PDA

View Full Version : giving credit where it's due.....



Starlifter
11-22-2010, 12:23 AM
well known BA hater here BUT I gotta say I was pleased with the game plan today. I thought we were pretty unpredictable on first down. I thought the gadgets (other than the first with EL which was transparent) were well timed. I loved the Hines in motion and then pass to him underneath for the first. most importantly, i loved how we stayed on the gas till under a minute to play. I think we left some good stuff on the field but today was a day when I thought the scheme was sound and our offense was set up for success.

having said that, a broken clock is right twice a day. BA still sucks.......... :tt2 :tt2

hawaiiansteel
11-22-2010, 12:45 AM
as much as it pains me to say this, Arians was better than usual today although his run designs still suck...


Steelers-Raiders: Revenge of the Steelersí D

Posted on November 21, 2010 by JJ


That was a fun way to put a Patriotsí loss in the rear-view mirror. Pittsburgh completely dominated the Raiders, and if it hadnít been for the officialsí flag-happy tendencies, we may have seen a blowout of historic proportions.

Weíll have more analysis of the game on the podcast, but here are some thoughts during the game.

Itís nice to see the Steelersí coaching staff respond to the problems we all saw in the loss to the Patriots. You read here how Trai Essex was the player who has serious problems in the running game ó Pittsburgh replaced him with Ramon Foster.

Thereís been a general consensus that the wide receivers for the Steelers have lacked enough quickness and explosiveness to make secondaries sweat ó so Pittsburgh activated Anthony Brown and Emmanuel Sanders in the same week and played both of them in four wide receiver formations. Itís great to see guys who can get open against solid corners. Just as notably Antwaan Randle El has been reduced to a couple of gimmick snaps and the five-wide formations, but not much more than that. That said, Emmanuel Sanders needs to focus on catching this week ó he had a couple of balls hit his hands that he didnít snag.

Another young gun getting an opportunity was Keenan Lewis ó he again seemed to play well when given a chance to serve as a gunner on punt coverage. The combination of him, Anthony Madison and Stevenson Sylvester is an impressive combination on punt coverage.

I know that Steelers offensive coordinator Bruce Arians gets a lot of criticism, but give him credit when things work. Check out the third and two with 10:18 to go in the second quarter. Heath Miller lined up at fullback (a pretty unusual role for him, but not completely unprecedented), then flared out into the flat at the snap ó he was left wide open for an 18-yard gain on a seemingly simple dump and run. It was the kind of matchup advantage that the Steelers had clearly seen on film, and waited to use in a key situation.

Seeing Richard Seymour and Chris Kemoeatu spar with each other early in the second quarter was awesome. It was the kind of thing you would have seen in a Steelers/Raiders game from the 1970s, and it was relatively clean, just two guys going at each other a little after the whistle. Seeing Seymour punch Roethlisberger later was not as awesome, but if there ever is an unnecessary roughness penalty you accept, itís the one that Kemoeatu took for retaliating. As an offensive lineman, you canít shrug off your quarterback being punched, and thankfully Kemoeatu didnít.

As much as I love the memories of the 70s Steelers-Raiders games, in the second half we saw what would happen in the Steelers-Raiders from the 70s played now. It became a farce with penalties on every play.

http://www.steelerslounge.com/2010/11/s ... ame-notes/ (http://www.steelerslounge.com/2010/11/steelersraiders-game-notes/)

LordVile
11-22-2010, 02:36 AM
credit 2 Brucey on this one.. I too, liked the trick plays and what not. Keeping the defense honest with some surprises here and there. He should call more stuff like this and get even more creative. I doubt it will be more than 1 time deal, as others have said.

Crash
11-22-2010, 03:34 AM
Not as predictable, not in 3rd and long a lot. Got the young guys involved. Quick stuff to Heath, Ward, etc.

Just have to stay out of 3rd and longs.

jj28west
11-22-2010, 06:35 AM
This game was one of his best IMO. Even the last TD to Red which I would have not shown but a well executed disguised play when the Raiders were really selling out in pushing the line. Add the injuries to the Oline and it was a nice job by the O.

Stewie
11-22-2010, 08:28 AM
I liked the fact that Foster started over Essex as well as the diminished role for ARE. If we start both Brown and Sanders in 4 wide situations, we'll do well.

Mister Pittsburgh
11-22-2010, 08:53 AM
I thought it was a really good gameplan on both sides of the ball. I tore both OC and DC a new one last week following the Pats, but will say they both showed up this week.

