Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

**hawaiiansteel** · 12-25-2011, 01:12 AM

Re: Dale Lolley: Post-Rams thoughts

Ed: Another Look at Today's Game

SATURDAY, 24 DECEMBER 2011 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE

Now we can see a little better why Mike Tomlin decided to rest Ben Roethlisberger and LaMarr Woodley against that bunch.

Little did we know but when Shaun Suisham's 21-yard field goal to end the first Steelers drive would be enough, would be the game-winner.

There's no need to assess much, nor is it really possible. Do we know if the defense had a great game by shutting out the worst-scoring offense in the league? Do we know if Rashard Mendenhall and the running game are hitting their gear by gaining 169 yards total, 116 by Mendy, against the worst run-defense in the league?

It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters now are wins and loses -- they need one more win and they need one more loss by Baltimore in Cincinnati. The Browns tried, but came up short in Baltimore. It was important that the Bengals won because they now have the inside track on a wildcard playoff spot and every incentive imaginable to beat the Ravens in Cincinnati next Sunday.

Tomlin had a better explanation for holding Roethlisberger out of the game after it was over than he did before it began.

"A week ago, when we played Ben Roethlisberger, we were coming off of a Thursday night performance for a Monday night performance, so we had 11 days. had we had six or seven days, we probably wouldn't have played him in San Francisco. The collateral damage coming out of a game like Monday night, on a short week, we made the decisioin pretty early that we weren't even going to attempt to try to work him in during the latter parts of the week and give him reps and preparation, given that it was a short week."

Got that?

Here's some instant facts, insights and analysis from the game:

-- Rookie Marcus Gilbert was benched because he missed a meeting last week. Jonathan Scott replaced him at right tackle and held off Chris Long, the Rams gifted left defensive end who did not add to his 13 sacks.

"He was less than professional in preparation this week,'' Tomlin said of Gilbert. "We acknowledge he is a talented young guy. He's going to be a really good player in this league and he's done a lot for us to this point. But I didn't like the way he prepared this week. I wanted to make a point that it wasn't what we like. So I set him down for a veteran player who was prepared in the manner of which we wanted him to in Jonathan Scott.''

-- The Steelers played nearly the entire game with Trai Essex at center. Doug Legrusky, playing center for injured Maurkice Pouncey, was injured on the second play of the game and Essex moved from left guard, where he was playing for Legursky, to center, where he played for Legursky;.

"I particularly like the effort from Trai Essex,'' Tomlin said. "We didn't have any problems with our C to Q exchanges. We were able to run the football. We declared fronts. I tip my hat to him and his efforts.''

-- Not a bad debut for rookie running back John Clay. On the practice squad, he signed to the 53-man roster Friday because of the knee injury to Mewelde Moore. So, when Rashard Mendenhall got a little winded running 52 yards to the 10 yardline, they spelled him for one play with Clay. The rookie ran around right end and into the end zone for a touchdown.

First game, first carry, first touchdown.

"There was so much excitement and joy,'' Clay said about scoring on his first pro carry. "Too bad my family wasn't here to share it, but I know they were watching TV. I was just happy that I could do that for my family.''

He saved the ball for his mom.

-- Antonio Brown had a big day. He set a Steelers record for all-purpose yards at 2,048 -- that counts running, receiving and return yards. He topped 1,000 to join Mike Wallace. And he made one hell of a tackle on a fake punt in which he nabbed the punter just short of a first down.

"I was about 35, 40 yards deep,'' said Brown the return man. "I saw at the snap of the ball he was kind of holding the ball ike he was throwing a pass. So I hurried down to make a stop.''

-- That's it from here. Merry Christmas. See you Monday morning.

[url="http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/114050-ed-another-look-at-todays-game"]http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/inde ... odays-game[/url]

**BradshawsHairdresser** · 12-25-2011, 04:07 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

� Charlie Batch played OK in this one. Not great, but not bad.

But he didn't enough to show me that he would have led the Steelers to a win at San Francisco last week.

I'll stick with my original feeling that starting Roethlisberger in that game gave the Steelers the best chance to win. It didn't work out that way, but it's the truth.

