-15-2010, 01:22 PM
That doesn't bode well for Ben's future on this team at all.

Leftwich isn't old, he's 29.

If Batch is saying Dixon is "the future" then Ben won't be here.

Crash- I know I give you grief about the unwavering stance you take on topics- (with seemingly no grey area at all)

But I do recognize that you do generally know what you are talking about- so I ask you,
what do you think this implies??

This is the second article/interview that I have read, where they refer to Dixon as the "future" of the team.

This strikes me as very odd. Ben is only 28. Many QBs play into their late 30s.

Now, I think we all recognize that Ben's playing style is not conducive to him lasting into his late 30s, but even if he begins to physically break down relatively soon- I'd still give him at least 5 more seasons.

I seriously doubt Dixon is going to sign a 2nd contract with the Steelers to sit on the bench until Ben has retired.

So- what does this indicate, if anything???

Leading up to the draft, I really thought the team was going to trade Ben, and if they had gotten the kind of offer he is worth as a player- I still think they would have made that move.

Today? I don't see the team trading him. I have no doubt that the Rooneys are still upset with all of the off field junk- but they appear to have gotten through "the hard part" so to speak. So why trade him at this stage???

I will say- if he gets through the suspension- with no other issues... at least at that point, you have a "know commodity" and his trade value goes back up-

but- I still cant see them trading a franchise QB; particularly when you consider the long line of craptacular guys they have had line up under center.

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 01:56 PM
That doesn't bode well for Ben's future on this team at all.

Leftwich isn't old, he's 29.

If Batch is saying Dixon is "the future" then Ben won't be here.

Crash- I know I give you grief about the unwavering stance you take on topics- (with seemingly no grey area at all)

But I do recognize that you do generally know what you are talking about- so I ask you,
what do you think this implies??

This is the second article/interview that I have read, where they refer to Dixon as the "future" of the team.

This strikes me as very odd. Ben is only 28. Many QBs play into their late 30s.

Now, I think we all recognize that Ben's playing style is not conducive to him lasting into his late 30s, but even if he begins to physically break down relatively soon- I'd still give him at least 5 more seasons.

I seriously doubt Dixon is going to sign a 2nd contract with the Steelers to sit on the bench until Ben has retired.

So- what does this indicate, if anything???

Leading up to the draft, I really thought the team was going to trade Ben, and if they had gotten the kind of offer he is worth as a player- I still think they would have made that move.

Today? I don't see the team trading him. I have no doubt that the Rooneys are still upset with all of the off field junk- but they appear to have gotten through "the hard part" so to speak. So why trade him at this stage???

I will say- if he gets through the suspension- with no other issues... at least at that point, you have a "know commodity" and his trade value goes back up-

but- I still cant see them trading a franchise QB; particularly when you consider the long line of craptacular guys they have had line up under center.

Nice try with craptacular, but you are going to have to do better than that if you want to bypass douchetastic for word of the week. :P

cruzer8
07-15-2010, 02:32 PM
The Steelers were not looking to trade Ben. That was all speculation and rumor started by Baltimore's own Jason LaCanfora.

Crash
07-15-2010, 03:19 PM
It would not shock me if they trade Ben after his re-instatement if the local fans hound him at camp and at pre season games.

cruzer8
07-15-2010, 03:26 PM
It would not shock me if they trade Ben after his re-instatement if the local fans hound him at camp and at pre season games.

It would shock me completely. I put the chances of Ben being traded at 0%.

fezziwig
07-15-2010, 03:27 PM
Why does everyone think the backup quarterbacks are the future, the diamonds in the rough ? There is a reason Ben went number one and we have two Super Bowl wins under him. There is also a reason Dixon was not taken number one. Okay you have Joe Montana and other quarterbacks that were not a number one pick but, you don't toss Ben out because Dixon shows skills or played well against Baltimore. BTW, did we win the Baltimore game ? Dixon didn't turn the world on fire as far as I remember about that game. He didn't hand Baltimore the game but that game never made me think, " Dixon is going to be the next star. "
Remember my words, Dixon will never be anything more than a backup. He might get his chance as a starter on some team but after that, he will be just another forgotten backup that couldn't bring it all together when he had the chance.

Lefty will be the starter with maybe Dixon as number two. Ben comes back and this is all then a moot point.

Sugar
07-15-2010, 04:09 PM
I guess we'll have to see who's getting the reps in camp. It seems thus far that Lefty has been doing most of the first team work thus far.

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 04:23 PM
So far, Dixon hasn't shown himself to be much more than the second coming of Anthony Wright, so I'm not overly excited about him (I've seen Leftwich win many games in this league, though). I hope Dixon shines, though, because I'd like to be able to trade him for a prime pick in the future.

ter1230_4
07-15-2010, 04:53 PM
It would not shock me if they trade Ben after his re-instatement if the local fans hound him at camp and at pre season games.

It would shock me completely. I put the chances of Ben being traded at 0%.



I totally agree. The Steelers will not trade their Franchise QB.

feltdizz
07-15-2010, 06:22 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

Chadman
07-15-2010, 06:27 PM
Can't see the Steelers risking the season on such an undeveloped QB like Dixon. Leftwich will be asked to not lose games & GIVE THE BALL....TO MENDENHALL...for 4 games..maybe 4 & a half...before Ben comes in on his white horse & saves the town...and wins the Super Bowl while pulling college chicks & swigging beer... :D

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 06:36 PM
Last year we had games with empty seats too.

Where did you get this from? The Steelers have a season ticket waiting list that is so long that even if everyone in the stands at Heinz Field succumbed to poisoned Primanti's sandwiches today, there would still be enough folks on the list to fill the stadium again tomorrow.

cruzer8
07-15-2010, 06:38 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ter1230_4
07-15-2010, 07:24 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 07:41 PM
If you are most concerned about jersey sales, then draft Tim Tebow...and suck on the field.

kiwi_sarah
07-15-2010, 07:53 PM
If you are most concerned about jersey sales, then draft Tim Tebow...and suck on the field.

Someone should wash your mouth out with soap young man! Even a joke about TT that wasn't even directly related to him being in a Steeler's jersey, but left the door open for my mind to go down that route.....*shudders*

Please think about the time of day you post this kinda crap, I'm just about to eat lunch and now I feel sick! :lol:

ETA: That was your 11,000th post! :Boobs

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 09:29 PM
If you are most concerned about jersey sales, then draft Tim Tebow...and suck on the field.

Someone should wash your mouth out with soap young man! Even a joke about TT that wasn't even directly related to him being in a Steeler's jersey, but left the door open for my mind to go down that route.....*shudders*

Please think about the time of day you post this kinda crap, I'm just about to eat lunch and now I feel sick! :lol:

ETA: That was your 11,000th post! :Boobs

And that was your Hines Ward post #86! :tt2 :Steel :tt1

kiwi_sarah
07-15-2010, 09:35 PM
If you are most concerned about jersey sales, then draft Tim Tebow...and suck on the field.

Someone should wash your mouth out with soap young man! Even a joke about TT that wasn't even directly related to him being in a Steeler's jersey, but left the door open for my mind to go down that route.....*shudders*

Please think about the time of day you post this kinda crap, I'm just about to eat lunch and now I feel sick! :lol:

ETA: That was your 11,000th post! :Boobs

And that was your Hines Ward post #86! :tt2 :Steel :tt1

awwww yay! (though I'm ruining it now)

fezziwig
07-15-2010, 09:41 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!



I agree one hundred percent. People like to site the Ravens winning the Super Bowl with a less than average qb and again, that happened because of their defense. Even the Ravens after winning a Super Bowl knew they needed to address the QB problem and have failed ever since. They finally get a decent QB back and their stock has risen a lot. They haven't won a Super Bowl sinc ebut, Flacco sure gives them a better chance.
Yes, we are blessed to have another franchise Qb and I sure don't want to go another 25 years or so waiting on the next franchise Qb. People can be fans a life time and never have a Super Bowl winning team. Our 70's teams had some good fefenses but it wasn't until; Bradshaw finally clicked that got us four in total. You can say our defense won our 74 Super Bowl since Bradshaw didn't tear up the field but he sure was a big reason that we won the other three.
I'll take Ben as long as he is doing what he does on the field. I don't want him though if he continues to do what he does off the field. Not saying he's guilty but sure guilty of placing himself in the wrong situations. As it seems through the media.

RuthlessBurgher
07-15-2010, 10:17 PM
[quote=RuthlessBurgher]If you are most concerned about jersey sales, then draft Tim Tebow...and suck on the field.

Someone should wash your mouth out with soap young man! Even a joke about TT that wasn't even directly related to him being in a Steeler's jersey, but left the door open for my mind to go down that route.....*shudders*

Please think about the time of day you post this kinda crap, I'm just about to eat lunch and now I feel sick! :lol:

ETA: That was your 11,000th post! :Boobs

And that was your Hines Ward post #86! :tt2 :Steel :tt1

awwww yay! (though I'm ruining it now)[/quote:3ljqwg4f]

Don't fret! It only changed to a Mark Bruener!

NorthCoast
07-16-2010, 08:42 AM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!



I agree one hundred percent. People like to site the Ravens winning the Super Bowl with a less than average qb and again, that happened because of their defense. Even the Ravens after winning a Super Bowl knew they needed to address the QB problem and have failed ever since. They finally get a decent QB back and their stock has risen a lot. They haven't won a Super Bowl sinc ebut, Flacco sure gives them a better chance.
Yes, we are blessed to have another franchise Qb and I sure don't want to go another 25 years or so waiting on the next franchise Qb. People can be fans a life time and never have a Super Bowl winning team. Our 70's teams had some good fefenses but it wasn't until; Bradshaw finally clicked that got us four in total. You can say our defense won our 74 Super Bowl since Bradshaw didn't tear up the field but he sure was a big reason that we won the other three.
I'll take Ben as long as he is doing what he does on the field. I don't want him though if he continues to do what he does off the field. Not saying he's guilty but sure guilty of placing himself in the wrong situations. As it seems through the media.


You could say that about Ben's first Superbowl as well, it was a defensive win..not one that Ben won for us (although he did win plenty in the regular season to get us there). I think some are missing the point with Dixon. The modern game requires two good QBs to get thru most seasons. With Ben's style of play, this is almost a guarantee. Just as with RBs why can't a team have two above average QBs. Perhaps Batch's reference to Dixon as the 'future' simply means that it's not Batch or Lefty that is the future (at backup)? Batch is somewhat of a QB coach, so his choice of words may have been deliberate and intentional as a way to inspire Dixon...?

flippy
07-16-2010, 09:00 AM
his choice of words may have been deliberate and intentional as a way to inspire Dixon...?

I agree. That's all it is.

Seriously Dixon should play so we can get a high round draft pick for him soon and find another stud defender.

flippy
07-16-2010, 09:09 AM
I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2.

And I wouldn't be shocked if you won the Lotto in a year or 2 :wink

Oviedo
07-16-2010, 10:02 AM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!

Exactly right. It was 25 years between Super Bowls and it is not a coincidence that it was 25 years between Bradshaw leaving and Ben arriving. More than ever the NFL is a QB driven league and if you don't have a star you are unlikely to win a championship. Deniis Dixon is nothing more than a career back up. He won't be anything more despite the constant infatuation some fans have with things "new and shiny."

The day Ben leaves is the day we enter the next "Dark Ages" of fruitless attempts at NFL Championships. I want championships not jersey sales.

ANPSTEEL
07-16-2010, 11:04 AM
Nice try with craptacular, but you are going to have to do better than that if you want to bypass douchetastic for word of the week. :P


best I could do on short notice, boss. I'll work harder next time. I promise.


:lol:

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!


No... you don't get it. I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans. If they did Tommy Gun, Kordell and a few other QB's never see the field.