Oviedo
11-22-2010, 09:03 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

msp26505
11-22-2010, 09:06 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

Everyone has off weeks.

Arians just has them 13 times a year, excluding playoffs.

Welcome to one of the other three. :wink:

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 09:31 AM
Wel I was very critical of his design. I had long post in here somewhere that went into detail about what design faults he had. And what do you know, I saw many screens, an actual shuttle pass, and his route tree was full. Lots of intermediate crossing patterns and he attacked the middle of the field. It is only one game so I won't "crown him". But I could thank him for proving me right. :lol:

papillon
11-22-2010, 09:37 AM
It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

Starlifter
11-22-2010, 09:52 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

Oviedo
11-22-2010, 09:54 AM
Wel I was very critical of his design. I had long post in here somewhere that went into detail about what design faults he had. And what do you know, I saw many screens, an actual shuttle pass, and his route tree was full. Lots of intermediate crossing patterns and he attacked the middle of the field. It is only one game so I won't "crown him". But I could thank him for proving me right. :lol:

I guess Arians reads this site too. Just like LeBeau read my posts and made his adjustments :wink:

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 10:11 AM
Wel I was very critical of his design. I had long post in here somewhere that went into detail about what design faults he had. And what do you know, I saw many screens, an actual shuttle pass, and his route tree was full. Lots of intermediate crossing patterns and he attacked the middle of the field. It is only one game so I won't "crown him". But I could thank him for proving me right. :lol:

I guess Arians reads this site too. Just like LeBeau read my posts and made his adjustments :wink:

It seems that way doesn't it? :lol: The reality of it is, it was just simple x's & o's...It shouldn't be something that eluded either of them. Adjustments were made...That is the good thing. But Arians did it last year for a couple of games and went right back to his old self. It seems like he gets one game in where the defense can't stop the push downfield and he forgets the old "Any Given Sunday" the following wink and looks like he is stuck on stupid again. When I say that, I mean adjust in game if it isn't there. Don't wait to rack up a loss and make the adjustment next game.

Loved DL's gameplan. Just go get em!!! Don't let them dictate the playcalling. Rattle the QB...I don't care who it is. Those hits stay in their head.

papillon
11-22-2010, 10:15 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

The Raiders are a different football team than the Patriots and, of course, causes the game plan to change. The formations, plays and players of the opponent determine what you think will work and what won't. The Raiders are a team on the rise they are not the Patriots or any top tier team and, so more things will work against them than against a top tier team.

The same plays today probably would have failed last week against the Patriots, because the Steelers weren't executing and the opponent was of a different caliber. A game plan is a coordinators opinion of what will work and what won't. The other team sets up a game plan as well; it comes down to which team can execute the game plan. The football acumen of the coordinators doesn't change from week to week, the execution by the players changes.

Pappy

feltdizz
11-22-2010, 10:32 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

:Clap

If our players drop 2 or 3 passes and Ben doesn't run... because you know, he should only run when the game is on the line... BA is once again an idiot.

I think more than play calling, the change in personnel by the coaches was the real key this week.

Oviedo
11-22-2010, 10:34 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

The Raiders are a different football team than the Patriots and, of course, causes the game plan to change. The formations, plays and players of the opponent determine what you think will work and what won't. The Raiders are a team on the rise they are not the Patriots or any top tier team and, so more things will work against them than against a top tier team.

The same plays today probably would have failed last week against the Patriots, because the Steelers weren't executing and the opponent was of a different caliber. A game plan is a coordinators opinion of what will work and what won't. The other team sets up a game plan as well; it comes down to which team can execute the game plan. The football acumen of the coordinators doesn't change from week to week, the execution by the players changes.

Pappy

Defensively, I would have to disagree. I think what we did yesterday is EXACTLY what we had to do against Brady...or Brees or Manning The passive defense does not work against these top QBs because they can pick you apart. You need to get their head on a swivel with multiple attacks from multiple directions. But LeBeau seems to want to play this bend and don't break defense where he waits for a QB to make a mistake. The top QBs don't make those mistakes.

I hope he will continue the attack mentality for the rest of the season. I would rather go down attacking and delivering the punches than laying back and taking them.

papillon
11-22-2010, 10:40 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

The Raiders are a different football team than the Patriots and, of course, causes the game plan to change. The formations, plays and players of the opponent determine what you think will work and what won't. The Raiders are a team on the rise they are not the Patriots or any top tier team and, so more things will work against them than against a top tier team.

