Tweet
I agree with (A).
Re: (B)
I think that there are lots of things a QB can do to help the D. Convert on 3rd down so the D isn't on the field as much and has better field position. Don't turn the ball over so the D isn't under pressure from the O giving up points, isn't on the field as much, and has better field position. Score early and often so the D doesn't have to worry about two dimensional offenses. Like Tomlin, Ben has been very good at these things if you look at them over the course of his career (despite his lack of recent success in the playoffs). I think they're both very good and worth keeping.
I agree that QBs can't impact ST too much...although converting 3rd downs probably means more FG attempts and fewer punts. But FG kicker misses (like last year) aren't something QBs can do anything about. HCs don't have a lot of power there either, except releasing the player. I wonder if holding onto the kicker last year was based more on performance (HC's domain) or the cap hit from cutting a guy right after signing a big (for a kicker) extension (more GM). Either way, Tomlin probably could have forced him out if he really wanted to and maybe we make the playoffs if we cut him early last year instead of giving him more rope.
Re: C
I have said many times that I don't really care if they fire Tomlin. My issue is that I don't think the arguments for firing him make sense (it's like Tomlin derangement syndrome).
I think these arguments generally fall into one (or more) of the following categories: (i) setting unrealistic expectations based on the best dynasty in history, (ii) reading too much into results that are driven by luck (playoffs), (iii) the Steelers should win more SBs than everyone else because our guys often pass lots of trophies that were mostly won by guys who've been eligible to collect social security checks for a decade, (iv) I don't like the things he says in press conferences, or (v) "we only hired Tomlin because of the Rooney Rule" (as if history hasn't shown that Tomlin is a much better coach than Grimm or Whisenhunt). I don't think any of those arguments out weighs the fact that he's put up a hell of a winning percentage in the cap era (when being consistently competitive is harder than it was in the 70s).
I tend to think that we should keep Tomlin at least until Ben / Colbert retires because I think the disruption of replacing a HC (and maybe OC / DC) is too much for a team that has shown in the recent past that they don't seem to be very good at learning new things in a short amount of time (at least on D).
While I think players are more important than coaches (especially QB play relative to cap hit), coaches do matter in the NFL. So, I think the long odds of getting someone as good or better than Tomlin* (especially in season when you only have bad options) reduces our chances of winning again while Ben's here.
I also think we probably keep Tomlin into the next GM so that he can be fired by the new GM when / if the post-Ben rebuild doesn't do well in the short term. Assuming that Tomlin doesn't want to retire as well.
* Let's say that picking a new HC is like playing Roulette. Based on success data for HCs, getting a better HC than Tomlin is like hitting 00. Except it's probably less likely because that implies that 1 / 38 HCs would do a better job than Tomlin and the data say it's longer odds than that. Even if it was 1 / 38, why would we gamble away Ben's last few years doing something that's very likely to make the team worse? Making bets on bad expected outcomes is a good way to tank your team.
My position isn't unique to Tomlin. I made similar arguments on the Trib when everyone wanted to fire Cowher after his teams failed in the playoffs after consistently having high seeds. Just like I evaluate Ben and Tomlin using the same criteria. I think the best way to win the SB is to be consistently competitive. It eventually worked for BC. Our current coach (like Cowher) has shown that he can put together consistently competitive teams in the cap era. Most HCs can't do that (or at least haven't when given the chance).
TLDR: Doing something you expect to make your team worse is stupid IMO.
Re: (B)
I think that there are lots of things a QB can do to help the D. Convert on 3rd down so the D isn't on the field as much and has better field position. Don't turn the ball over so the D isn't under pressure from the O giving up points, isn't on the field as much, and has better field position. Score early and often so the D doesn't have to worry about two dimensional offenses. Like Tomlin, Ben has been very good at these things if you look at them over the course of his career (despite his lack of recent success in the playoffs). I think they're both very good and worth keeping.
I agree that QBs can't impact ST too much...although converting 3rd downs probably means more FG attempts and fewer punts. But FG kicker misses (like last year) aren't something QBs can do anything about. HCs don't have a lot of power there either, except releasing the player. I wonder if holding onto the kicker last year was based more on performance (HC's domain) or the cap hit from cutting a guy right after signing a big (for a kicker) extension (more GM). Either way, Tomlin probably could have forced him out if he really wanted to and maybe we make the playoffs if we cut him early last year instead of giving him more rope.
Re: C
I have said many times that I don't really care if they fire Tomlin. My issue is that I don't think the arguments for firing him make sense (it's like Tomlin derangement syndrome).
I think these arguments generally fall into one (or more) of the following categories: (i) setting unrealistic expectations based on the best dynasty in history, (ii) reading too much into results that are driven by luck (playoffs), (iii) the Steelers should win more SBs than everyone else because our guys often pass lots of trophies that were mostly won by guys who've been eligible to collect social security checks for a decade, (iv) I don't like the things he says in press conferences, or (v) "we only hired Tomlin because of the Rooney Rule" (as if history hasn't shown that Tomlin is a much better coach than Grimm or Whisenhunt). I don't think any of those arguments out weighs the fact that he's put up a hell of a winning percentage in the cap era (when being consistently competitive is harder than it was in the 70s).
I tend to think that we should keep Tomlin at least until Ben / Colbert retires because I think the disruption of replacing a HC (and maybe OC / DC) is too much for a team that has shown in the recent past that they don't seem to be very good at learning new things in a short amount of time (at least on D).
While I think players are more important than coaches (especially QB play relative to cap hit), coaches do matter in the NFL. So, I think the long odds of getting someone as good or better than Tomlin* (especially in season when you only have bad options) reduces our chances of winning again while Ben's here.
I also think we probably keep Tomlin into the next GM so that he can be fired by the new GM when / if the post-Ben rebuild doesn't do well in the short term. Assuming that Tomlin doesn't want to retire as well.
* Let's say that picking a new HC is like playing Roulette. Based on success data for HCs, getting a better HC than Tomlin is like hitting 00. Except it's probably less likely because that implies that 1 / 38 HCs would do a better job than Tomlin and the data say it's longer odds than that. Even if it was 1 / 38, why would we gamble away Ben's last few years doing something that's very likely to make the team worse? Making bets on bad expected outcomes is a good way to tank your team.
My position isn't unique to Tomlin. I made similar arguments on the Trib when everyone wanted to fire Cowher after his teams failed in the playoffs after consistently having high seeds. Just like I evaluate Ben and Tomlin using the same criteria. I think the best way to win the SB is to be consistently competitive. It eventually worked for BC. Our current coach (like Cowher) has shown that he can put together consistently competitive teams in the cap era. Most HCs can't do that (or at least haven't when given the chance).
TLDR: Doing something you expect to make your team worse is stupid IMO.
Comment