???
Lolleypop says that Roethlisberger gave the Steelers the best chance to win vs. the 49ers, but with his limited mobility, the Steelers didn't come close to winning that game! Because he FELT that starting Roethlisberger gave the Steelers the best chance to win, he says it's "truth"?

Charlie showed me enough vs. the Rams to give ME the "feeling" that he would have done better vs. the Niners than Ben did...and he showed me enough to think it would be better to rest Ben vs. the Clowns and make sure he gets a chance to get his wheels healed. We're going to need #7 at 100% to go anywhere in the postseason.

**rockonsteel** · 12-25-2011, 05:37 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by BradshawsHairdresser

� Charlie Batch played OK in this one. Not great, but not bad.

But he didn't enough to show me that he would have led the Steelers to a win at San Francisco last week.

I'll stick with my original feeling that starting Roethlisberger in that game gave the Steelers the best chance to win. It didn't work out that way, but it's the truth.

???
Lolleypop says that Roethlisberger gave the Steelers the best chance to win vs. the 49ers, but with his limited mobility, the Steelers didn't come close to winning that game! Because he FELT that starting Roethlisberger gave the Steelers the best chance to win, he says it's "truth"?

Charlie showed me enough vs. the Rams to give ME the "feeling" that he would have done better vs. the Niners than Ben did...and he showed me enough to think it would be better to rest Ben vs. the Clowns and make sure he gets a chance to get his wheels healed. We're going to need #7 at 100% to go anywhere in the postseason.

Those were EXACT sentiments when I read that. Every single word.

It's like all the people that thought it was a good idea to play Ben in SF and then keep him in the game, try to defend the premise by saying Ben gave us the best chance to win, in spite of what was, literally, painfully obvious to anyone watching the game with open eyes. That includes arrogant ass Ron Cook who went as far as to say, "he's not sure Ben's bad performance had anything to do with his bad ankle, he's had bad days before when he was healthy". Are you fuggin kidding me?

We didn't need Charlie to score 30 against the 9ers. 13-17 pts may have been enough to get the w. Nothing Batch did yesterday, showed that me he couldn't have done that. He definitely would've at least given us a better shot to win than the dude that was wearing Ben Roethlisberger's number 7 that night.

Rockon

**winwithd** · 12-25-2011, 05:50 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

There is a difference between the 9er defense and the Rams D. I doubt we would have had 400 yards of offense vs. the 9ers if Batch had played. He might have gotten 200 yards passing but SF would have loaded up against the run and we would have only had 50 yards rushing.

**MaxAMillion** · 12-25-2011, 06:44 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by winwithd

There is a difference between the 9er defense and the Rams D. I doubt we would have had 400 yards of offense vs. the 9ers if Batch had played. He might have gotten 200 yards passing but SF would have loaded up against the run and we would have only had 50 yards rushing.

Thank you...the Rams have one of the worst run defenses in football so the Steelers didn't have to throw much. The Niners are the best team in football against the Run. If you keep Batch in second and third and long you are doomed. I would rather have Ben play all day long than Ben. If Batch plays against the Browns, the Steelers will be in for a tough game. Batch struggles to get the ball downfield.

**Sugar** · 12-25-2011, 07:14 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Congrats to Clay! No matter what he does (or doesn't do) in his football career from here out, this will be a huge memory for him the rest of his life.

**rockonsteel** · 12-26-2011, 01:35 AM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by MaxAMillion

Originally posted by winwithd

There is a difference between the 9er defense and the Rams D. I doubt we would have had 400 yards of offense vs. the 9ers if Batch had played. He might have gotten 200 yards passing but SF would have loaded up against the run and we would have only had 50 yards rushing.

Thank you...the Rams have one of the worst run defenses in football so the Steelers didn't have to throw much. The Niners are the best team in football against the Run. If you keep Batch in second and third and long you are doomed. I would rather have Ben play all day long than Ben. If Batch plays against the Browns, the Steelers will be in for a tough game. Batch struggles to get the ball downfield.