The same plays today probably would have failed last week against the Patriots, because the Steelers weren't executing and the opponent was of a different caliber. A game plan is a coordinators opinion of what will work and what won't. The other team sets up a game plan as well; it comes down to which team can execute the game plan. The football acumen of the coordinators doesn't change from week to week, the execution by the players changes.

Pappy

Defensively, I would have to disagree. I think what we did yesterday is EXACTLY what we had to do against Brady...or Brees or Manning The passive defense does not work against these top QBs because they can pick you apart. You need to get their head on a swivel with multiple attacks from multiple directions. But LeBeau seems to want to play this bend and don't break defense where he waits for a QB to make a mistake. The top QBs don't make those mistakes.

I hope he will continue the attack mentality for the rest of the season. I would rather go down attacking and delivering the punches than laying back and taking them.

Lebeau may have believed that because Brady is playing with young WRs except for Welker that dropping and covering was the best way to defend the Patriots. I have no idea what went into the game plan against the Patriots. It didn't work and the players didn't execute well either. Players that are normally sure tacklers missed tackles, Polamalu guessed wrong at least a handful times (as shown on replay during the game) and Brady was sharp.

Hopefully, if the Steelers get another shot at the Patriots they will try something different, but for that day, Lebeau believed that defending with more players than they had WRs would work, it didn't, it doesn't make Lebeau an idiot or a bad coordinator, it simply means he was wrong that week. He still has forgotten more about football than anyone on this board knows about football and, in particular, this version of the Steelers football team.

Pappy

feltdizz
11-22-2010, 10:42 AM
Watching the Colts Pats game it's all up to the LB's not dropping 10 yards... they have to sit on those routes and make Brady throw over them..

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 10:43 AM
It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

I don't know Pap. Wouldn't a good gameplan aid in the win? That would kinda be like me also saying that even if the Steelers lost, I wouldn't have been critical of BA play designs because he made adjustments. You can only speculate & believe the source.

You know how critical I was on Arians last week. you also know what I was calling for in detail in the other topics. I might speculate you would believe me when I say I like what I saw because it was relatively similiar to what I was explaining in detail.

I understand what you are saying in regard to winning and losing in relation to complaining. You are correct for the most part. In my case, take away the penalties, because some were legit, & the Mendy fumble...I would have nothing negative to say on either side of the ball. The offense was productive and the defense played 60 minutes.

I still have to commend the job Koogs is doing with the patchwork OL. Two bad penalties called took away 40 yards of rushing from Mendy but a missed one gave Wallace a big gain. If you watched the game and didn't look at the box score...The Steelers look like they still will be able to run the ball even with all the injuries. I just hope Pouncey & Kemo are aright. It really was the right tim to move Essex to the bench and I was pleasantly surprised with Foster's body of work. I think you stay with that starting 5 moving forward.

Also, credit to Tomlin for FINALLY giving Sanders & Brown a helmet. I would say Brown & Sanders earned a helmet for the rest of the way.

papillon
11-22-2010, 10:55 AM
It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

I don't know Pap. Wouldn't a good gameplan aid in the win? That would kinda be like me also saying that even if the Steelers lost, I wouldn't have been critical of BA play designs because he made adjustments. You can only speculate & believe the source.

You know how critical I was on Arians last week. you also know what I was calling for in detail in the other topics. I might speculate you would believe me when I say I like what I saw because it was relatively similiar to what I was explaining in detail.

I understand what you are saying in regard to winning and losing in relation to complaining. You are correct for the most part. In my case, take away the penalties, because some were legit, & the Mendy fumble...I would have nothing negative to say on either side of the ball. The offense was productive and the defense played 60 minutes.

I still have to commend the job Koogs is doing with the patchwork OL. Two bad penalties called took away 40 yards of rushing from Mendy but a missed one gave Wallace a big gain. If you watched the game and didn't look at the box score...The Steelers look like they still will be able to run the ball even with all the injuries. I just hope Pouncey & Kemo are aright. It really was the right tim to move Essex to the bench and I was pleasantly surprised with Foster's body of work. I think you stay with that starting 5 moving forward.

Also, credit to Tomlin for FINALLY giving Sanders & Brown a helmet. I would say Brown & Sanders earned a helmet for the rest of the way.

JPN, as you know and I readily admit that I'm not and X's and O's guy, but I have played sports (not football) when I was younger. Our coaches would scout other teams and make suggestions as to what we could do contain a good shooter, or a good scorer where these players liked to get the ball and try to deny them the things that they like. In theory if we were able to do those things we would win. Sometimes we were successful and others not, in either case, I typically believed the game plan was good, but on occasion we were simply unable to execute, because the other guy may be better or he changed his modus operandi and our game plan was void at that point.