If we can go 11-5 or 10-6 and make the playoffs while saving 30 million I'm pretty sure a few guys in the office would seriously consider it.

Again... I'm not talking who is better or winning SB's... Favre was sent packing, Montana had to move on as well. I'm not saying Dixon is Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers but look back at our great teams with bad QB's... can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football. No Steeler fan actually thinks trading Ben is a good.

flippy
07-16-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!


No... you don't get it. I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans. If they did Tommy Gun, Kordell and a few other QB's never see the field.

If we can go 11-5 or 10-6 and make the playoffs while saving 30 million I'm pretty sure a few guys in the office would seriously consider it.

Again... I'm not talking who is better or winning SB's... Favre was sent packing, Montana had to move on as well. I'm not saying Dixon is Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers but look back at our great teams with bad QB's... can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football. No Steeler fan actually thinks trading Ben is a good.

If we didn't win SuperBowls in the 70s, we wouldn't have the following we have today.

Championships = more fans

More fans = more $

I'm certain they care. The business makes them care.

Real franchise QBs just don't exist.

Ben's job is safe.

He is the franchise.

RuthlessBurgher
07-16-2010, 01:40 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!


No... you don't get it. I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans. If they did Tommy Gun, Kordell and a few other QB's never see the field.

If we can go 11-5 or 10-6 and make the playoffs while saving 30 million I'm pretty sure a few guys in the office would seriously consider it.

Again... I'm not talking who is better or winning SB's... Favre was sent packing, Montana had to move on as well. I'm not saying Dixon is Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers but look back at our great teams with bad QB's... can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football. No Steeler fan actually thinks trading Ben is a good.

There are many owners in pro sports that are more interested in the bottom line than winning.

But...news flash...the Rooneys aren't one of them.

Just because someone like Dan Snyder throws around obscene money in free agency and the Rooneys don't..that doesn't mean that Snyder wants to win more than Rooney does. Rooney is just smart enough about team building to know how to win. Snyder hasn't quite figured that part out yet.

Crash
07-16-2010, 01:41 PM
Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football.

First of all don't you ever speak for me.

Second, I'm not thinking the FO/business side at all. I'm thinking about the uneducated inbred Yinzers who will be convinced until their dying day that Ben raped these women despite the evidence to the contrary. The same inbreds who labeled Kordell gay, labeled Dan Marino a coke head, and Bill Cowher as an adulterer.

If it gets to the point that fans and media (with their one sided reporting) in Pittsburgh won't let this die? Ben won't be here. The Rooney's will avoid the situation all together.

Even if its bad business. And trading Ben is bad for business. Period.

Favre leaving was of his own doing, no one else's. Montana left because Young, was younger and Joe wanted to play even after he missed almost two full seasons in 1991 and 1992.

Ben is a 28 year old QB in his prime. It's apples to oranges.

People need to be very careful what they wish for.

1983-2003 is all the proof I need.

Dismissed.

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 02:19 PM
Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football.

First of all don't you ever speak for me.

Second, I'm not thinking the FO/business side at all. I'm thinking about the uneducated inbred Yinzers who will be convinced until their dying day that Ben raped these women despite the evidence to the contrary. The same inbreds who labeled Kordell gay, labeled Dan Marino a coke head, and Bill Cowher as an adulterer.

If it gets to the point that fans and media (with their one sided reporting) in Pittsburgh won't let this die? Ben won't be here. The Rooney's will avoid the situation all together.

Even if its bad business. And trading Ben is bad for business. Period.

Favre leaving was of his own doing, no one else's. Montana left because Young, was younger and Joe wanted to play even after he missed almost two full seasons in 1991 and 1992.

Ben is a 28 year old QB in his prime. It's apples to oranges.

People need to be very careful what they wish for.

1983-2003 is all the proof I need.

Dismissed.

ummm.... so it would essentially be a business decision?

Oviedo
07-16-2010, 02:38 PM
Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football.

First of all don't you ever speak for me.

Second, I'm not thinking the FO/business side at all. I'm thinking about the uneducated inbred Yinzers who will be convinced until their dying day that Ben raped these women despite the evidence to the contrary. The same inbreds who labeled Kordell gay, labeled Dan Marino a coke head, and Bill Cowher as an adulterer.

If it gets to the point that fans and media (with their one sided reporting) in Pittsburgh won't let this die? Ben won't be here. The Rooney's will avoid the situation all together.

Even if its bad business. And trading Ben is bad for business. Period.

Favre leaving was of his own doing, no one else's. Montana left because Young, was younger and Joe wanted to play even after he missed almost two full seasons in 1991 and 1992.

Ben is a 28 year old QB in his prime. It's apples to oranges.

People need to be very careful what they wish for.

1983-2003 is all the proof I need.

Dismissed.

Trading Ben would be worse than bad business it would be a disaster. When you have a QB with the abilities he does you don't get rid of that player.

Bradshaw leaves and we have 20 years of nobodies and no Super Bowls...no coincidence. This is a passing league and you can't rely on a mediocre QB and a strong running game and defense and expect to win a Super Bowl in our lifetime. You need an elite QB and Ben is one.

Only a small, but vocal, group of fans will hang onto this and not let it go. Most rational people know while unseemly Ben did nothing illegal. He made a bad choice with an consenting adult. That is not a reason to get rid of him.

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 03:00 PM
[quote="RuthlessBurgher
There are many owners in pro sports that are more interested in the bottom line than winning.

But...news flash...the Rooneys aren't one of them.

Just because someone like Dan Snyder throws around obscene money in free agency and the Rooneys don't..that doesn't mean that Snyder wants to win more than Rooney does. Rooney is just smart enough about team building to know how to win. Snyder hasn't quite figured that part out yet.[/quote]

I'm not equating money with winning. The Rooneys are frugal, but lately they have opened up the wallet... if they don't feel they are getting the return on investment or fan sentiment is really sour they will make a move.

ter1230_4
07-16-2010, 03:01 PM
can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Could have easily upgraded the QB? This is what you just don't seem to be able to understand. Franchise QB's do NOT grow on trees! If it was so damn easy to upgrade the QB position, then every team would have a franchise QB. You can't blithely say that the Steelers will dump Ben in a year or so, players come and go, blah, blah, blah. He's a once in a generation QB for the Steelers.

Someone also said earlier in this thread that the defense was responsible for the Steelers Super Bowl XL win , since Ben didn't have a very good Super Bowl. While it is true that Roethlisberger's QB rating of 22.6 is the lowest ever for a winning QB, it is also a fact that Big Ben basically put the Steelers on his back and lead them through the playoffs. Even including that 22.6 QB rating in the Super Bowl, his post season QB rating was 101.7 (148.7 at Cin., 95.3 at Ind., and 124.9 at Den.). And his tackle after the Bettis fumble in the Indy game saved the season. The guy is a winner (at least he is on the field).

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 03:52 PM
I agree one hundred percent. People like to site the Ravens winning the Super Bowl with a less than average qb and again, that happened because of their defense. Even the Ravens after winning a Super Bowl knew they needed to address the QB problem and have failed ever since. They finally get a decent QB back and their stock has risen a lot. They haven't won a Super Bowl sinc ebut, Flacco sure gives them a better chance.
Yes, we are blessed to have another franchise Qb and I sure don't want to go another 25 years or so waiting on the next franchise Qb. People can be fans a life time and never have a Super Bowl winning team. Our 70's teams had some good fefenses but it wasn't until; Bradshaw finally clicked that got us four in total. You can say our defense won our 74 Super Bowl since Bradshaw didn't tear up the field but he sure was a big reason that we won the other three.
I'll take Ben as long as he is doing what he does on the field. I don't want him though if he continues to do what he does off the field. Not saying he's guilty but sure guilty of placing himself in the wrong situations. As it seems through the media.

The trade talk was never based on Ben's on-field performance.

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 04:14 PM
can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Could have easily upgraded the QB? This is what you just don't seem to be able to understand. Franchise QB's do NOT grow on trees! If it was so damn easy to upgrade the QB position, then every team would have a franchise QB. You can't blithely say that the Steelers will dump Ben in a year or so, players come and go, blah, blah, blah. He's a once in a generation QB for the Steelers.

Someone also said earlier in this thread that the defense was responsible for the Steelers Super Bowl XL win , since Ben didn't have a very good Super Bowl. While it is true that Roethlisberger's QB rating of 22.6 is the lowest ever for a winning QB, it is also a fact that Big Ben basically put the Steelers on his back and lead them through the playoffs. Even including that 22.6 QB rating in the Super Bowl, his post season QB rating was 101.7 (148.7 at Cin., 95.3 at Ind., and 124.9 at Den.). And his tackle after the Bettis fumble in the Indy game saved the season. The guy is a winner (at least he is on the field).

No... once again you don't understand.

Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'Donnell, Miller, Tomzak, Stewart, Maddox

Are you seriously telling me outside of O'Donnell.. and Kordell's feet, that this list couldn't be upgraded at all? We were content with GREAT D, GREAT RB's and minimal QB play and made the playoffs with most of them. Imagine if we had a QB who could throw a forward pass some of those years?

ter1230_4
07-16-2010, 04:54 PM
can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Could have easily upgraded the QB? This is what you just don't seem to be able to understand. Franchise QB's do NOT grow on trees! If it was so damn easy to upgrade the QB position, then every team would have a franchise QB. You can't blithely say that the Steelers will dump Ben in a year or so, players come and go, blah, blah, blah. He's a once in a generation QB for the Steelers.

Someone also said earlier in this thread that the defense was responsible for the Steelers Super Bowl XL win , since Ben didn't have a very good Super Bowl. While it is true that Roethlisberger's QB rating of 22.6 is the lowest ever for a winning QB, it is also a fact that Big Ben basically put the Steelers on his back and lead them through the playoffs. Even including that 22.6 QB rating in the Super Bowl, his post season QB rating was 101.7 (148.7 at Cin., 95.3 at Ind., and 124.9 at Den.). And his tackle after the Bettis fumble in the Indy game saved the season. The guy is a winner (at least he is on the field).

No... once again you don't understand.

Stoudt, Malone, Brister, O'Donnell, Miller, Tomzak, Stewart, Maddox

Are you seriously telling me outside of O'Donnell.. and Kordell's feet, that this list couldn't be upgraded at all? We were content with GREAT D, GREAT RB's and minimal QB play and made the playoffs with most of them. Imagine if we had a QB who could throw a forward pass some of those years?

You are truly the master of 20-20 hindsight. Do you think that the Steelers knew that those QB's were not going to pan out before they drafted or otherwise acquired them? Of course not. That's the point, it's HARD to find a franchise QB. You've got to kiss a lot of frogs to find the prince as it were.

grotonsteel
07-16-2010, 05:24 PM
I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"




Is there any online discount on Big Ben's jersey???

I would like to buy home/away Big Ben jerseys.

Crash
07-16-2010, 07:17 PM
ummm.... so it would essentially be a business decision?

Nope. A PR one.

When they start having TV blackouts because they keep him and then trade him? It then becomes a business decision.

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 07:31 PM
ter1230 outside of Kordell (who was not a great passer but was very fast and athletic) and O'Donnell I think every Steeler fan knew every one of those QB's from 83 to 2004 wouldn't pan out. Brister? Malone? Maddox?

