Why are you even here?

[Northern_Blitz]

I don't know why you're encouraged by a team that couldn't beat some of the league's worst teams without TJ Watt. They designed a team to score 18 PPG and depend 100% on TJ Watt to win and most of you just shrug and say "Yeah, checks out."



He did the most with what he was given, unfortunately that won't be enough to beat the better teams. We'll see much of the same next year as they double down on their philosophy of hiding on offense and playing great D, as long as TJ is healthy that is.

Because I think that KP can grow into a QB that can actually score an average amount of points per game (or more). I think he showed some flashes of great play last season, particularly in the Rats game.

At least some of those teams we lost against without TJ had Mitch at QB. And I think he was a 3-and-out machine. While people talk a lot about him throwing short, I think the real problem was that he had a very high rate of throwing well past the sticks on 3rd. That's an OK strategy if you don't do it too much and you can complete deep passes. Seems like Mitch was doing it a lot..and his deep ball accuracy wasn't good here or in Chi (so it's not something you can blame on Tomlin, unfortunately).

[whisper]

I don't know why you're encouraged by a team that couldn't beat some of the league's worst teams without TJ Watt.



He did the most with what he was given, unfortunately that won't be enough to beat the better teams. We'll see much of the same next year as they double down on their philosophy of hiding on offense and playing great D, as long as TJ is healthy that is.

With the offense scoring 18 PPG, and all the same coaches/players back, what do you think is a reasonable increase in PPG? 2? That would bring us to 20 PPG. (That would put us in the AZ and Carolina territories - both non-play off teams.) 3? That would bring us to 21. (That would bring us up to the Browns and Falcons of the NFL, neither play off teams.)

Coincidently, the two teams with the highest PPG were Philly and KC, tied with 28.7 PPG and that happens to be the two teams in the Super Bowl. Other play off teams included Cinci (7th), Bills (3rd), Dallas (4th), SF (6th), MN (8th). In other words, If Cool Shades and Art II think they are gonna contend with anything but a massive degree in an increase in points scored, I got news for them: They are delusional. If you aren't in top 10 in PPG you aren't gonna contend for jack shlt. (More like top 4).

Pgh sits at 26th in PPG. We need to move up by more than 10 spots. Who sees that happening with the same coaching? Go ahead, I'm all ears.

[feltdizz]

I don't know why you're encouraged by a team that couldn't beat some of the league's worst teams without TJ Watt. They designed a team to score 18 PPG and depend 100% on TJ Watt to win and most of you just shrug and say "Yeah, checks out."



He did the most with what he was given, unfortunately that won't be enough to beat the better teams. We'll see much of the same next year as they double down on their philosophy of hiding on offense and playing great D, as long as TJ is healthy that is.

Sounds like you are suggesting TJ had a bunch of monster games that helped us beat bad teams. Please show the stats of all this production.

4.5 sacks
27 tackles
5 tackles for loss
0 INT’s
1 Forced Fumble

Yeah, Watt was really balling out the second half of the season vs bad teams. Is Baltimore a bad team? Take away his stats vs Baltimore and it really gets good.

18 tackles
2 tackles for loss
6 QB hits
1 pass defended

yeah, he was the sole reason we won vs 6 “bad teams” last year.

[flippy]

Here is a question on a different, but similar idea.

If you just started getting interested in football now, and you have no influences or ties to fans, teams, or cities.

1) Do you think you would be a fan of the Steelers - even not as your #1 team, but would you find this team likeable or not?

2) Which NFL team do you think you would become a fan of?

As tough as this is to say, I think that one possibility would be the Bengals. Good on both sides of the ball with young playmakers on offense. KC is an obvious choice with the best (and most exciting) player in the game. San Fran with a lot of talent.

Teams I'm pretty sure I would dislike include Cleveland, Denver, Tampa Bay.

Just the ones I can think of right now.

I suspect people would choose based on who they see most on tv that they like.

Wherever you are, there’s going to be a local broadcast and you’re likely going to see some teams more than others.

You likely have friends and fam that would have some influence over you. Even if you picked a rival.

And like many people back in the 70s or the 00s, they jumped on a bandwagon with a winner. We see it happen all the time even now and it’s why people like KC. They didn’t have as many engaged fans prior to Pat no matter what they say.

Overall I think it would be hard to get into the NFL now without outside influence. The game isn’t what it was and now only 40% of Gen z and 25% of millenials follow football. The younger you are the less interested you are.