A good game plan goes into a successful game, but in the end the players have to make it work. I never thought any less of my coaches because the game plan they believed would work failed or we were incapable of executing.

Ultimately, my point is that Arians and Lebeau have been around football a long time and understand the game and this particular version of the Steelers. When the players play well, they look like geniuses and when they don't they look like novices to the game.

I just think that the difference between last week and this week is simply the opinion of the coordinators as to what would be successful against each team. Last week they were wrong and this week they were right. Another go round with the Patriots would be an interesting game form a game plan point of view to see what changes (if anything) and what doesn't.

Just like back in 2004 (I think) when the Steelers steamrolled the Pats and stopped their winning streak during the regular season, they probably tried the same thing in the playoff game and it didn't work the second time, it happens.

Pappy

Oviedo
11-22-2010, 11:20 AM
It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

I don't know Pap. Wouldn't a good gameplan aid in the win? That would kinda be like me also saying that even if the Steelers lost, I wouldn't have been critical of BA play designs because he made adjustments. You can only speculate & believe the source.

You know how critical I was on Arians last week. you also know what I was calling for in detail in the other topics. I might speculate you would believe me when I say I like what I saw because it was relatively similiar to what I was explaining in detail.

I understand what you are saying in regard to winning and losing in relation to complaining. You are correct for the most part. In my case, take away the penalties, because some were legit, & the Mendy fumble...I would have nothing negative to say on either side of the ball. The offense was productive and the defense played 60 minutes.

I still have to commend the job Koogs is doing with the patchwork OL. Two bad penalties called took away 40 yards of rushing from Mendy but a missed one gave Wallace a big gain. If you watched the game and didn't look at the box score...The Steelers look like they still will be able to run the ball even with all the injuries. I just hope Pouncey & Kemo are aright. It really was the right tim to move Essex to the bench and I was pleasantly surprised with Foster's body of work. I think you stay with that starting 5 moving forward.

Also, credit to Tomlin for FINALLY giving Sanders & Brown a helmet. I would say Brown & Sanders earned a helmet for the rest of the way.

I can't see any logic where Brown or Sanders are not on the field gameday minus one...we have to dress an extra OL because of the nagging injuries building up on the OL. That may be a prudent move but I would still sit someone else other than those two.

Mister Pittsburgh
11-22-2010, 11:24 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

No, that isn't it at all and if you watched the game you know it.

Totally different personel, different alignments, totally different gameplan. And, guess what, we only had 50 yds rushing and there were dropped balls and we still put up points.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 11:25 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

The Raiders are a different football team than the Patriots and, of course, causes the game plan to change. The formations, plays and players of the opponent determine what you think will work and what won't. The Raiders are a team on the rise they are not the Patriots or any top tier team and, so more things will work against them than against a top tier team.

The same plays today probably would have failed last week against the Patriots, because the Steelers weren't executing and the opponent was of a different caliber. A game plan is a coordinators opinion of what will work and what won't. The other team sets up a game plan as well; it comes down to which team can execute the game plan. The football acumen of the coordinators doesn't change from week to week, the execution by the players changes.

Pappy
Can't say they would have failed or succeeded because he didn't have them in the gameplan. But given the lack of production of the offense and what he did try to do in his gameplan, wouldn't it be safe to say that if he did have the play design from the Raiders game installed for the Pats the results could have been productive? Because as much as you could say it wouldn't have happpened even though they didn't try it, you could say it would have been successful if they had.

Another point, everyone is harping on execution. Dropped balls, penalties, missed blocks or assignements, is execution. But don't fault player execution for a bad gameplan or play design. You only get to one place if you keep making right hand turns. The Gameplans success rate has an impact on the players chance of execution. By the end of the 1st quarter, Arians gameplan for the Pats clearly had no chance of success. No adjustments were made to the Pats defensive gameplan. To simply say, at that point, the player execution is to fault why the gameplan had no success is naive. Once Arians realized this, not making the adjustments is on coaching execution. To simply say my gameplan will work regardless of what the defense does is the fault of Arains. You have to give the players the chance to execute the right gameplan. The right gameplan is the one that will be most productive. It isn't always the one you practiced all week. And when you are confronted with that during the game...The "Coaches" come to the top. The "Pretenders" simply continue to run what they practiced all week and hope sooner or later it will be successful.