I'm assuming you meant you'd rather have Ben than Batch all day, and I would tend to agree with that statement in a vacuum. Just not the Ben that was on display Monday night in SF. This game wasn't played in a vacuum, Ben was hurting bad from that get go. Hell, he even stepped on one of the linemen's foot the first pass play of the game.

Despite popular belief, Ben is human. The human body has physical limitations. When those limitations are pushed due to injury, one is not going to be able to do the things that one is normally accustomed to doing.

Ben's ankle would not allow him to do the things the Steelers needed him to do to win that game. That was as plain as the sun in the sky on a bright summer day. the coaching staff choes to ignore that, and the team suffered a crucial loss because of it.

Nobody would be expecting Batch to throw for 400 yds and 30 pts. Just more than the mere 3 pts. Ben was able to muster up. And how close to being shutout were the Steelers? The 3 pts came on a 51yd fg by Suisham. I think most of us were shocked he made it.

He's not a very reliable kicker, especially from that distance, if he doesn't make it, the Steelers get goose-egged. The other chances they did have to score were thwarted by Ben mistakes that were a direct result of an injury that was severely affecting his play.

And the mad genius, Bruce Airhead didn't help mattes calling 40+ pass plays with a hobbled, stationery QB, and an o-line that was being beaten often allowing Ben to take multiple shots even when he wasn;t being sacked, especially in the second half.

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Rockon

**BradshawsHairdresser** · 12-26-2011, 10:33 AM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Originally posted by MaxAMillion

Originally posted by winwithd

There is a difference between the 9er defense and the Rams D. I doubt we would have had 400 yards of offense vs. the 9ers if Batch had played. He might have gotten 200 yards passing but SF would have loaded up against the run and we would have only had 50 yards rushing.

Thank you...the Rams have one of the worst run defenses in football so the Steelers didn't have to throw much. The Niners are the best team in football against the Run. If you keep Batch in second and third and long you are doomed. I would rather have Ben play all day long than Ben. If Batch plays against the Browns, the Steelers will be in for a tough game. Batch struggles to get the ball downfield.

I'm assuming you meant you'd rather have Ben than Batch all day, and I would tend to agree with that statement in a vacuum. Just not the Ben that was on display Monday night in SF. This game wasn't played in a vacuum, Ben was hurting bad from that get go. Hell, he even stepped on one of the linemen's foot the first pass play of the game.

Despite popular belief, Ben is human. The human body has physical limitations. When those limitations are pushed due to injury, one is not going to be able to do the things that one is normally accustomed to doing.

Ben's ankle would not allow him to do the things the Steelers needed him to do to win that game. That was as plain as the sun in the sky on a bright summer day. the coaching staff choes to ignore that, and the team suffered a crucial loss because of it.

Nobody would be expecting Batch to throw for 400 yds and 30 pts. Just more than the mere 3 pts. Ben was able to muster up. And how close to being shutout were the Steelers? The 3 pts came on a 51yd fg by Suisham. I think most of us were shocked he made it.

He's not a very reliable kicker, especially from that distance, if he doesn't make it, the Steelers get goose-egged. The other chances they did have to score were thwarted by Ben mistakes that were a direct result of an injury that was severely affecting his play.

And the mad genius, Bruce Airhead didn't help mattes calling 40+ pass plays with a hobbled, stationery QB, and an o-line that was being beaten often allowing Ben to take multiple shots even when he wasn;t being sacked, especially in the second half.

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Rockon

Rockon is dead on.

**Slapstick** · 12-26-2011, 10:36 AM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Well, thank God hindsight is 20/20, eh?

**rockonsteel** · 12-26-2011, 01:03 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by Slapstick

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Well, thank God hindsight is 20/20, eh?

There were a lot of people saying Ben should not play before the game. And then there's another group of people that were literally screaming for Ben to be pulled from the game after the second pick, when it obvious he didn't have it, and that he was hurting the team more than helping it. I fall into the latter category. Neither one of those scenarios constitue hindsight.

Conversely, it's called stubborn denial when a plan goes horrible, and yet one still tries to justify a decision that clearly not the wisest by still saying it was the right call, although the way it plays out says something entirely different.