I'm sure the FOwas aware but chose to load up and try and grind out a SB.

eniparadoxgma
07-16-2010, 07:52 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

You just don't get it, do you? The day that Ben Roethlisberger stops being a Steeler is the day that this era of Steelers Super Bowl championships ends, although all other things being equal (like the continuation of a salary cap) the Steelers shouldl remain highly competitive. A franchise QB is an essential ingredient to the Lombardi recipe. Those Cowher teams of the mid 90's arguably had more overall talent than the Steelers's two most recent Super Bowl winners, but what they lacked was a franchise QB. Look at the 6 other QB's that have won multiple Super Bowls. With the exception of the one Super Bowl that the 49ers won with Steve Young after Montana left, their teams stopped winning Super Bowls after the QB's left. And we Steelers fans have been blessed to have had two of those seven multiple Super Bowl winning QB's. How long before we get the third one? Every year that Roethlisberger is the Steelers QB the Steelers have a legitimate chance to win another Lombardi, so let's enjoy the ride. Who cares if Big Ben sells jerseys!!


No... you don't get it. I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans. If they did Tommy Gun, Kordell and a few other QB's never see the field.

If we can go 11-5 or 10-6 and make the playoffs while saving 30 million I'm pretty sure a few guys in the office would seriously consider it.

Again... I'm not talking who is better or winning SB's... Favre was sent packing, Montana had to move on as well. I'm not saying Dixon is Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers but look back at our great teams with bad QB's... can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.

Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football. No Steeler fan actually thinks trading Ben is a good.

There are many owners in pro sports that are more interested in the bottom line than winning.

But...news flash...the Rooneys aren't one of them.

Just because someone like Dan Snyder throws around obscene money in free agency and the Rooneys don't..that doesn't mean that Snyder wants to win more than Rooney does. Rooney is just smart enough about team building to know how to win. Snyder hasn't quite figured that part out yet.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ter1230_4
07-16-2010, 08:12 PM
ter1230 outside of Kordell (who was not a great passer but was very fast and athletic) and O'Donnell I think every Steeler fan knew every one of those QB's from 83 to 2004 wouldn't pan out. Brister? Malone? Maddox?

I'm sure the FOwas aware but chose to load up and try and grind out a SB.

Malone was a first round draft pick. As a Steelers fan who was around when Malone was drafted, I can say that I certainly didn't know from the moment he was selected that he wasn't going to make it any more than I knew that Big Ben was going to be great when we drafted him. Tommy Maddox was also a first round pick (although for Denver). He was looking pretty good for the Steelers until he got whacked in Tennessee and he was never the same after that. I even remember Steeler fans being pretty optimistic about Bubby at the beginning. You just never know how a QB is going to do until you have seen him play over a period of time.


But more to the point, your apparent view that the Steelers weren't interested in getting a franchise QB is completely absurd. It's not like they could just run down to K-Mart and pluck one off the shelf. They never got a top 5 draft pick during that whole period, and it was actually pretty unusual for them to have as high a pick as they did the year they drafted Roethlisberger (luckily Brian Billick was a moron). Teams that have franchise QB's don't trade them. And even if you have a high draft pick that doesn't mean that the QB you draft is going to work out. Do you think that the Chargers knew that Ryan Leaf was going to be a bust when they drafted him 2nd behind P. Manning? Or that the Bungles knew that Akili Smith was going to be a bust? The fact is that the Steelers FO was trying its best during that period to find a franchise QB, they just weren't successful.

stlrz d
07-16-2010, 11:23 PM
This thread is chock full of LOLs! :lol:

ter1230_4
07-16-2010, 11:33 PM
This thread is chock full of LOLs! :lol:

It is gratifying to be able to amuse you!

stlrz d
07-16-2010, 11:40 PM
[quote="stlrz d":3iek77lf]This thread is chock full of LOLs! :lol:

It is gratifying to be able to amuse you![/quote:3iek77lf]

You have my thanks! :lol:

NorthCoast
07-17-2010, 08:46 AM
Crash thinks it could happen.... he is thinking like the FO/business side of football.

First of all don't you ever speak for me.

Second, I'm not thinking the FO/business side at all. I'm thinking about the uneducated inbred Yinzers who will be convinced until their dying day that Ben raped these women despite the evidence to the contrary. The same inbreds who labeled Kordell gay, labeled Dan Marino a coke head, and Bill Cowher as an adulterer.

If it gets to the point that fans and media (with their one sided reporting) in Pittsburgh won't let this die? Ben won't be here. The Rooney's will avoid the situation all together.

Even if its bad business. And trading Ben is bad for business. Period.

Favre leaving was of his own doing, no one else's. Montana left because Young, was younger and Joe wanted to play even after he missed almost two full seasons in 1991 and 1992.

Ben is a 28 year old QB in his prime. It's apples to oranges.

People need to be very careful what they wish for.

1983-2003 is all the proof I need.

Dismissed.

Trading Ben would be worse than bad business it would be a disaster. When you have a QB with the abilities he does you don't get rid of that player.

Bradshaw leaves and we have 20 years of nobodies and no Super Bowls...no coincidence. This is a passing league and you can't rely on a mediocre QB and a strong running game and defense and expect to win a Super Bowl in our lifetime. You need an elite QB and Ben is one.

Only a small, but vocal, group of fans will hang onto this and not let it go. Most rational people know while unseemly Ben did nothing illegal. He made a bad choice with an consenting adult. That is not a reason to get rid of him.

The rules have changed. Fully 1/3 of the starting QBs in the league last year passed for over 4000 yds!! and more than half passed for 3000 yds (which used to be the yardstick everyone used). This tells me either we have an amazing current crop of QBs or it is much easier for average QBs to complete a pass. Trent freakin Dilfer won a SB!! On the other hand it took Manning a lot of years before he won his first and many consider him to be among the best ever at the position. It surely is a team sport, but I also think every SB winner had some degree of "luck" to make it. (although it was Thomas Edison I think who said "luck is the residue of design", in other words your chances of being lucky increase with preparation.) I am constantly reminded of the AFC championship against Indy when Bettis fumbled at the goal line. If Ben had not fallen where he did and had not had the presence to reach out and grab the leg of (player?) with the ball, then we don't get to the big game. That is the definition of luck. It may help to have a good QB but may be more important to have a QB that doesn't make a lot of mistakes.
Injuries play such a huge factor nowadays with talent spread so thin and free agency players moving around. Bad teams (Cleveland) don't have the depth and it shows when a starter is out. Even good teams tend to limp by hoping for their starter to return.

feltdizz
07-17-2010, 10:28 AM
North is on point. A talented team with a QB who makes little mistakes has a much better chance than a franchise QB with a bad D. We saw last year what a franchise QB and bad defense (4ty qtr) gets you... 9-7.

Like U originally said... I don't think Dixon is the future but if we start out 4-0 and Ben is ehh and the boos are fast and furious I wouldn't be totally surprised if our FO saves some money and moves in a different direction. We won 2 SB's in 3 years after a 20 year drought... fans didn't commit suicide or turn their backs then... if our FO made the decision only a chosen few would become fans of other teams.

We have always been a D first team... we all witnessed what happened when the D showed it's age/weakness.

cruzer8
07-17-2010, 10:55 AM
:lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol: :lol :lol:

He just won't give up, will he?

Ben isn't going anywhere. We all know that's what you want but all the wishing and wanting in the world isn't going to make it happen.

cruzer8
07-17-2010, 10:55 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

He just won't give up, will he?

Ben isn't going anywhere. We all know that's what you want but all the wishing and wanting in the world isn't going to make it happen.

fezziwig
07-17-2010, 11:06 AM
All those power running teams, number one defenses meant nothing during the 90's. When we finally made it to Super Bowl 95 and when it came down to putting it in the Qb's hands we, needed a franchise quarterback and not a stiff armed puppet like Neil ( i blew the super bowl ) O'dumbass.

Defense counts and just ask Dan Marino but, just think how worse they would have been without Dan. The Steelers are doing what is right and keeping a winning nucleus with Ben. If they were going to axe him then, they would have done it by now.


Give me a franchise QB anytime.

Crash
07-17-2010, 12:19 PM
All those power running teams, number one defenses meant nothing during the 90's. When we finally made it to Super Bowl 95 and when it came down to putting it in the Qb's hands we, needed a franchise quarterback and not a stiff armed puppet like Neil ( i blew the super bowl ) O'dumbass.

The defense for the most part blew a$$ in 1995. The Steelers that season were led by Neil and his top 10 passing team. It was also the ONLY time in Bill Cowher's first 10 seasons as coach (1992-2001) that he had a top 10 passing team, and a non top 10 rushing team.

It was also the only time in 10 years his team got to the Super Bowl.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

RuthlessBurgher
07-17-2010, 12:44 PM
I am constantly reminded of the AFC championship against Indy when Bettis fumbled at the goal line. If Ben had not fallen where he did and had not had the presence to reach out and grab the leg of (player?) with the ball, then we don't get to the big game. That is the definition of luck.

I don't consider the Ben tackle in Indy to be luck. I think it showed remarkable split-second judgment on his part. When he saw Bettis fumble and Harper pick up the ball, his instinct should have told him to go up and tackle Harper (I think 99.9% of all players would likely try to do this).

However, in that microsecond, he was able to realize that a cornerback had the ball, while his team was in a heavy goalline package. Ben knew that he was the fastest Steeler on the field then, and he was also the last line of defense between Harper and the opposite end zone.

Instead of coming up and trying to tackle Harper at the 5 yard line like anyone else would do, he immediately ran backward, forcing Harper to juke left, then right, then left before finally tackling him around the 40 yard line.

Sure, there was a measure of luck involved in the tackle itself, grabbing at his shoe while twisting and falling backward, but Ben also managed to slow him down enough to allow Jerame Tuman to get back and assist on the tackle as well. It was a brilliant strategy, and he only had a fraction of a second to react like that.

I liken it to the Derek Jeter play against Oakland where he runs from his shortstop position to cut off a ball on the first base line and then flip it to his catcher for the tag at home plate. Jeter wasn't taught to do that...it was a winner's instinct...just like Ben wasn't taught to run backward after a fumble on the goal line...it was winner's instinct.

I think the vast majority of players, including exceptional All-Star type players, would not have made such a play.

grotonsteel
07-17-2010, 01:22 PM
I am constantly reminded of the AFC championship against Indy when Bettis fumbled at the goal line. If Ben had not fallen where he did and had not had the presence to reach out and grab the leg of (player?) with the ball, then we don't get to the big game. That is the definition of luck.

I don't consider the Ben tackle in Indy to be luck. I think it showed remarkable split-second judgment on his part. When he saw Bettis fumble and Harper pick up the ball, his instinct should have told him to go up and tackle Harper (I think 99.9% of all players would likely try to do this).

However, in that microsecond, he was able to realize that a cornerback had the ball, while his team was in a heavy goalline package. Ben knew that he was the fastest Steeler on the field then, and he was also the last line of defense between Harper and the opposite end zone.

Instead of coming up and trying to tackle Harper at the 5 yard line like anyone else would do, he immediately ran backward, forcing Harper to juke left, then right, then left before finally tackling him around the 40 yard line.

Sure, there was a measure of luck involved in the tackle itself, grabbing at his shoe while twisting and falling backward, but Ben also managed to slow him down enough to allow Jerame Tuman to get back and assist on the tackle as well. It was a brilliant strategy, and he only had a fraction of a second to react like that.



Well said... :Clap

Crash
07-17-2010, 01:26 PM
Ben "fell" during his tackle in Indy?

News to me.

Can people at least WATCH the games before they comment on them?

grotonsteel
07-17-2010, 01:31 PM
North is on point. A talented team with a QB who makes little mistakes has a much better chance than a franchise QB with a bad D. We saw last year what a franchise QB and bad defense (4ty qtr) gets you... 9-7.

Like U originally said... I don't think Dixon is the future but if we start out 4-0 and Ben is ehh and the boos are fast and furious I wouldn't be totally surprised if our FO saves some money and moves in a different direction. We won 2 SB's in 3 years after a 20 year drought... fans didn't commit suicide or turn their backs then... if our FO made the decision only a chosen few would become fans of other teams.