Hmm...That sounds familiar.

Mister Pittsburgh
11-22-2010, 11:28 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

:Clap

If our players drop 2 or 3 passes and Ben doesn't run... because you know, he should only run when the game is on the line... BA is once again an idiot.

I think more than play calling, the change in personnel by the coaches was the real key this week.

So is it execution or different players invovled, different alignments, totally different approach? And by the way, Manny Sanders dropped another TD pass and Wallace dropped a big 3rd down to kill a drive, yet we still did well. So no, this isn't a case of people hating Arians due to players screwing up, now loving him as players made plays. This is a case of people saying Kudos Bruce, you actually game planned for the game this week.

steelblood
11-22-2010, 11:39 AM
i disagree pappy. there was plenty of execution issues yesterday as well. I point to the variety on first down yesterday (for example) as opposed to the patsies. I point to the fact we changed our protection schemes often keeping a back in to help out scott at LT. We even lined up in obvious running situations and (shudder) had DJ in a 3point stance as a fullback! successful games ARE a combination of scheme and execution. Yes, the Steelers did a better job of running the plays but I think there was an obvious difference in how open the offense was yesterday as opposed to recent weeks.

as for the defense that may come down more heavily on the execution side. I'll have to watch the game again but it appeared to me that Ike more often than not was pressed up tight while Bmac was the usual 7-8 yards off the ball. I think they were trying to give the raiders only one place to go and using troy to jump some routes. that's just a first impression however, i'll wait till i break down the film to render final judgement............ :lol:

The Raiders are a different football team than the Patriots and, of course, causes the game plan to change. The formations, plays and players of the opponent determine what you think will work and what won't. The Raiders are a team on the rise they are not the Patriots or any top tier team and, so more things will work against them than against a top tier team.

The same plays today probably would have failed last week against the Patriots, because the Steelers weren't executing and the opponent was of a different caliber. A game plan is a coordinators opinion of what will work and what won't. The other team sets up a game plan as well; it comes down to which team can execute the game plan. The football acumen of the coordinators doesn't change from week to week, the execution by the players changes.

Pappy

Pap,

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Coordinators often have great gameplans and poor ones. I've seen very good teams lose because the of the gameplan or the coordinator's inability to adjust during a game. That said, I appreciate your point and generally agree that when we lose the coordinators are usually blamed to an unfair degree. Still, I think coordinators have good and poor gameplans and in-game adjustments that directly lead to a team winning or losing regardless of execution.

Crash
11-22-2010, 11:52 AM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

Or when he used Brown and Sanders instead of Randle El.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 11:56 AM
It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

I don't know Pap. Wouldn't a good gameplan aid in the win? That would kinda be like me also saying that even if the Steelers lost, I wouldn't have been critical of BA play designs because he made adjustments. You can only speculate & believe the source.

You know how critical I was on Arians last week. you also know what I was calling for in detail in the other topics. I might speculate you would believe me when I say I like what I saw because it was relatively similiar to what I was explaining in detail.

I understand what you are saying in regard to winning and losing in relation to complaining. You are correct for the most part. In my case, take away the penalties, because some were legit, & the Mendy fumble...I would have nothing negative to say on either side of the ball. The offense was productive and the defense played 60 minutes.

I still have to commend the job Koogs is doing with the patchwork OL. Two bad penalties called took away 40 yards of rushing from Mendy but a missed one gave Wallace a big gain. If you watched the game and didn't look at the box score...The Steelers look like they still will be able to run the ball even with all the injuries. I just hope Pouncey & Kemo are aright. It really was the right tim to move Essex to the bench and I was pleasantly surprised with Foster's body of work. I think you stay with that starting 5 moving forward.

Also, credit to Tomlin for FINALLY giving Sanders & Brown a helmet. I would say Brown & Sanders earned a helmet for the rest of the way.

JPN, as you know and I readily admit that I'm not and X's and O's guy, but I have played sports (not football) when I was younger. Our coaches would scout other teams and make suggestions as to what we could do contain a good shooter, or a good scorer where these players liked to get the ball and try to deny them the things that they like. In theory if we were able to do those things we would win. Sometimes we were successful and others not, in either case, I typically believed the game plan was good, but on occasion we were simply unable to execute, because the other guy may be better or he changed his modus operandi and our game plan was void at that point.

A good game plan goes into a successful game, but in the end the players have to make it work. I never thought any less of my coaches because the game plan they believed would work failed or we were incapable of executing.