Ben is a tough, rugged QB. We all know this. He was too hurt to play the game effectively. It didn't take hindsight to see that. just a pair of clear, open eyes.

Rockon

**NorthCoast** · 12-26-2011, 04:00 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

So what people are trying to say is that a 50% Ben is better than a 100% Batch? This is nonsense and no one can convince me otherwise. (If it was true, why bother having Batch on the roster...and what does that really say about Dixon?). The staff put too much faith in Ben's abilities and it blew up on them, that is the bottom line. The ultimate travesty was that the coaches would not even reconsider part way through the game when it was clear Ben was struggling (and yes, he had a lot of yards but in my opinion that was all negated by his poor throws and turnovers.)

On Mendenhall, yes he has put together a couple of decent games, but I just don't see him as any better than top 15 or 20 back. We may have a poor OL, but Mendenhall doesn't seem like the kind of RB that makes the line look better than they are (like a Jones-Drew or Lynch). Mendenhall has a terrible time finding the small creases in the blocking patterns and hence ends up with plenty of no-gain runs. The Steelers would be smart not to offer him much more than NFL avg pay for a running back at season's end.

**drprwnap** · 12-27-2011, 05:49 PM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Originally posted by Slapstick

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Well, thank God hindsight is 20/20, eh?

There were a lot of people saying Ben should not play before the game. And then there's another group of people that were literally screaming for Ben to be pulled from the game after the second pick, when it obvious he didn't have it, and that he was hurting the team more than helping it. I fall into the latter category. Neither one of those scenarios constitue hindsight.

Conversely, it's called stubborn denial when a plan goes horrible, and yet one still tries to justify a decision that clearly not the wisest by still saying it was the right call, although the way it plays out says something entirely different.

Ben is a tough, rugged QB. We all know this. He was too hurt to play the game effectively. It didn't take hindsight to see that. just a pair of clear, open eyes.

Rockon

Rockon is right on!! I posted the very same vein of a thread after the game. I was screaming for Ben to be pulled after the 2nd int. The thing that really pi$$es me off is that Tomlin had no plans to pull Ben! COME ON, MAN! Obviously, MT didn't have "a pair fo clear, open eyes"

**rockonsteel** · 12-28-2011, 09:49 AM

Re: Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Originally posted by drprwnap

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Originally posted by Slapstick

Originally posted by rockonsteel

Everybody saying Ben gave us a better chance to win than a healthy Batch is either delusional, in denial or just won't admit otherwise to prove a point, rather than admit they were wrong.

Well, thank God hindsight is 20/20, eh?

There were a lot of people saying Ben should not play before the game. And then there's another group of people that were literally screaming for Ben to be pulled from the game after the second pick, when it obvious he didn't have it, and that he was hurting the team more than helping it. I fall into the latter category. Neither one of those scenarios constitue hindsight.

Conversely, it's called stubborn denial when a plan goes horrible, and yet one still tries to justify a decision that clearly not the wisest by still saying it was the right call, although the way it plays out says something entirely different.

Ben is a tough, rugged QB. We all know this. He was too hurt to play the game effectively. It didn't take hindsight to see that. just a pair of clear, open eyes.

Rockon

Rockon is right on!! I posted the very same vein of a thread after the game. I was screaming for Ben to be pulled after the 2nd int. The thing that really pi$$es me off is that Tomlin had no plans to pull Ben! COME ON, MAN! Obviously, MT didn't have "a pair fo clear, open eyes"

Apparently not. That game has me really beginning to think Ben is Tomlin and BA's security blanket. It's like they don't have enough faith in their scheme and coaching ability to coach the team to a victory over a tough team(SF) with the backup QB, even though it is painfully you're starter is too injured to do the job. Instead they appear to have a clear dependency on Ben's ability to bail the offense out of some really bad situations resulting from the gameplan and playcalling. And when he couldn't, 3 pts. was the end result.

So, I echo that sentiment........COME ON, MAN!

Rockon

Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Dale Lolley & Ed: Post-Rams thoughts

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment