The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
2024 Draft
1. Kool-Aid McKinstry CB
2. Sedrick Van Pran-Grainger OC
3. Devontez Walker WR
3. Maason Smith DT
4. Matt Goncalves OT
6. Trevin Wallace ILB
7. AJ Barner TE
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
2024 Draft
1. Kool-Aid McKinstry CB
2. Sedrick Van Pran-Grainger OC
3. Devontez Walker WR
3. Maason Smith DT
4. Matt Goncalves OT
6. Trevin Wallace ILB
7. AJ Barner TE
All I know is what I saw on the field...
With that in mind, I don't believe either player deserved that contract based upon last season...
Brown has the contract because Wallace didn't want it...now, Brown has to earn that contract going forward and Wallace will, most likely, be earning a contract somewhere else...
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
2024 Draft
1. Kool-Aid McKinstry CB
2. Sedrick Van Pran-Grainger OC
3. Devontez Walker WR
3. Maason Smith DT
4. Matt Goncalves OT
6. Trevin Wallace ILB
7. AJ Barner TE
I don't think I've ever seen Chadman so far off in his analysis as he is in this post.
First wrong point ... Rooney NEVER said we needed to run the ball more. He said we need to run the ball more EFFECTIVELY. Did we do that? Not over the course of the season but if you look at games 7, 8, and 9 you will see we were on track.
Again you missed the point. Rooney said we were on track through game 9. Through the first 9 games in 2011 Ben was sacked 26 times. Through the first 9 games in 2012 Ben was sacked 17 times and almost a third of those sacks came in the first game. I would say knocking your average down by 1 sack a game is a significant improvement.
So now you don't want the team to make coaching changes because it will cause them to lose "focus"? So you don't want the owner to try and improve an offense that is an inconsistent mess and would never win anything without its star QB. That doesn't make any sense. You want your offense to be solely dependent on one person so if that person has a bad day you are almost guaranteed a loss. It's a good thing the 49ers of the 80s didn't think that way. If Montana had a bad day then Craig, Rice, Taylor, or Brent Jones would take over.
As far as the receivers contract I don't see a problem. They tried to sign Wallace and when he turned down their final offer they moved on to whom they considered their next highest priority ... Antonio Brown. I think Wallace was going to be a distraction whether they signed Brown or not. He, or his agent, think he is worth more than the Steelers do. Do you want them to just back up the Brinks truck to Wallace's house and pay him whatever he wants so he doesn't lose focus? I don't think that is a very smart plan.
I agree that Rooney didn't handle the Arians situation correctly. They should have just fired him instead of trying to be nice and say he retired. That's what happens when you try and be nice ... it comes back to bite you in the azz. Other than that I think you are just tilting at windmills.
As many on this site think ... The Rooney's suck, Colbert sucks, Tomlin sucks, the coaches suck, and the players suck.
but Go Steelers!!!
So you don't want the owner to try and improve an offense that is an inconsistent mess and would never win anything without its star QB.
No, I'd rather he let the people he pays to coach his football team do it.
Oh let me count the ways.
1. Going from 6-3 to 7-8.
2. Losing to Cle, Oak, TN and SD.
3. 26th rushing ranking, on a team that cherishes running the ball.
4. a 3.7 avg. yards per rush. Pathetic.
5. 24th in sacks, on a team that supposedly has a defense that prioritizes getting to the QB.
6. a team with players who don't give a full effort - completely unacceptable.
7. a QB who publicly rips his coaching staff.
8. a QB who throws bonehead pics in the clutch, losing games from his stupidity.
9. a coach who makes major gaffs during the games - leading to losses from pure idiocy.
10. a team that lacks hearts, chemistry and discipline.
Do I need to go on?
I would have preferred something more appropriate, like, "We have some issues that need addressed and we will address them. Most everyone on this team and staff have areas that need to improve." He didn't have to throw anyone under the bus but they "Gee whiz, everything is super groovy" take is completely unacceptable.
Bookmarks