Ultimately, my point is that Arians and Lebeau have been around football a long time and understand the game and this particular version of the Steelers. When the players play well, they look like geniuses and when they don't they look like novices to the game.

I just think that the difference between last week and this week is simply the opinion of the coordinators as to what would be successful against each team. Last week they were wrong and this week they were right. Another go round with the Patriots would be an interesting game form a game plan point of view to see what changes (if anything) and what doesn't.

Just like back in 2004 (I think) when the Steelers steamrolled the Pats and stopped their winning streak during the regular season, they probably tried the same thing in the playoff game and it didn't work the second time, it happens.

Pappy
Don't forget Pap, you are also being gameplanned against. You are also being scouted. So who's shoulders does it fall on when the other teams gameplan negates your top scorer? Is it your top scorers lack of execution that he couldn't beat the others team gameplan? For your basketball reference, ( I assume), if your top scorer got double teamed everytime he got the ball or everytime he got the ball down low and he couldn't beat the double team and score like he normally could....Does that fall on him? No, it falls on the coaches. When they see the gameplan from the opposition is shutting you down it is on them to make the adjustment to get production somewhere else. We see it all the time in the NFL. The teams takes the "star" or "biggest threat" away. Does the coach or QB continue to just keep going at the coverage or front or do they adjust and look for success somewhere else? No, they go somewhere else and still can win the game. It is not a rare occasion where you see an "elite" WR end up with a 0,1, or 2 catch game or see an "elite" RB with a 10 for 16 yards because the defense gameplaned against him. It is also not a rare occasion to see the team he plays for with the win because the coaches made the right adjustments to find production somewhere else.

The play designs for the Pats & Raiders were night & day. Different personnel packages also helped spark the offense. Arians attacked the middle of the field. You could see those LB drops getting deeper and deeper to help as the game unfolded. And when the got deep enough and they started focusing on the crossing patterns & square-ins in the middle of the field.....Wallace dragged underneath the LBs and ran away from them. The underneath DBs had their backs to Wallace and the Ss were high and still couldn't get the angle to catch him. I hate to say this after only seeing it for one game....But that was good recognition by Arians to see that unfold through the game.

feltdizz
11-22-2010, 12:22 PM
Amazing how Arians becomes a good coordinator when the players execute!!!!

:Clap

If our players drop 2 or 3 passes and Ben doesn't run... because you know, he should only run when the game is on the line... BA is once again an idiot.

I think more than play calling, the change in personnel by the coaches was the real key this week.

So is it execution or different players invovled, different alignments, totally different approach? And by the way, Manny Sanders dropped another TD pass and Wallace dropped a big 3rd down to kill a drive, yet we still did well. So no, this isn't a case of people hating Arians due to players screwing up, now loving him as players made plays. This is a case of people saying Kudos Bruce, you actually game planned for the game this week.


Dropping a 3rd down pass when you are dominating doesn't sting like dropping a TD pass when down 10-0 to the Pats.

It was a great game... but I think the players just executed much better than we did last week.

Raiders are not on the level of the Pats either. We dominated the Raiders.

feltdizz
11-22-2010, 12:25 PM
The OL pass blocking was really good... Ben actually ran when it was there. This does wonders against teams who sell out...

We pretty much scrapped ARE from our game plan and it paid off...

Go with the young guys and watch their speed get the separation we desire.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-22-2010, 12:30 PM
The OL pass blocking was really good... Ben actually ran when it was there. This does wonders against teams who sell out...

We pretty much scrapped ARE from our game plan and it paid off...

Go with the young guys and watch their speed get the separation we desire.

I think all of us are happy with Manny & Antonio getting the nod. HEY...We all agree on something! :wink:

NorthCoast
11-22-2010, 01:46 PM
Why is it so hard for people to understand that if you give a someone (team) the same test week after week, they will get better and better grades. This is what our offensive gameplans have been like under BA. The defense knows all the answers to the questions before they get the test.

Finally, BA throws some new questions out there to try and trip the D up. You can say 'execution' but it a whole lot more difficult when the defense knows what is coming, otherwise why would the Cheatriots have bother to cheat...?

papillon
11-22-2010, 02:49 PM
[quote=papillon]It looked good because the Steelers won 35-3 and executed well. If they would have lost using the exact same plays Arians would have sucked and Lebeau would be an idiot. Winning and losing makes a game plan look good or bad, at least, to the fans of the team.

Pappy

I don't know Pap. Wouldn't a good gameplan aid in the win? That would kinda be like me also saying that even if the Steelers lost, I wouldn't have been critical of BA play designs because he made adjustments. You can only speculate & believe the source.

You know how critical I was on Arians last week. you also know what I was calling for in detail in the other topics. I might speculate you would believe me when I say I like what I saw because it was relatively similiar to what I was explaining in detail.

I understand what you are saying in regard to winning and losing in relation to complaining. You are correct for the most part. In my case, take away the penalties, because some were legit, & the Mendy fumble...I would have nothing negative to say on either side of the ball. The offense was productive and the defense played 60 minutes.

I still have to commend the job Koogs is doing with the patchwork OL. Two bad penalties called took away 40 yards of rushing from Mendy but a missed one gave Wallace a big gain. If you watched the game and didn't look at the box score...The Steelers look like they still will be able to run the ball even with all the injuries. I just hope Pouncey & Kemo are aright. It really was the right tim to move Essex to the bench and I was pleasantly surprised with Foster's body of work. I think you stay with that starting 5 moving forward.

Also, credit to Tomlin for FINALLY giving Sanders & Brown a helmet. I would say Brown & Sanders earned a helmet for the rest of the way.

JPN, as you know and I readily admit that I'm not and X's and O's guy, but I have played sports (not football) when I was younger. Our coaches would scout other teams and make suggestions as to what we could do contain a good shooter, or a good scorer where these players liked to get the ball and try to deny them the things that they like. In theory if we were able to do those things we would win. Sometimes we were successful and others not, in either case, I typically believed the game plan was good, but on occasion we were simply unable to execute, because the other guy may be better or he changed his modus operandi and our game plan was void at that point.

A good game plan goes into a successful game, but in the end the players have to make it work. I never thought any less of my coaches because the game plan they believed would work failed or we were incapable of executing.

Ultimately, my point is that Arians and Lebeau have been around football a long time and understand the game and this particular version of the Steelers. When the players play well, they look like geniuses and when they don't they look like novices to the game.

I just think that the difference between last week and this week is simply the opinion of the coordinators as to what would be successful against each team. Last week they were wrong and this week they were right. Another go round with the Patriots would be an interesting game form a game plan point of view to see what changes (if anything) and what doesn't.

Just like back in 2004 (I think) when the Steelers steamrolled the Pats and stopped their winning streak during the regular season, they probably tried the same thing in the playoff game and it didn't work the second time, it happens.

Pappy
Don't forget Pap, you are also being gameplanned against. You are also being scouted. So who's shoulders does it fall on when the other teams gameplan negates your top scorer? Is it your top scorers lack of execution that he couldn't beat the others team gameplan? For your basketball reference, ( I assume), if your top scorer got double teamed everytime he got the ball or everytime he got the ball down low and he couldn't beat the double team and score like he normally could....Does that fall on him? No, it falls on the coaches. When they see the gameplan from the opposition is shutting you down it is on them to make the adjustment to get production somewhere else. We see it all the time in the NFL. The teams takes the "star" or "biggest threat" away. Does the coach or QB continue to just keep going at the coverage or front or do they adjust and look for success somewhere else? No, they go somewhere else and still can win the game. It is not a rare occasion where you see an "elite" WR end up with a 0,1, or 2 catch game or see an "elite" RB with a 10 for 16 yards because the defense gameplaned against him. It is also not a rare occasion to see the team he plays for with the win because the coaches made the right adjustments to find production somewhere else.

The play designs for the Pats & Raiders were night & day. Different personnel packages also helped spark the offense. Arians attacked the middle of the field. You could see those LB drops getting deeper and deeper to help as the game unfolded. And when the got deep enough and they started focusing on the crossing patterns & square-ins in the middle of the field.....Wallace dragged underneath the LBs and ran away from them. The underneath DBs had their backs to Wallace and the Ss were high and still couldn't get the angle to catch him. I hate to say this after only seeing it for one game....But that was good recognition by Arians to see that unfold through the game.[/quote:brckaml3]

All I'm saying is that each week's game plan is the opinion of a man who knows the game and his personnel. This week it looked like a big change (and it was), because you saw different personnel, different play calls, etc. We don't know what would have happened last week using Brown and Sanders against the Patriots. They may have been confused on hot routes, the route tree, etc and looked even worse than what we saw. On the other hand, maybe they would have lit up the Patriots secondary and Ben would have had a huge day and the Steelers would have won.