Soon the NFL will go the way of MLB and just be the old man’s game no one cares about in time.

[T.Ferguson]

With the offense scoring 18 PPG, and all the same coaches/players back, what do you think is a reasonable increase in PPG? 2? That would bring us to 20 PPG. (That would put us in the AZ and Carolina territories - both non-play off teams.) 3? That would bring us to 21. (That would bring us up to the Browns and Falcons of the NFL, neither play off teams.)

Coincidently, the two teams with the highest PPG were Philly and KC, tied with 28.7 PPG and that happens to be the two teams in the Super Bowl. Other play off teams included Cinci (7th), Bills (3rd), Dallas (4th), SF (6th), MN (8th). In other words, If Cool Shades and Art II think they are gonna contend with anything but a massive degree in an increase in points scored, I got news for them: They are delusional. If you aren't in top 10 in PPG you aren't gonna contend for jack shlt. (More like top 4).

Pgh sits at 26th in PPG. We need to move up by more than 10 spots. Who sees that happening with the same coaching? Go ahead, I'm all ears.

As crazy as it sounds I really don't think the goal for this team is to compete for a championship at this point. It's to avoid a losing season. It's to be the best team not to make the playoffs. It's to sell tickets. I mean looking at things critically I don't know what other conclusion one can come to.

And I don't want to hear the KP was a rookie excuse, I'm so tired of the excuses and rationalizations when it's clear the issue is the offense itself. I mean this is the same rookie QB who was responsible for two last game winning drives in spite of Canada's offense, none of it computes. The Niners got to the NFCCG with a rookie QB who was the last player taken in the entire draft.

[whisper]

Because I think that KP can grow into a QB that can actually score an average amount of points per game (or more)..

As we've seen this year, an "average PPG" ain't gonna cut it if we want to truly contend. All the teams who were in the playoffs scored higher than an "average" amount of points. Basically, you got to hit about 24 PPG to even sniff true contention. That's 6 points away from what this same group brought us. Do you really see this team averaging a full TD more a game with all the same pieces, coaches, players? I could see Pickett improving a few point per game, but a TD? The two SB teams happen to be the two teams with the highest PPG in the NFL, 28.7 each. That's 10 points higher than out 18.

You think Tomlin and Canada are capable of that?

[Northern_Blitz]

As crazy as it sounds I really don't think the goal for this team is to compete for a championship at this point. It's to avoid a losing season. It's to be the best team not to make the playoffs. It's to sell tickets. I mean looking at things critically I don't know what other conclusion one can come to.

And I don't want to hear the KP was a rookie excuse, I'm so tired of the excuses and rationalizations when it's clear the issue is the offense itself. I mean this is the same rookie QB who was responsible for two last game winning drives in spite of Canada's offense, none of it computes. The Niners got to the NFCCG with a rookie QB who was the last player taken in the entire draft.

I think the actual goal of every head coach is to get the most production out of a team that you can given the talent you have on the roster.

This is why I think looking at the raw record, or playoff record (or lack of playoff games) misses a lot of important context. This is also why looking at more than one metric when evaluating a player is important IMO...because all metrics have flaws and looking at a bunch of them hopefully averages out the errors from each flawed measurement.

So to me, the question isn't "what was our record this year" or "how many playoff games did we win", it's "how did the team do vs. realistic expectations". The hard part there IMO is defining realistic expectations.

I think we were certainly below realistic expectations (at least pre-Shazier injury) in the year we lost to the Jags.

I think we were certainly above realistic expectations in the Mason / Duck year.

I think making the playoffs in Ben's last year and just missing the playoffs in the first year of the rebuild were both above expectations. And I think most would come to the same conclusion if we defined "reasonable expectations" as something like "average of pre-season predictions made by informed fans on a message board like the Planet".

Of course we would all rather win the SB ever year. But that's not a realistic expectation (even when you cheat AND have the GOAT QB under center).

[Captain Lemming]

As crazy as it sounds I really don't think the goal for this team is to compete for a championship at this point. It's to avoid a losing season. It's to be the best team not to make the playoffs. It's to sell tickets. I mean looking at things critically I don't know what other conclusion one can come to.

I would suggest their realistic goal is to win as many games as possible every year. I have no reason to think they did otherwise.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Captain Lemming]

I think the actual goal of every head coach is to get the most production out of a team that you can given the talent you have on the roster.

This is why I think looking at the raw record, or playoff record (or lack of playoff games) misses a lot of important context. This is also why looking at more than one metric when evaluating a player is important IMO...because all metrics have flaws and looking at a bunch of them hopefully averages out the errors from each flawed measurement.