We have always been a D first team... we all witnessed what happened when the D showed it's age/weakness.


What according to you is a franchise QB???

In my book talented QB who makes little mistake is a franchise QB. An ultimate winning combo is talent+less mistake.

Talent+WTF plays = Jay Cutler

fezziwig
07-17-2010, 01:52 PM
All those power running teams, number one defenses meant nothing during the 90's. When we finally made it to Super Bowl 95 and when it came down to putting it in the Qb's hands we, needed a franchise quarterback and not a stiff armed puppet like Neil ( i blew the super bowl ) O'dumbass.

The defense for the most part blew a$$ in 1995. The Steelers that season were led by Neil and his top 10 passing team. It was also the ONLY time in Bill Cowher's first 10 seasons as coach (1992-2001) that he had a top 10 passing team, and a non top 10 rushing team.

It was also the only time in 10 years his team got to the Super Bowl.

Coincidence? I don't think so.


You can only take stats so far and then you eventually need to go for the throat and Neil could not. Neil was handy at tossing the short passes or the line drives but he was never a big strike player. The one time he only got a rainbow down field was to Ernie Mills in the Colts game. Neil would throw the big pass and acted as if, " oh well, lets see if it gets to him or not. "
His accuracy on short passes was great but at the end and they finally made it to the Super Bowl we, needed a star Qb. Didn't he throw a pick or a blocked pass against SanDiego during an AFC championship game too ?
I'll admit Ron Eardhart was no passing cord but, he also must have known O'Donnells weaknesses.

The Steelers would be fools to let Ben go if he has now cleaned up his act. Average QB's don't threaten the league like a franchise QB.

Crash
07-17-2010, 01:56 PM
but he was never a big strike player.

In 1995 he was.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
07-17-2010, 02:19 PM
I can't believe that there is so much discussion about something that Charlie Batch said. :shock:

NJ-STEELER
07-17-2010, 03:55 PM
can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.
.

that might be the most idiotic thing i've ever read

RuthlessBurgher
07-17-2010, 04:11 PM
[quote=feltdizz]can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.
.

that might be the most idiotic thing i've ever read[/quote:mmc1g55s]

C'mon now...if you are going to call something idiotic, at least go a step further and say the following:

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

fezziwig
07-17-2010, 05:37 PM
but he was never a big strike player.

In 1995 he was.


Your right, he threw three strikes against his own team in the Super Bowl.
Our offensive line was kicking the stuffings out of their defense our receivers were giving up limb and body to catch his sloppy passes and Neil was like a frightened rabbit the entire game.
Yeah, Neil was big time.

feltdizz
07-17-2010, 11:38 PM
[quote=feltdizz]can you honestly say our FO was all about winning with some of our QB's? We could have easily upgraded but were content with subpar QB play.
.

that might be the most idiotic thing i've ever read[/quote:253buc52]

another compliment from the jersey shore. Thank you.

I think there were years when our FO was content with being competitive...

NJ-STEELER
07-18-2010, 12:00 AM
by not being able to find a franchise QB?


like i said, probably the most idiotic thing i've read.
not suprising considering the poster, though


BTW, i'm not from the jersey shore, your alter ego (hehateme) is

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 09:19 AM
by not being able to find a franchise QB?


like i said, probably the most idiotic thing i've read.
not suprising considering the poster, though


BTW, i'm not from the jersey shore, your alter ego (hehateme) is

When Mahan was the center didn't you think we could find a better one than him that wasn't a franchise center? We made a move the next year and put Hartwig in. Now that was an upgrade... but is Hartwig a franchise Center? No

Why would you think upgrading from Brister or Malone or Miller or Tomzak or Kordell meant franchise QB? There is a huge gap between these guys and franchise. Maddox was a better passer than Kordell but he wasn't franchise. However it put us in a position to have a decent season when it was obvious Kordell wasn't getting any better. The OC's changing every year didn't help Kordell but he wasn't a very good passer.

Jokes on you buddy. Not once did I ever say we could find a Franchise QB... I said a Better QB

stlrz d
07-18-2010, 09:56 AM
Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

eniparadoxgma
07-18-2010, 01:07 PM
Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

I'm not sure about most idiotic but it's up there. So the Steelers organization doesn't want to win Super Bowls...and Ben intentionally takes sacks to keep his stats up right?

Why would anyone root for an organization that they thought intentionally tanked it or a QB they thought was more worried about their personal stats than winning?

What does it say about someone that they would continue to root for an organization if they really believed such things?

:?

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't see Dixon as the future...However, I wouldn't be totally shocked if our FO pulled the plug on Ben in a year or 2. Looking back at Cowhers teams it's clear our FO was content with average QB's and great defense. If you could cut the budget and still make the playoffs why would you keep a 100 million dollar headache who isn't selling jerseys anymore?

I overheard a vendor say "no one wants Ben's stuff anymore"

Maybe it will all change once he returns and wins some games but if we start out 4-0 or 3-1???

We have won 2 SB's and both times we missed the playoffs the following year. Last year we had games with empty seats too. We love winning championships but investors like money.

It's a business and guys get moved around all the time.

when did I say not selling jerseys means Ben is gone... let's act like we know what Ben faced off the field this year and where he is on the love list with Steeler fans.

There are some very thick skulls on here cherry picking...

NJ-STEELER
07-18-2010, 01:37 PM
Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

i guess owners of teams like the browns & lions have not tried to win all these years.

they haven't tried to improve their QB position
:roll:

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 01:52 PM
Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

I'm not sure about most idiotic but it's up there. So the Steelers organization doesn't want to win Super Bowls...and Ben intentionally takes sacks to keep his stats up right?

Why would anyone root for an organization that they thought intentionally tanked it or a QB they thought was more worried about their personal stats than winning?

What does it say about someone that they would continue to root for an organization if they really believed such things?

:?

Do you think we had the best center available the last 3 years?

Does 50 sacks fall in line with the norm for NFL QB's? Didn't Ben say he takes responsibility for some of the sacks? How many times a season does Ben throw the ball away? 3.. 4 times?

Damn right I think Ben will take a sack over a pass out of bounds on 2nd and 4... which puts us in 3rd and 11 which makes it an obvious passing down. I've watched it happen time and time again.

Do you think Arians is the best OC available for our team? If you do then cool.. if not? What kind of fan are you? Do you think the team is putting it's best foot forward with BA as our OC? :stirpot

When did I say our team intentionally tanked? I'll wait... :roll:

I said our FO had stellar teams with trash at QB and they could have made a move for a better one. If you think the Steelers FO is trying to win a SB every year then you must be a Pirate fan too....

I don't think any Steeler fan who is honest with themselves could honestly say our FO was making moves to win a SB every offseason.

You mean to tell me EVERY year from 83 to 2004 you felt as though our FO was making moves to win a SB? I can honestly say I didn't. I knew there were years we would be 9-7 or middle of the pack...

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 02:30 PM
[quote="stlrz d":3rck494e]Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

i guess owners of teams like the browns & lions have not tried to win all these years.

they haven't tried to improve their QB position
:roll:[/quote:3rck494e]

Now that's funny....

Those organizations were never run by guys who knew what it was like to win....

I will say Cleveland should improve with the Walrus... whether you like him or not he knows how to put together a decent team. He also got rid of Quinn... who some honestly thought was a good QB. He is a work in progress.

Now how about the old Cleveland that moved to Baltimore... Ozzie Newsome has made them into contenders. I still think they will look back at these last few years and wonder "what if" when they look at the QB position. Flacco is decent but he isn't going to win any games for them.

Look at AZ... they went and got Whiz and now look at them? Look at the Bungles... they aren't blowing anyone away but they made moves to improve their team and they are no longer push overs.

grotonsteel
07-18-2010, 03:19 PM
Do you think we had the best center available the last 3 years?

No. Can you tell us which was the best center available Steelers should have signed?? Steelers FO did not on purpose choose bad centers. Its just that Mahan and Hartwig did not pan out. Main reason they selected Pouncey at 18 was they were worried about that position. Steelers FO is trying to get better every year and i think Pouncey might turn out to be franchise Center. BTW one cannot simply go and sign Nick Mangolds of the league because of cap issues.

Does 50 sacks fall in line with the norm for NFL QB's? Didn't Ben say he takes responsibility for some of the sacks? How many times a season does Ben throw the ball away? 3.. 4 times?


Is it a norm in the league that your O-line does not have a 1st rounder??? I know you have a woody for Peyton. But Big Ben never plays like Peyton Manning. Big Ben is Big Ben a winner which Peyton never is

Damn right I think Ben will take a sack over a pass out of bounds on 2nd and 4... which puts us in 3rd and 11 which makes it an obvious passing down. I've watched it happen time and time again.

You gotta be kidding me. Which games are you watching. Tell me how many times Big Ben have taken sacks on 2nd and 4 and those sacks were completely Big Ben's fault.


Do you think Arians is the best OC available for our team? If you do then cool.. if not? What kind of fan are you? Do you think the team is putting it's best foot forward with BA as our OC? :stirpot


Bruce Arains may not be the greatest OC but he definately is not the worst. Tell us which OC you would sign?? Gary Kubiak? Sean Payton??? Mike Shannahan??? Chan Gailey?? Maybe Steelers are not able to find OC better than Bruce Arians?


If you are going to make statements about sacks and Big Ben 2nd and 4 efficiency you need to state some facts rather than telling us what you see through Big Ben hate goggles.

eniparadoxgma
07-18-2010, 03:26 PM
Sweet. Round 2. 8)




Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

I'm not sure about most idiotic but it's up there. So the Steelers organization doesn't want to win Super Bowls...and Ben intentionally takes sacks to keep his stats up right?

Why would anyone root for an organization that they thought intentionally tanked it or a QB they thought was more worried about their personal stats than winning?

What does it say about someone that they would continue to root for an organization if they really believed such things?

:?

Do you think we had the best center available the last 3 years?

There is a difference between what I think and the Steelers FO, fwiw.

I think that the Steelers FO do their best to put the best talent and best fit for our team out there every chance they get.


Does 50 sacks fall in line with the norm for NFL QB's? Didn't Ben say he takes responsibility for some of the sacks? How many times a season does Ben throw the ball away? 3.. 4 times?

Damn right I think Ben will take a sack over a pass out of bounds on 2nd and 4... which puts us in 3rd and 11 which makes it an obvious passing down. I've watched it happen time and time again.

Hold up, Captain Strawman. What does the frequency of Ben's sacks have to do with anything? I never said he didn't take more sacks than a lot of QBs. I never said he didn't take responsibility for sacks. I never said I hadn't seen him take sacks when I thought he should throw it out of bounds.

What I was talking about was Ben's supposed motivation for taking sacks instead of throwing the ball away. Did you or did you not state that you think he takes the sacks instead of throws the ball away in order to pad his stats? If you did not, then I'll gladly apologize and we can get back to discussing more interesting things. If so, then I abide by my original statement.


Do you think Arians is the best OC available for our team? If you do then cool.. if not? What kind of fan are you? Do you think the team is putting it's best foot forward with BA as our OC? :stirpot

I think it's awesome when you think you've made some kind of profound point and feel the need to throw that pot-stirrer image in there. It's cute. :lol:

Again, what I think and what the FO thinks are not always the same thing. I *do* think the Steelers FO thinks that Arians is the best fit at OC for our team right now. If they did not and they had what they considered a better option, they would do something to address it.


When did I say our team intentionally tanked? I'll wait... :roll:

In this thread, you have stated that the Steelers FO could have gotten a better QB during our 20+ year drought but did not. Why would they intentionally not get the best player they could manage to get? What motivation would the Steelers FO have for not attempting to get the best players that fit best?