To me the game plan is a framework in which the offense and defense are going to attack the opponent, believing that it plays to the Steelers' strengths and the opponents weaknesses. This week the Steeler coordinators won, last week they lost.

Believe me, I kept asking out loud last week "Why in the world won't they try to pass for 4 or 5 yards on first down and put themselves in a good position?" Or, "Why is the defense playing so passively against Brady? He's killing you, you may as well try and rush more than they can block and see what happens." But, these things weren't forthcoming and I have no idea why. It seemed like insanity to continue to do the exact same thing and have the same result and not try something different. I have to believe there is a reason for that, but for the life of me I can't think of it.

Yes, this week's game plan on both sides of the ball was different and it was successful. Was it personnel? Was it execution? Was it the opponent? Was it luck? Was it the Steelers simply having better athletes? Injuries? Who knows?

I tend to side with the coaches, since they are with the players day in and day out and know better than we do their strengths and weaknesses, injuries, etc. I have to assume when we see Mcfadden getting torched and wonder why they don't try Lewis or Butler to see what would happen there is a reason for it, and again, I don't know what those reasons may be. Maybe, the Steelers as an organization won't change in the middle of a game to give the player a chance to play out of it, or maybe they don't want to embarrass the player during a game or maybe the backup simply isn't ready. I don't know the reasons, I would love to hear the unabridged answers to questions about poor play, not the company line for the media, but that will never happen, that's between the players and the coaches.

Pappy

RuthlessBurgher
11-22-2010, 02:52 PM
Kudos to all of the coaches.

Tomlin for his choices to replace Essex with Foster as the RG, replace Randle El with Sanders as the #3 WR, and replace Randle El with Brown as the PR (although I still don't like the Suisham replacement, but we won't know much about how that is working out until he starts attempting FG's at Heinz instead of just PAT's...I never was a Sushi guy).

Arians for varying up his playcalling and formations. I typically hate empty backfield sets, but when your 5 wide formation includes 3 speedy, potential game-breaking youngsters in Wallace, Sanders, and Brown to go with underneath possession WR's like Ward and Randle El, it got even me excited. Now he only has to realize that whenever David Johnson is on the field, it is a run play 99.3762% of the time. The opposing defensive coordinator obviously knows this...why can't Bruce do a little self-scouting to figure that one out?

LeBeau from unleashing the hounds and bringing the heat. DB's were able to make plays on the ball instead of playing way off receivers all the time. We played passive defense last week...this week it switched over to truly aggressive Steeler defense.

Everest for allowing his new plaything Antonio Brown to go out there (even when he was backed up to his own 10) to field punts and actually try to run them back instead of always calling for a fair catch. Didn't understand the one time out the punt return team took after which we removed Brown and replaced him with Randle El for yet another fair catch.

Kugler for having everyone ready to go yet again...an "all hands on deck" mentality since we had our LT-LG-OC all go down with injuries during this game. I don't remember a game in which all 7 active OL did not play at some point.

_SteeL_CurtaiN_
11-22-2010, 03:24 PM
Sanders and Brown should be dressing for all remaining games, these kids give the offense some much needed speed that has been lacking all season. Sanders and Brown are explosive and have the potential to be special, nice draft picks!

feltdizz
11-22-2010, 03:56 PM
Sanders and Brown should be dressing for all remaining games, these kids give the offense some much needed speed that has been lacking all season. Sanders and Brown are explosive and have the potential to be special, nice draft picks!

I'm excited every time the other team punts.... unless it's ARE of course.

REally glad the coaches are listening to us and letting the kids play. 8)

RuthlessBurgher
11-22-2010, 04:12 PM
I'm excited every time the other team punts.... unless it's ARE of course.

I'm always excited about when ARE goes back for punt returns. I know that it will be a fair catch, and when he waves his arm in the air, I pretend he is waving at me. I wave back. :lol:

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
12-01-2010, 09:37 AM
I'm sure I wasn't the only one concerned about the Bills game, but we got lucky...I'll take it. I'm sure Urbik helped out the Bills coaching staff on protection schemes and blitz packages....Enough said about that. Kemo must be still dinged because I never seen him get "owned" like that in a game....I though Essex was wearing #68. Speaking of Essex...And not to pat myself on the back....But it is about time BA used an unbalanced front. Forced by injury...But hopefully he saw the success in the film room. BA seems to like all my designs...Don't mention it BA. :lol: Now just mix it up with 12 & 22 personnel with Essex as the #2 TE...Dare them to walk the Ss down. Still headed in the right direction. This will be the test this week.