Tweet
Stillers.com reader “Len” asks the following:
“Ok, here is a topic for the brain trust at Stillers.com:
How the F*CK do the Steelers lose to so many total $h*t teams in the Tomlin era. Give us an analysis as to the whys, hows and wherefores boys... And they aren't just losing to average horrible teams... they lose to absolute bottom $h*t teams. How does this keep happening over and over?”
I’ll handle this one.
You know, Len, I’ve had a theory about this for some time now. It might be kind of whacked, but I’m going to say it anyway.
I believe the Stillers tighten up against the bad teams, only opening things up when they play an opponent they respect or fear. Notice the aggressive, downfield passing attacks used against both the Colts and Ravens. Now think about the shell the Stillers went back into against the Jets, reverting back to the dink screens and other cutesy little horse$h*t that characterized the earlier part of the season.
Rather than open it up against the bottom-feeders and play it safe against the better teams, the Stillers – oddly enough -- seem to do the opposite. They actually call a more conservative offense, and give more cushion on defense to the “horrible” squads. (In fact, I don’t believe the Stillers even ran a triple-WR set until the fourth quarter on Sunday.) So if you’re wondering just how the hell the Stillers can beat Indy and Baltimore and lose to Tampa and the Jets, well maybe you’ve just found the answer.
In any case, this is the kind of sphincter-ball that keeps things close, and keeps bad opponents in the game. Or worse – not opening things up even when you fall behind 17-0 by the second quarter means it might be too late once you do finally start going downfield. Notice again that even down that many points to the Jets, the Stillers were still groping and pissing around with dink plays. The jagoff screen to Bell with less than a minute left in the half is a prime example.
To borrow from Mill’s post-game: “Why, yet another screen play, this one a tunnel screen to a split-out Bell, in which he was nearly decapitated on a play that gained ZERO yards and wasted precious time.” Why? Because when you’re determined to play small ball, nothing else matters except keeping your sphincter tight.
The coaching staff actually seems to believe that this team is superior in talent enough to handle the bad teams without having to open up their offense. At least that’s what it seems to me. And if that’s the case, then somebody in the ‘burgh is smoking the same stuff Bell and Blount are – a lot of it.
Playing small ball is fine when you’ve got an elite defense, but, despite the delusions of the men who run the Pittsburgh Stillers, that’s not the case with the team anymore. The best shot the Stillers have to win is to open up their downfield passing game, ditch the bull$h*t screens and plunges, and stop pretending this is 2004.
Or to look at it another way: the team just isn’t “elite” enough to beat bad teams anymore just by showing up and playing that infamous “Stillers football” you’ve heard so much about. They don’t have the defense to pull it off, even if they tried. It’s a big reason they’ve lost in recent years to such quarterbacking legends as Mike Glennon and Bruce Gradkowski, or advanced-aged Mike Vick.
There’s no question the Stillers under Mike Tomlin have been horrible against weak team. The mind-numbing number of losses to sub-.500 squads proves it. But losing to bad teams is only part of the picture. You’ve no doubt heard that the team “plays up to the competition” as well as “plays down to it.” Well maybe what I’ve discussed helps explain why.
Combine this overly conservative football with a dose of lackluster preparation and a load of overconfidence, and you’ve got the recipe for disaster against the “lesser” guys.
Oh, and if that doesn’t explain why the Stillers lost Sunday, maybe this will:
[URL]http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/look-who-showed-up-steelers-bible-study-justin-bieber-110914[/URL]
Thanks for your question, Len. I’ll be expanding on this topic some more in a soon-to-come commentary.
- See more at: [URL]http://www.stillers.com/Article/View/66043d9e-d41d-4b1f-bf21-03d75481187d#sthash.3Zsw2drK.dpuf[/URL]
“Ok, here is a topic for the brain trust at Stillers.com:
How the F*CK do the Steelers lose to so many total $h*t teams in the Tomlin era. Give us an analysis as to the whys, hows and wherefores boys... And they aren't just losing to average horrible teams... they lose to absolute bottom $h*t teams. How does this keep happening over and over?”
I’ll handle this one.
You know, Len, I’ve had a theory about this for some time now. It might be kind of whacked, but I’m going to say it anyway.
I believe the Stillers tighten up against the bad teams, only opening things up when they play an opponent they respect or fear. Notice the aggressive, downfield passing attacks used against both the Colts and Ravens. Now think about the shell the Stillers went back into against the Jets, reverting back to the dink screens and other cutesy little horse$h*t that characterized the earlier part of the season.
Rather than open it up against the bottom-feeders and play it safe against the better teams, the Stillers – oddly enough -- seem to do the opposite. They actually call a more conservative offense, and give more cushion on defense to the “horrible” squads. (In fact, I don’t believe the Stillers even ran a triple-WR set until the fourth quarter on Sunday.) So if you’re wondering just how the hell the Stillers can beat Indy and Baltimore and lose to Tampa and the Jets, well maybe you’ve just found the answer.
In any case, this is the kind of sphincter-ball that keeps things close, and keeps bad opponents in the game. Or worse – not opening things up even when you fall behind 17-0 by the second quarter means it might be too late once you do finally start going downfield. Notice again that even down that many points to the Jets, the Stillers were still groping and pissing around with dink plays. The jagoff screen to Bell with less than a minute left in the half is a prime example.
To borrow from Mill’s post-game: “Why, yet another screen play, this one a tunnel screen to a split-out Bell, in which he was nearly decapitated on a play that gained ZERO yards and wasted precious time.” Why? Because when you’re determined to play small ball, nothing else matters except keeping your sphincter tight.
The coaching staff actually seems to believe that this team is superior in talent enough to handle the bad teams without having to open up their offense. At least that’s what it seems to me. And if that’s the case, then somebody in the ‘burgh is smoking the same stuff Bell and Blount are – a lot of it.
Playing small ball is fine when you’ve got an elite defense, but, despite the delusions of the men who run the Pittsburgh Stillers, that’s not the case with the team anymore. The best shot the Stillers have to win is to open up their downfield passing game, ditch the bull$h*t screens and plunges, and stop pretending this is 2004.
Or to look at it another way: the team just isn’t “elite” enough to beat bad teams anymore just by showing up and playing that infamous “Stillers football” you’ve heard so much about. They don’t have the defense to pull it off, even if they tried. It’s a big reason they’ve lost in recent years to such quarterbacking legends as Mike Glennon and Bruce Gradkowski, or advanced-aged Mike Vick.
There’s no question the Stillers under Mike Tomlin have been horrible against weak team. The mind-numbing number of losses to sub-.500 squads proves it. But losing to bad teams is only part of the picture. You’ve no doubt heard that the team “plays up to the competition” as well as “plays down to it.” Well maybe what I’ve discussed helps explain why.
Combine this overly conservative football with a dose of lackluster preparation and a load of overconfidence, and you’ve got the recipe for disaster against the “lesser” guys.
Oh, and if that doesn’t explain why the Stillers lost Sunday, maybe this will:
[URL]http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/look-who-showed-up-steelers-bible-study-justin-bieber-110914[/URL]
Thanks for your question, Len. I’ll be expanding on this topic some more in a soon-to-come commentary.
- See more at: [URL]http://www.stillers.com/Article/View/66043d9e-d41d-4b1f-bf21-03d75481187d#sthash.3Zsw2drK.dpuf[/URL]
Food for thought.
Comment