You stated they were "content with subpar QB play" as if they were easily able to upgrade the position but *chose* not to. If that's not equivalent to intentionally tanking then again, I apologize. It certainly seems like the same concept to me.


I said our FO had stellar teams with trash at QB and they could have made a move for a better one. If you think the Steelers FO is trying to win a SB every year then you must be a Pirate fan too....

I don't care for baseball so I don't give a crap about your point.


I don't think any Steeler fan who is honest with themselves could honestly say our FO was making moves to win a SB every offseason.

I think the Steelers FO does what they think will make the team the most competitive every offseason within the confines of the amount of money they can spend and taking into account the best fit of players. Why would anyone root for an organization that they thought cared more about the bottom line than winning? Why would anyone root for an organization that they thought intentionally didn't put the best team they could on the field? Since you apparently think this, then why the hell are you still a Steeler fan?


You mean to tell me EVERY year from 83 to 2004 you felt as though our FO was making moves to win a SB? I can honestly say I didn't. I knew there were years we would be 9-7 or middle of the pack...

As you've already aptly been named, you're Captain Hindsight here. I think that EVERY year from the beginning to the end the Steelers FO attempts to do what they think will give the team the best chance at winning within the confines of the money they can spend etc. That's. What. Sports. Teams. Do. They try to win championships. If there comes a time when I think that one of the teams I root for (Steelers, Lakers, etc) are intentionally not doing what they think will give them the best chance at winning then that is the time I stop rooting for them.

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 03:46 PM
Do you think we had the best center available the last 3 years?

No. Can you tell us which was the best center available Steelers should have signed?? Steelers FO did not on purpose choose bad centers. Its just that Mahan and Hartwig did not pan out. Main reason they selected Pouncey at 18 was they were worried about that position. Steelers FO is trying to get better every year and i think Pouncey might turn out to be franchise Center. BTW one cannot simply go and sign Nick Mangolds of the league because of cap issues.

Does 50 sacks fall in line with the norm for NFL QB's? Didn't Ben say he takes responsibility for some of the sacks? How many times a season does Ben throw the ball away? 3.. 4 times?


Is it a norm in the league that your O-line does not have a 1st rounder??? I know you have a woody for Peyton. But Big Ben never plays like Peyton Manning. Big Ben is Big Ben a winner which Peyton never is

Damn right I think Ben will take a sack over a pass out of bounds on 2nd and 4... which puts us in 3rd and 11 which makes it an obvious passing down. I've watched it happen time and time again.

You gotta be kidding me. Which games are you watching. Tell me how many times Big Ben have taken sacks on 2nd and 4 and those sacks were completely Big Ben's fault.


Do you think Arians is the best OC available for our team? If you do then cool.. if not? What kind of fan are you? Do you think the team is putting it's best foot forward with BA as our OC? :stirpot


Bruce Arains may not be the greatest OC but he definately is not the worst. Tell us which OC you would sign?? Gary Kubiak? Sean Payton??? Mike Shannahan??? Chan Gailey?? Maybe Steelers are not able to find OC better than Bruce Arians?


If you are going to make statements about sacks and Big Ben 2nd and 4 efficiency you need to state some facts rather than telling us what you see through Big Ben hate goggles.


We didn't stick with Mahan... that was my original point. We had a guy, he didn't pan out and we moved forward. I think in the 83-2004 era there were times when we knew our QB wasn't getting it done and chose to stick with them.


I'm not sure where you get the idea that I love Peyton. I think he is the greatest regular season QB EVER but if I had to win one game I would take Ben over Peyton in a heartbeat. I am not a fan of Peyton... I have no idea where you got that one from.

As far as Ben refusing to throw the ball away... it's common knowledge. He has thrown the ball away probably 3 times the last 2 years. With 130+ sacks in that time frame I'm sure he could have let a few more go and saved field position or FG range. Whether they were all completely his fault or not is not the issue. I never blamed him for the sack occurring but there are times when he tries to shed the sack and he could have tossed the ball out of bounds and saved field position.

I do think Arians is the best OC for our team... however most posters on here do not.
For some reason when I question the FO I'm asked if I'm a real fan... when other's question the OC they are cheered for falling in line.

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 04:18 PM
First off Enip... just like you have your opinion about the FO I have mine...

You felt as though they were putting the best QB on the field during those 20 years and I don't. Why do I have to stop cheering for my team because I feel that way?

I'm Pittsburgh born and bred... I don't cheer for Lakers, Celtics, Yankees, Bruins...

I cheer for all things Pittsburgh...

What I think the FO is doing is my opinion.

I never said Ben intentionally takes sacks... I said he will take a sack before throwing the ball away. Thus leading to more opportunities to throw the ball.

I never said our FO intentionally tanked either... where did I say that? Just respond without taking it to a new extreme. I said I felt the FO could have improved the QB position during those 20 years and chose to bulk up in other places. This gets you to the playoffs but rarely does it win championships because there will always be a time when the QB has to deliver.

I felt as though we could have upgraded from Bubby Brister...

eniparadoxgma
07-18-2010, 04:28 PM
First off Enip... just like you have your opinion about the FO I have mine...

You felt as though they were putting the best QB on the field during those 20 years and I don't. Why do I have to stop cheering for my team because I feel that way?

If they both thought they had a better alternative and had a way to utilize said alternative then they would have went for it.

Do you agree or not? Maybe your problem here is that you're just not very good at clarifying your point. Hopefully this gets down to the issue here.


I'm Pittsburgh born and bred... I don't cheer for Lakers, Celtics, Yankees, Bruins...

I cheer for all things Pittsburgh...

Okay.


What I think the FO is doing is my opinion.

I'm aware of that.


I never said Ben intentionally takes sacks... I said he will take a sack before throwing the ball away. Thus leading to more opportunities to throw the ball.

I didn't think you said that in this thread but I was under the impression that you had indeed said that his motivation for not throwing the ball away more was to pad his stats. Is this true or not? If not, then as I said I apologize and we can move on.


I never said our FO intentionally tanked either... where did I say that? Just respond without taking it to a new extreme. I said I felt the FO could have improved the QB position during those 20 years and chose to bulk up in other places. This gets you to the playoffs but rarely does it win championships because there will always be a time when the QB has to deliver.

Did you just happen to miss what I already said about this or did you choose not to respond to it? Here's what I'm referring to:


In this thread, you have stated that the Steelers FO could have gotten a better QB during our 20+ year drought but did not. Why would they intentionally not get the best player they could manage to get? What motivation would the Steelers FO have for not attempting to get the best players that fit best?

You stated they were "content with subpar QB play" as if they were easily able to upgrade the position but *chose* not to. If that's not equivalent to intentionally tanking then again, I apologize. It certainly seems like the same concept to me.


I felt as though we could have upgraded from Bubby Brister...

Choose one of these two options and stick to it:

1. We could have upgraded the QB position but didn't because the FO doesn't care about winning the SB as much as the fans

2. We could have upgraded the QB position but didn't because the FO thought it was in the best interest of winning to upgrade other areas of the team and thus could not upgrade the QB position at the time

NJ-STEELER
07-18-2010, 05:34 PM
[quote="stlrz d":367l9cs1]Of course you try to get better at QB. Until you find a franchise QB. Once you do you keep him whether or not he's selling jerseys.

:roll:

NJ was right with his comment about that being the most idiotic thing he's read.

i guess owners of teams like the browns & lions have not tried to win all these years.

they haven't tried to improve their QB position
:roll:



I will say Cleveland should improve with the Walrus... whether you like him or not he knows how to put together a decent team. He also got rid of Quinn... who some honestly thought was a good QB. He is a work in progress.

Now how about the old Cleveland that moved to Baltimore... Ozzie Newsome has made them into contenders. I still think they will look back at these last few years and wonder "what if" when they look at the QB position. Flacco is decent but he isn't going to win any games for them.

Look at AZ... they went and got Whiz and now look at them? Look at the Bungles... they aren't blowing anyone away but they made moves to improve their team and they are no longer push overs.[/quote:367l9cs1]

you're making my point (as well as the other 99,9 percent of the people out there)

teams make moves or dont with the best intentions of winning.

they dont keep the same personnal around or bring in new players and think that guy cant improve and help them win

feltdizz
07-18-2010, 06:42 PM
I know teams make moves in the interest of winning football games. I never suggested otherwise. :roll:

Crash
07-18-2010, 07:00 PM
I will say Cleveland should improve with the Walrus... whether you like him or not he knows how to put together a decent team.

Ron Wolf was the GM in Green Bay.

Holmgren's team stunk when he was coach and GM in Seattle. Only when he returned to coaching full time (When he was <> close to being fired) did the Seahawks win the NFC.

Ben takes MOST of his sacks from inside the pocket. If you throw the ball away to avoid a sack from the pocket it's grounding.

eniparadoxgma
07-18-2010, 07:17 PM
I know teams make moves in the interest of winning football games. I never suggested otherwise. :roll:


I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans.


I think there were years when our FO was content with being competitive...

Stick your rolly eyes in your ass.

grotonsteel
07-18-2010, 08:00 PM
We didn't stick with Mahan... that was my original point. We had a guy, he didn't pan out and we moved forward.

No that was not your point.


I do think Arians is the best OC for our team...

Dude do you even read your previous post???? You are contradicting yourself.

stlrz d
07-18-2010, 10:23 PM
Oh man this thread just keeps getting better and better! :lol:

And yes Enip, the idiot has posted previously that Ben takes sacks intentionally to put us in obvious passing situations so he can pad his stats.

NJ-STEELER
07-19-2010, 01:03 AM
Oh man this thread just keeps getting better and better! :lol:

And yes Enip, the idiot has posted previously that Ben takes sacks intentionally to put us in obvious passing situations so he can pad his stats.

or, as ben has said himself, he rather take a sack then throw an INT


typical Ben...always looking our for his own stats

:HeadBanger :roll:

RuthlessBurgher
07-19-2010, 09:38 AM
First of all, there will always be a shortage of true franchise quarterbacks in this league. At any given time, you could probably count them on one hand. However, you need more than just one hand to count the number of NFL teams, so demand for franchise QB's will always exceed the supply (actually, in order to count the number of teams in the league, you'd need to use both of your own hands, and would have to bring in an assistant...let's say LordVile's Steeler Girl, and we can use both of her hands as well as each of her six-toed feet...that gives us 32 :wink: ).

Since there are way more teams than true franchise QB's at any given time, the majority of the teams (in the high 20's) in the league will continue to be in search of the elusive franchise QB. When you've got one, you do not even consider giving him up in his prime. They are way too valuable.

Let's use the following basic flow chart to analyze QB decisions.

You bring in a guy who has some talent, give him some time on the field to see how he does out there, and then ask yourself, is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships? If yes, then you keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore. If no, then you look for a new candidate, then ask the same question about him after giving him some time to play and make an impression.

Terry Bradshaw...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

Yes...keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore.

After he was no longer physically able to play anymore, we replaced him with a new candidate:

Cliff Stoudt...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

David Woodley...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Mark Malone...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Bubby Brister...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Neil O'Donnell...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Mike Tomczak...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Kordell Stewart...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Tommy Maddox...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Ben Roethlisberger...a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl wins?

Yes...keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore.

Some teams can go decade after decade after decade before they find a franchise QB (lucky for us, it only took us a bit over 2 decades, which seems like a lot of time to us, but in the grand scheme of the league, we are actually quite fortunate in this regard).

We weren't "satisfied with sub-par QB play" from 1983 to 2004. We kept trying to find a new guy who might be capable of filling that role, and it wasn't until Ben showed up that it actually happened. Now, we should keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore. It really is that simple.

*(There are a few other guys mixed in there who started games for us like Jim Miller, Kent Graham, Charlie Batch, Dennis Dixon, etc. but they were more stop-gap types than true challengers for a long-term starting role, so I didn't include them in the flow chart itself)

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 09:39 AM
We didn't stick with Mahan... that was my original point. We had a guy, he didn't pan out and we moved forward.

No that was not your point.


I do think Arians is the best OC for our team...

Dude do you even read your previous post???? You are contradicting yourself.

I think Arians is the best for our team...

a ton of guys on here think otherwise.... those guys can disagree with the FO or think they are making a mistake but are they asked why they are fans of the Steelers if they think the FO made a mistake?

That was my original point on the Arians question.

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 09:44 AM
First of all, there will always be a shortage of true franchise quarterbacks in this league. At any given time, you could probably count them on one hand. However, you need more than just one hand to count the number of NFL teams, so demand for franchise QB's will always exceed the supply (actually, in order to count the number of teams in the league, you'd need to use both of your own hands, and would have to bring in an assistant...let's say LordVile's Steeler Girl, and we can use both of her hands as well as each of her six-toed feet...that gives us 32 :wink: ).

Since there are way more teams than true franchise QB's at any given time, the majority of the teams (in the high 20's) in the league will continue to be in search of the elusive franchise QB. When you've got one, you do not even consider giving him up in his prime. They are way too valuable.

Let's use the following basic flow chart to analyze QB decisions.

You bring in a guy who has some talent, give him some time on the field to see how he does out there, and then ask yourself, is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships? If yes, then you keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore. If no, then you look for a new candidate, then ask the same question about him after giving him some time to play and make an impression.

Terry Bradshaw...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

Yes...keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore.

After he was no longer physically able to play anymore, we replaced him with a new candidate:

Cliff Stoudt...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

David Woodley...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Mark Malone...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Bubby Brister...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Neil O'Donnell...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Mike Tomczak...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Kordell Stewart...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Tommy Maddox...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

He started a QB for us for a while, but we eventually realized the answer is no, so we moved on to:

Ben Roethlisberger...is this a potential franchise QB who can possibly lead my team to multiple Super Bowl championships?

Yes...keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore.

Some teams can go decade after decade after decade before they find a franchise QB (lucky for us, it only took us a bit over 2 decades, which seems like a lot of time to us, but in the grand scheme of the league, we are actually quite fortunate in this regard).

We weren't "satisfied with sub-par QB play" from 1983 to 2004. We kept trying to find a new guy who might be capable of filling that role, and it wasn't until Ben showed up that it actually happened. Now, we should keep him until his body breaks down to the point he cannot physically play anymore. It really is that simple.

*(There are a few other guys mixed in there who started games for us like Jim Miller, Kent Graham, Charlie Batch, Dennis Dixon, etc. but they were more stop-gap types than true challengers for a long-term starting role, so I didn't include them in the flow chart itself)

We stuck with some of those guys too long IMO.... I never said we had a chance to get a franchise QB and stuck with scrubs...

I said I thought we could have found better QB's then what we had.

RuthlessBurgher
07-19-2010, 09:51 AM
We stuck with some of those guys too long IMO.... I never said we had a chance to get a franchise QB and stuck with scrubs...

I said I thought we could have found better QB's then what we had.

They thought that Woodley could be better than Stoudt, so they made the switch.

They thought that Malone could be better than Woodley, so they made the switch.

They thought that Brister could be better than Malone, so they made the switch.

They thought that O'Donnell could be better than Brister, so they made the switch.

They thought that Tomczak could be better than O'Donnell, so they made the switch.

They thought that Stewart could be better than Tomczak, so they made the switch.

They thought that Maddox could be better than Stewart, so they made the switch.

They kept trying to get better at QB (some successfully, some not so much...but that's the way it works when it comes to player evaluation) until Ben eventually became our next franchise QB.

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 12:28 PM
[quote=feltdizz]I know teams make moves in the interest of winning football games. I never suggested otherwise. :roll:


I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans.


I think there were years when our FO was content with being competitive...

Stick your rolly eyes in your bad word.[/quote:3qtxhedp]

:roll:

While you may think our FO wants to win a SB every year I think otherwise...

I think they have a very successful business model in place but I think they have dropped the ball a few times.

I believe are FO to be very conservative in their approach... it works well but I think there were times we could have made a move or 2 with a few teams and won a SB or 2 in those 20 years.

Do you agree with every decision the FO makes? I never said the FO didn't do what they thought was best for them. I said "I thought the FO could have been more aggressive with the QB situation. That doesn't mean I expected a franchise QB...just a better one than they had during those 20 years.

Oviedo
07-19-2010, 12:39 PM
I think the FO makes the best possible decision given what they know at the time and the circumstances at the time as they understand them.

It is only fans who criticize the FO based on looking back in time and second guessing.

That is why fans only act smart on message boards and the FO really has to do a job.

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 12:51 PM
We stuck with some of those guys too long IMO.... I never said we had a chance to get a franchise QB and stuck with scrubs...

I said I thought we could have found better QB's then what we had.

They thought that Woodley could be better than Stoudt, so they made the switch.

They thought that Malone could be better than Woodley, so they made the switch.

They thought that Brister could be better than Malone, so they made the switch. Should have been made earlier IMO
They thought that O'Donnell could be better than Brister, so they made the switch.
Should have been made earlier IMO

They thought that Tomczak could be better than O'Donnell, so they made the switch.
I thought O'Donnell left... if not than it was a huge mistake. Tomczak was terrible.

They thought that Stewart could be better than Tomczak, so they made the switch.

They thought that Maddox could be better than Stewart, so they made the switch.

They kept trying to get better at QB (some successfully, some not so much...but that's the way it works when it comes to player evaluation) until Ben eventually became our next franchise QB.


My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 12:53 PM
I think the FO makes the best possible decision given what they know at the time and the circumstances at the time as they understand them.

It is only fans who criticize the FO based on looking back in time and second guessing.

That is why fans only act smart on message boards and the FO really has to do a job.

:Agree

does this apply to the 3-4 vs. 4-3 debate as well? :D

flippy
07-19-2010, 12:59 PM
I believed ODonnel, Stewart, and Maddox were all good enough to win SuperBowls while they were here.

All had fantastic seasons for us.

ODonnel got to the SuperBowl and was a fantastic QB. He was acurate and got really good in 95. ODonnel complimented by Stewart in the Slash role was quite a combo. ODonnel got paid a lot to leave and Stewart flashed so much promise and athleticism when he was on the field, I don't blame the FO for going with Stewart and letting ODonnel leave. It was probably a mistake. ODonnel may have been able to get us back to the SuperBowl quickly.

That said, Stewart was something. And there were seasons he wasn't the reason we didn't get to the SuperBowl. He made mistakes, but to this day, there hasn't been a QB that could run and throw like Stewart except for Mike Vick. Other running QBs run like they've got crap in their pants compared to Stewart and Vick. And I don't completely blame Stewart for failing. He was the first of his kind of QB. And OCs weren't ready to use him to the best of his abilities. Chan handled him great, but then the bafoons that came after Chan hurt Kordell more than they helped. If we kept Chan, I suspect our results with Kordell could have been much different.

Then comes along Maddox who looked even more promising than the former 2 QBs. And he took the league by storm. He had it all, quick decisions, leadership, a great arm/ball, and he was a first round QB years ago. And Maddox truly looked like the guy that would get us over the hump until he got hurt. Totally out of his control and he was never the same.

Then along comes Ben who's been the franchise QB we've been chasing for many years. Ben's the best of the bunch and fortunately things have worked out well for him. And he's the definition of franchise QB. But that doesn't mean some of these other guys weren't close to being close. And by that I don't mean close to being as good as Ben. But good enough to win a SuperBowl like a lot of QBs have who are nowhere close to Ben in talent.

But there's a lot of moving parts. And the QBs themselves aren't the only piece missing from the puzzle.

cruzer8
07-19-2010, 02:08 PM
We stuck with some of those guys too long IMO.... I never said we had a chance to get a franchise QB and stuck with scrubs...

I said I thought we could have found better QB's then what we had.

They thought that Woodley could be better than Stoudt, so they made the switch.

They thought that Malone could be better than Woodley, so they made the switch.

They thought that Brister could be better than Malone, so they made the switch. Should have been made earlier IMO
They thought that O'Donnell could be better than Brister, so they made the switch.
Should have been made earlier IMO

They thought that Tomczak could be better than O'Donnell, so they made the switch.
I thought O'Donnell left... if not than it was a huge mistake. Tomczak was terrible.

They thought that Stewart could be better than Tomczak, so they made the switch.

They thought that Maddox could be better than Stewart, so they made the switch.

They kept trying to get better at QB (some successfully, some not so much...but that's the way it works when it comes to player evaluation) until Ben eventually became our next franchise QB.


My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

http://fm.theoffside.com/files/2009/03/hindsight.jpg

flippy
07-19-2010, 05:19 PM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

eniparadoxgma
07-19-2010, 05:45 PM
:roll:

While you may think our FO wants to win a SB every year I think otherwise...

I think they have a very successful business model in place but I think they have dropped the ball a few times.

I believe are FO to be very conservative in their approach... it works well but I think there were times we could have made a move or 2 with a few teams and won a SB or 2 in those 20 years.

Do you agree with every decision the FO makes? I never said the FO didn't do what they thought was best for them. I said "I thought the FO could have been more aggressive with the QB situation. That doesn't mean I expected a franchise QB...just a better one than they had during those 20 years.

Keep your effeminate rolly eyes to yourself.

So you knowingly root for an organization that you think doesn't do what it can to win the most championships? Why?


Nice job explaining how this isn't contradictory btw:


I know teams make moves in the interest of winning football games. I never suggested otherwise.

vs


I think there were years when our FO was content with being competitive...

Also, nice job explaining your take on this whole "Ben takes sacks to pad his stats" theory of yours.

When I need to get into a discussion with someone that perpetually moves goal posts, ignores their own statements, contradicts themselves endlessly, and in general seems to not have an idea of how to maintain one position unambiguously it's good to know you're there. :Cheers

ter1230_4
07-19-2010, 08:14 PM
When I need to get into a discussion with someone that perpetually moves goal posts, ignores their own statements, contradicts themselves endlessly, and in general seems to not have an idea of how to maintain one position unambiguously it's good to know you're there.

I couldn't agree more. I gave up on this discussion a couple of days ago, because Feltdizz is like the energizer bunny-- he just keeps going and going (in circles).

feltdizz
07-19-2010, 10:37 PM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Captain Lemming
07-19-2010, 11:07 PM
No... you don't get it. I seriously doubt our FO cares as much about SB's as we do as fans. If they did Tommy Gun, Kordell and a few other QB's never see the field.

If we can go 11-5 or 10-6 and make the playoffs while saving 30 million I'm pretty sure a few guys in the office would seriously consider it.

The fact that Ben got signed to the contract in the first place pretty much destroys your point Dizz.

I say that underestimating value of a great QB along with the difficulty in getting one, is why we went so long without one.

Two SBs later and Ben got the big deal showing quite clearly that the FO values the position and will pay the price, contrary to what you are saying.

Captain Lemming
07-19-2010, 11:15 PM
That doesn't bode well for Ben's future on this team at all.

Leftwich isn't old, he's 29.

If Batch is saying Dixon is "the future" then Ben won't be here.

Dont worry Crash unless Ben screws up AGAIN he's not going anywhere. If that was what they wanted to do he would be gone already.

Crash
07-19-2010, 11:27 PM
They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs

Ben won two rings with two different OCs.

Enough of the excuses. Kordell sucked a$$.

hawaiiansteel
07-19-2010, 11:31 PM
They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs

Ben won two rings with two different OCs.

Enough of the excuses. Kordell sucked a$$.


if Kordell's ego could have just accepted the "Slash" role...he excelled at that. But no, he insisted he was a QB only, and yes he sucked a$$ at it.

Captain Lemming
07-19-2010, 11:40 PM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Kordell broke the Steeler record accouting for 32 total TDs in his first year as a starter. How good would he become with experience. His upside looked limitless. Who knew he would DIGRESS.

All Brad showed early on was that he could hit a DEFENSIVE BACK 60 yards downfield with uncanny frequency. Gifted with the hang time that would put Ray Guy to shame, third and long was like a punt.

Crash
07-19-2010, 11:46 PM
Kordell's 1997 was erratic at best. He was absolutely dreadful in the first halves of games. Then would play better in the second half. He also led the AFC in picks in 1997.

Captain Lemming
07-20-2010, 12:09 AM
Kordell's 1997 was erratic at best. He was absolutely dreadful in the first halves of games. Then would play better in the second half. He also led the AFC in picks in 1997.

Kordell had 32 total TDs 21 of those passing and yes led the league with 17 picks.

Terry had 7 total TDs 6 of those passing and also led the league with 24 picks in only 13 games as a part time starter.

Say what you want about "different eras" Brad was the worst QB in the league by far compare to his peers of that same era. Among his peers Kordell was an injury away from a Probowl. In his first year starting.

As 1st year starters, who looked like the one with the HOF future?

We all know Terry "became" great. Kordell did not. My point is to dispute the notion that only Terry looked like he had potential.

Crash
07-20-2010, 01:14 AM
As 1st year starters, who looked like the one with the HOF future?

Kordell inherited a team that was a 5 year playoff contender.

Bradshaw inherited the worst team in football.

A little perspective here.

fezziwig
07-20-2010, 09:20 AM
Do you guys forget about the horrible passes Kordell threw ? He would throw at Plaxicos feet and throw over the heads of Troy, Hines or anyone short. When teams found out he couldn't hit the side of a barn they, stopped pressing the rush and challenged him to pass. He had Super Bowl team around him and he couldn't get it done. Give Bradshaw and Ben those same teams and they would have ruled.
Kordell should have remained a receiver and he would have broke the record books in my opinion.

feltdizz
07-20-2010, 09:37 AM
Do you guys forget about the horrible passes Kordell threw ? He would throw at Plaxicos feet and throw over the heads of Troy, Hines or anyone short. When teams found out he couldn't hit the side of a barn they, stopped pressing the rush and challenged him to pass. He had Super Bowl team around him and he couldn't get it done. Give Bradshaw and Ben those same teams and they would have ruled.
Kordell should have remained a receiver and he would have broke the record books in my opinion.

you are not allowed to voice your opinion on the past. :stirpot

eniparadoxgma
07-20-2010, 10:07 AM
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6404/strawman.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/i/strawman.jpg/)

cruzer8
07-20-2010, 10:25 AM
Do you guys forget about the horrible passes Kordell threw ? He would throw at Plaxicos feet and throw over the heads of Troy, Hines or anyone short. When teams found out he couldn't hit the side of a barn they, stopped pressing the rush and challenged him to pass. He had Super Bowl team around him and he couldn't get it done. Give Bradshaw and Ben those same teams and they would have ruled.
Kordell should have remained a receiver and he would have broke the record books in my opinion.

you are not allowed to voice your opinion on the past. :stirpot

We're going to have to accept the fact that you just don't get it and you never will.

RuthlessBurgher
07-20-2010, 10:32 AM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Okay, so you think that Bubby and Mark should have been replaced earlier than they were. That's fine.

But Jim Miller? Seriously? Dude had one start in Pittsburgh and was benched in the middle of that game after going 9-17 for 83 yards, and he never started in Pittsburgh again. Do you think we only should have given him only 12 passes before yanking him instead of 17? C'mon, now...

ikestops85
07-20-2010, 10:53 AM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Okay, so you think that Bubby and Mark should have been replaced earlier than they were. That's fine.

But Jim Miller? Seriously? Dude had one start in Pittsburgh and was benched in the middle of that game after going 9-17 for 83 yards, and he never started in Pittsburgh again. Do you think we only should have given him only 12 passes before yanking him instead of 17? C'mon, now...

and Miller showed a lot of potential. I thought we had a real QB with Miller. He had some flashes that made me hopeful. Cowher just had a hard time making the switch to a young guy at QB. I don't think he wanted to switch to Kordell but he really had no other choice after O'Donnel bolted.

feltdizz
07-20-2010, 07:04 PM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Okay, so you think that Bubby and Mark should have been replaced earlier than they were. That's fine.

But Jim Miller? Seriously? Dude had one start in Pittsburgh and was benched in the middle of that game after going 9-17 for 83 yards, and he never started in Pittsburgh again. Do you think we only should have given him only 12 passes before yanking him instead of 17? C'mon, now...

One snap was one too many.

feltdizz
07-20-2010, 07:13 PM
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6404/strawman.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/i/strawman.jpg/)

:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

kiwi_sarah
07-20-2010, 08:02 PM
My frustration is with the length of time we gave some of our QB's... I know we kept trying to get better at the position but c'mon... that list is pathetic outside of 2 names...

Does our LB list look like this? How about our RB's? I know the QB position is the hardest to fill... but "I" don't think we were as concerned about the QB position as we could have been some of those years.

We shoulda yanked Bradshaw right away too.

You're acting like every QB has success as quickly as Ben.

It typically takes most QBs about 5+ years to develop.

Your also putting everything on the QB. And maybe some of these guys would have had success with a coach other than Cowher or a OC other than the one we had at the time.

It's not like Cowher was this super coach at developing QBs. Maybe he actually hindered some of their development?

They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs.

Why would we yank Bradshaw right away? He was erratic but he showed glimpses of greatness and had a huge arm too...

We did bench him in 74...

Brister... Malone... Miller... no signs.

Okay, so you think that Bubby and Mark should have been replaced earlier than they were. That's fine.

But Jim Miller? Seriously? Dude had one start in Pittsburgh and was benched in the middle of that game after going 9-17 for 83 yards, and he never started in Pittsburgh again. Do you think we only should have given him only 12 passes before yanking him instead of 17? C'mon, now...

One snap was one too many.

Good point RB. Just wanted you to know it wasn't lost on everyone. I'm thinking solid points based on actual events aren't going to work here for some reason.

Felt, you have an answer for everything. It's miraculous. You should be on Jeopardy. You'd lose because all your answers are wrong, but you should def. be on it.

stlrz d
07-20-2010, 08:17 PM
Good point RB. Just wanted you to know it wasn't lost on everyone. I'm thinking solid points based on actual events aren't going to work here for some reason.

Felt, you have an answer for everything. It's miraculous. You should be on Jeopardy. You'd lose because all your answers are wrong, but you should def. be on it.

Welcome aboard! :lol:

kiwi_sarah
07-20-2010, 08:39 PM
[quote="kiwi_sarah":3imrzrks]
Good point RB. Just wanted you to know it wasn't lost on everyone. I'm thinking solid points based on actual events aren't going to work here for some reason.

Felt, you have an answer for everything. It's miraculous. You should be on Jeopardy. You'd lose because all your answers are wrong, but you should def. be on it.

Welcome aboard! :lol:[/quote:3imrzrks]

lmaoooooooo - thanks dude!

eniparadoxgma
07-20-2010, 10:00 PM
:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

Look, felt. I don't give a flying **** if you're gay. That's your prerogative. However, I would appreciate you keeping your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

P.S. You're a pure, unadulterated moron. I've been nice enough to not just go ahead and say that before now but if you're throwing your gayness at me I figure you're fair game now. I don't mean you're a moron in a reactionary "this guy doesn't agree with me so now I have to bust on him" kind of way. I mean it in a you're so obviously on the wrong side of the bell curve in regards to intelligence that pretty much everyone but you knows it. Take care.

MaxAMillion
07-21-2010, 11:21 AM
I can only pray that Dixon starts while Leftwich is out. Dixon can at least make some plays with his feet while playing behind a suspect line. Leftwich is a statue back there and teams will blitz the hell out of him. There is a reason that Leftwich can't get a starting job anywhere.

I say go with Dixon and pray.

feltdizz
07-21-2010, 12:41 PM
:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

Look, felt. I don't give a flying bad word if you're gay. That's your prerogative. However, I would appreciate you keeping your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

P.S. You're a pure, unadulterated moron. I've been nice enough to not just go ahead and say that before now but if you're throwing your gayness at me I figure you're fair game now. I don't mean you're a moron in a reactionary "this guy doesn't agree with me so now I have to bust on him" kind of way. I mean it in a you're so obviously on the wrong side of the bell curve in regards to intelligence that pretty much everyone but you knows it. Take care.

first they call me a racist an now I'm gay? :roll:

I'm pretty sure by now you know I give a rats behind what you guys think of "my" opinions.

You take yourself way too seriously on here.

feltdizz
07-21-2010, 12:47 PM
Good point RB. Just wanted you to know it wasn't lost on everyone. I'm thinking solid points based on actual events aren't going to work here for some reason.

Felt, you have an answer for everything. It's miraculous. You should be on Jeopardy. You'd lose because all your answers are wrong, but you should def. be on it.

It's a message board.

I think the FO made a few mistakes with past QB's...

why should I change my position because others feel differently?

eniparadoxgma
07-21-2010, 03:32 PM
:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

Look, felt. I don't give a flying bad word if you're gay. That's your prerogative. However, I would appreciate you keeping your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

P.S. You're a pure, unadulterated moron. I've been nice enough to not just go ahead and say that before now but if you're throwing your gayness at me I figure you're fair game now. I don't mean you're a moron in a reactionary "this guy doesn't agree with me so now I have to bust on him" kind of way. I mean it in a you're so obviously on the wrong side of the bell curve in regards to intelligence that pretty much everyone but you knows it. Take care.

first they call me a racist an now I'm gay? :roll:

I'm pretty sure by now you know I give a rats behind what you guys think of "my" opinions.

You take yourself way too seriously on here.

Who's "they"? And you're the one using the effeminate rolly eyes and saying "all up in your mouth" to another dude. Sounds pretty gay to me. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

I screw around and make jokes on here as much as the next guy. I just happen to have a problem with people that have no clue how to hold a rational conversation (ie you).

Your 3000 posts make it impossible to ignore you, yet you're incapable of following a rational discussion. When your "points" are called out you then alter them, move the goal posts, or just completely miss what's actually being said. It's actually kind of sad.

It's like you're so confident that you feel the need to give your opinion on everything, but you're too slow to understand when you're wrong and why you're wrong so you doggedly stay the course and find ways to make your opinions seem right to yourself...when everyone else knows you're wrong.

I think you take yourself too seriously and/or you're just really dumb, because you're incapable of ever being wrong about something. You just weasel your way into making yourself right somehow in your mind. My money says it's an interesting defense mechanism bred from you always being wrong all the time lol.

Armchair Psychologist PhD out. :)

Iron Shiek
07-21-2010, 04:16 PM
:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

Look, felt. I don't give a flying bad word if you're gay. That's your prerogative. However, I would appreciate you keeping your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

P.S. You're a pure, unadulterated moron. I've been nice enough to not just go ahead and say that before now but if you're throwing your gayness at me I figure you're fair game now. I don't mean you're a moron in a reactionary "this guy doesn't agree with me so now I have to bust on him" kind of way. I mean it in a you're so obviously on the wrong side of the bell curve in regards to intelligence that pretty much everyone but you knows it. Take care.

first they call me a racist an now I'm gay? :roll:

I'm pretty sure by now you know I give a rats behind what you guys think of "my" opinions.

You take yourself way too seriously on here.

Who's "they"? And you're the one using the effeminate rolly eyes and saying "all up in your mouth" to another dude. Sounds pretty gay to me. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

I screw around and make jokes on here as much as the next guy. I just happen to have a problem with people that have no clue how to hold a rational conversation (ie you).

Your 3000 posts make it impossible to ignore you, yet you're incapable of following a rational discussion. When your "points" are called out you then alter them, move the goal posts, or just completely miss what's actually being said. It's actually kind of sad.

It's like you're so confident that you feel the need to give your opinion on everything, but you're too slow to understand when you're wrong and why you're wrong so you doggedly stay the course and find ways to make your opinions seem right to yourself...when everyone else knows you're wrong.

I think you take yourself too seriously and/or you're just really dumb, because you're incapable of ever being wrong about something. You just weasel your way into making yourself right somehow in your mind. My money says it's an interesting defense mechanism bred from you always being wrong all the time lol.

Armchair Psychologist PhD out. :)


That's a heck of an analysis eni. I didn't read anything in this thread so I don't know what everyone is bickering about, but I would definitely draft you #1 overall in my Armchair Psychologist Fantasy draft.

eniparadoxgma
07-21-2010, 04:41 PM
That's a heck of an analysis eni. I didn't read anything in this thread so I don't know what everyone is bickering about, but I would definitely draft you #1 overall in my Armchair Psychologist Fantasy draft.

Sweet. :tt2 :tt2 :tt2

flippy
07-21-2010, 05:02 PM
They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs

Ben won two rings with two different OCs.

Enough of the excuses. Kordell sucked a$$.

I'm not trying to argue Kordell was a great QB or even close. But he had great athleticism that Chan figured out how to exploit and no one else could.

If we could have continued exploiting his strengths, I think we could have had more success.

ie. no one should have even tried to make him into a traditional QB. and that's where a lot of the frustration came from.

he should have had 1-2 reads and then run. and protect the ball at all costs. i think we could have eeked out a SuperBowl if he was handled better. that's all.

feltdizz
07-21-2010, 05:59 PM
:roll:

just for you... all in ya mouth! :lol:

Look, felt. I don't give a flying bad word if you're gay. That's your prerogative. However, I would appreciate you keeping your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

P.S. You're a pure, unadulterated moron. I've been nice enough to not just go ahead and say that before now but if you're throwing your gayness at me I figure you're fair game now. I don't mean you're a moron in a reactionary "this guy doesn't agree with me so now I have to bust on him" kind of way. I mean it in a you're so obviously on the wrong side of the bell curve in regards to intelligence that pretty much everyone but you knows it. Take care.

first they call me a racist an now I'm gay? :roll:

I'm pretty sure by now you know I give a rats behind what you guys think of "my" opinions.

You take yourself way too seriously on here.

Who's "they"? And you're the one using the effeminate rolly eyes and saying "all up in your mouth" to another dude. Sounds pretty gay to me. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

I screw around and make jokes on here as much as the next guy. I just happen to have a problem with people that have no clue how to hold a rational conversation (ie you).

Your 3000 posts make it impossible to ignore you, yet you're incapable of following a rational discussion. When your "points" are called out you then alter them, move the goal posts, or just completely miss what's actually being said. It's actually kind of sad.

It's like you're so confident that you feel the need to give your opinion on everything, but you're too slow to understand when you're wrong and why you're wrong so you doggedly stay the course and find ways to make your opinions seem right to yourself...when everyone else knows you're wrong.

I think you take yourself too seriously and/or you're just really dumb, because you're incapable of ever being wrong about something. You just weasel your way into making yourself right somehow in your mind. My money says it's an interesting defense mechanism bred from you always being wrong all the time lol.

Armchair Psychologist PhD out. :)

name calling? :roll:

How is thinking the FO could have been more aggressive at upgrading the FO wrong?
It's my opinion....

Someone points out why they think I'm wrong but I stick to my guns on thinking our FO could have upgraded the QB position.

All of a sudden this means I'm irrational? Whatever dude...

I don't think the FO tries to win a SB every year... once again, my opinion. You don't like it, I'm irrational.

Then you bring up Ben and padding his stats...
I think Ben will take a sack before throwing the ball away... that is my opinion. I have watched him take more than a few sacks when he could have chucked it out of bounds. So irrational....

I always get a kick out a stranger on a message board trying to tell another guy who he is or what he is all about.... Go ahead.. call me a few names and write some psycho babble that makes you feel good about your University of Phoenix PhD.

This is like the 2nd or 3rd time you have asked me 21 questions and you always end everyone with name calling and insults. Why so mad?

Crash
07-21-2010, 08:25 PM
I think Ben will take a sack before throwing the ball away... that is my opinion.

You can't just throw the ball away from the pocket to avoid a sack.

That's grounding.

Learn the rules.

fezziwig
07-21-2010, 09:09 PM
I think Ben will be running for his life just as much if not more than in the past. Is it just his style or do our guys really stink that badly ? In any event I, wish there could be a happy meduim.

eniparadoxgma
07-21-2010, 09:15 PM
name calling? :roll:

How is thinking the FO could have been more aggressive at upgrading the FO wrong?
It's my opinion....

Here's an example of how you're an idiot. You've completely missed the point for the thousandth time. Way to go, chucklehead.


Someone points out why they think I'm wrong but I stick to my guns on thinking our FO could have upgraded the QB position.

All of a sudden this means I'm irrational? Whatever dude...

See the above. Yet again, whoosh over your head the actual point goes. 0 for 2. Keep swinging, my man.


I don't think the FO tries to win a SB every year... once again, my opinion. You don't like it, I'm irrational.

And you never addressed my point here either. Why would you root for an organization that doesn't attempt to win a SB every year? What rationale do you use for that?


Then you bring up Ben and padding his stats...
I think Ben will take a sack before throwing the ball away... that is my opinion. I have watched him take more than a few sacks when he could have chucked it out of bounds. So irrational....

JFC you're 0 for 4. My point didn't refer to whether or not he'd take a sack before throwing the ball away. The point has to do with his motivation for doing so. Go back, try to read it again, and figure out what the actual point is. I'm about done being your teacher...again.


I always get a kick out a stranger on a message board trying to tell another guy who he is or what he is all about.... Go ahead.. call me a few names and write some psycho babble that makes you feel good about your University of Phoenix PhD.

First, your point is completely irrelevant. I make my observations based on what you put forth. I don't claim to know what type of douche you are in real life. I'm working with what I've got.

Second, it does matter one iota if I have a degree from the University of Phoenix, the University of Kentucky, or the University of STFUYOUFLAMINGRETARD. My points remain my points, your idiocy remains your idiocy, and you continue to grapple with difficult concepts like "responding to the actual points being made".


This is like the 2nd or 3rd time you have asked me 21 questions and you always end everyone with name calling and insults. Why so mad?

I dislike idiocy, and therefore I dislike idiots. I have done my best to give you a chance to participate in a rational discussion where the people involved actually understand what the other is saying and responds to it. You are apparently unable to do so. Yet, you continue to bleat the same erroneous points that don't refer to anything in the actual discussion as if you're saying something. If you were able to understand your own errors and own up to them than I wouldn't feel the need to be as blunt as I am. However, you don't so I do.

ter1230_4
07-21-2010, 09:21 PM
the University of STFUYOUFLAMINGRETARD

How difficult are the admissions standards??

BURGH86STEEL
07-21-2010, 10:03 PM
They definitely f'd with Kordell and the ever changing OCs

Ben won two rings with two different OCs.

Enough of the excuses. Kordell sucked a$$.

I'm not trying to argue Kordell was a great QB or even close. But he had great athleticism that Chan figured out how to exploit and no one else could.

If we could have continued exploiting his strengths, I think we could have had more success.

ie. no one should have even tried to make him into a traditional QB. and that's where a lot of the frustration came from.

he should have had 1-2 reads and then run. and protect the ball at all costs. i think we could have eeked out a SuperBowl if he was handled better. that's all.

I believe they did what they thought was best for Kordell and the team. They had some success with the way they handled him.

I don't believe having one or two reads would had worked for Kordell. Coaches and players around the league were/are a little more intelligent. I believe they would had caught onto that strategy fairly quickly. How long would it take for anyone of us to catch on? How long would Kordell had stayed injury free with that strategy? Kordell did not develop consistency in his game. IMO, that was his biggest issue. I don't think any changes in handling would had changed anything about the way things played out with Kordell and the Steelers.

fezziwig
07-21-2010, 10:08 PM
Gentlemen, gentlemen I implore you. I realize we are suffering from football withdraws but soon we will have the opponents to bash.


This string is angry my friends, like an old man sending back cold soup at the deli.

Crash
07-21-2010, 11:03 PM
I'm not trying to argue Kordell was a great QB or even close. But he had great athleticism that Chan figured out how to exploit and no one else could.

If we could have continued exploiting his strengths, I think we could have had more success.

Couldn't happen. At some point you have to allow him to try and throw.

That was the problem.

Kordell WANTED to be a pocket passer. He was perfectly willing to complete a 5 yard pass on 3rd and 6. The ONLY times he ran were by DESIGN, he was unwilling to scramble because he wanted to prove he can throw.

Shawn
07-22-2010, 07:14 AM
I'm not trying to argue Kordell was a great QB or even close. But he had great athleticism that Chan figured out how to exploit and no one else could.

If we could have continued exploiting his strengths, I think we could have had more success.

Couldn't happen. At some point you have to allow him to try and throw.

That was the problem.

Kordell WANTED to be a pocket passer. He was perfectly willing to complete a 5 yard pass on 3rd and 6. The ONLY times he ran were by DESIGN, he was unwilling to scramble because he wanted to prove he can throw.


I agree...Kordell was limited by Kordell. He could have been one terrific football player if he left his ego off the field. Kordell was a great situational QB and would have been a talented WR. But, he was never a pocket passer.

RuthlessBurgher
07-22-2010, 09:26 AM
Gentlemen, gentlemen I implore you. I realize we are suffering from football withdraws but soon we will have the opponents to bash.


This string is angry my friends, like an old man sending back cold soup at the deli.

Only one man can help this situation...Is there a marine biologist in the house? :lol:

feltdizz
07-22-2010, 01:01 PM
Gentlemen, gentlemen I implore you. I realize we are suffering from football withdraws but soon we will have the opponents to bash.


This string is angry my friends, like an old man sending back cold soup at the deli.

That sounded like a George Costanza line for some reason.

RuthlessBurgher
07-22-2010, 01:17 PM
Gentlemen, gentlemen I implore you. I realize we are suffering from football withdraws but soon we will have the opponents to bash.


This string is angry my friends, like an old man sending back cold soup at the deli.

That sounded like a George Costanza line for some reason.

For some good reason, actually.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LWFET7ZfpfI/SvmM4M7L24I/AAAAAAAACcY/TcV8lSIzTtY/s400/george-costanza.jpg

fezziwig
07-22-2010, 10:25 PM
I love that show and George is my favorite. I loved the episode when he discovered doing the opposite worked for him.

Hello, my name is George, I'm unemployeed and live with my parents.


Girls response: Well Hellooo

i loved when Jerry used the head of lettuce to depict Georges brain.

Captain Lemming
07-23-2010, 01:02 AM
Gentlemen, gentlemen I implore you. I realize we are suffering from football withdraws but soon we will have the opponents to bash.


This string is angry my friends, like an old man sending back cold soup at the deli.

That sounded like a George Costanza line for some reason.

For some good reason, actually.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LWFET7ZfpfI/SvmM4M7L24I/AAAAAAAACcY/TcV8lSIzTtY/s400/george-costanza.jpg

What is that, a Titleist? Hole in one, huh?

http://img.youtube.com/vi/Ihr1gmZ5JVU/0.jpg