So to me, the question isn't "what was our record this year" or "how many playoff games did we win", it's "how did the team do vs. realistic expectations". The hard part there IMO is defining realistic expectations.

I think we were certainly below realistic expectations (at least pre-Shazier injury) in the year we lost to the Jags.

I think we were certainly above realistic expectations in the Mason / Duck year.

I think making the playoffs in Ben's last year and just missing the playoffs in the first year of the rebuild were both above expectations. And I think most would come to the same conclusion if we defined "reasonable expectations" as something like "average of pre-season predictions made by informed fans on a message board like the Planet".

Of course we would all rather win the SB ever year. But that's not a realistic expectation (even when you cheat AND have the GOAT QB under center).

If we fired Tomlin last season, and had the EXACT SAME RECORD, people would have reasonable expectations and have recognized this was a pretty good start of a rebuild.

[Joel Buchsbaum]

Sounds like you are suggesting TJ had a bunch of monster games that helped us beat bad teams. Please show the stats of all this production.

4.5 sacks
27 tackles
5 tackles for loss
0 INT’s
1 Forced Fumble

Yeah, Watt was really balling out the second half of the season vs bad teams. Is Baltimore a bad team? Take away his stats vs Baltimore and it really gets good.

18 tackles
2 tackles for loss
6 QB hits
1 pass defended

yeah, he was the sole reason we won vs 6 “bad teams” last year.

And I suggest you watch Watt who had a heck if a first game, and Burrow had his worst NFL game. That +5 turnovers and an injury to a long snapper are the reasons why we won that game. Pickett DID not beat a winning team unless you consider Huntley winning QB. Pickett is but 1-3 when he has throw it over 30 times, and being +2 in turnovers os the reason why for the win. We have a decent defense.

But we played 10 teams with a losing record, and beat no good teams. At least none with the QB1 starting.

[feltdizz]

I suspect people would choose based on who they see most on tv that they like.

Wherever you are, there’s going to be a local broadcast and you’re likely going to see some teams more than others.

You likely have friends and fam that would have some influence over you. Even if you picked a rival.

And like many people back in the 70s or the 00s, they jumped on a bandwagon with a winner. We see it happen all the time even now and it’s why people like KC. They didn’t have as many engaged fans prior to Pat no matter what they say.

Overall I think it would be hard to get into the NFL now without outside influence. The game isn’t what it was and now only 40% of Gen z and 25% of millenials follow football. The younger you are the less interested you are.

Soon the NFL will go the way of MLB and just be the old man’s game no one cares about in time.

depends on age.

My oldest is 7. She “likes” the Steelers but she really likes the Panthers more. But Sir Purr also gave everyone in her class a free bicycle so hell.. how can you not like the local team. Plus all her friends are Panther fans.

My youngest likes the Tigers aka the Bengals.. because she really likes Tigers.

Now, on sports boards I see a few people who are Golden State Fans and also love Patrick Mahomes and KC. Most people like winners so I think they will pick a team that is hot right now. Those people annoy the hell out of me.

But I think these days fans are mostly rooting for individual players. So if you like Watt’s game or Pickens game you will root for the Steelers but the loyalty isn’t there.

[feltdizz]

And I suggest you watch Watt who had a heck if a first game, and Burrow had his worst NFL game. That +5 turnovers and an injury to a long snapper are the reasons why we won that game. Pickett DID not beat a winning team unless you consider Huntley winning QB. Pickett is but 1-3 when he has throw it over 30 times, and being +2 in turnovers os the reason why for the win. We have a decent defense.

But we played 10 teams with a losing record, and beat no good teams. At least none with the QB1 starting.

He said Watt’s return was a big reason or THE reason we beat BAD teams.

Can’t use the Cincinnati stats. Its his stats after he returned against bad teams.Which is why I included his stats vs everyone but the Bungles and his stats against just teams with losing records.

[NorthCoast]

I don't get why you think it's shocking that having the team's best player on the field led to more wins. Particularly when he plays the 2nd most impactful position in the sport. Especially when the play on the other side of the ball has been bad for most of his career. All teams build their identity (i.e. marketing strategy) against their best and most impactful player.

You wouldn't be surprised if it was a QB, right?

Why are you so high on Kenny if you don't think he got better?

Weren't you consistently arguing that the improvement in his PFF ratings was a demonstration that he was getting significantly better at the end of the season? I thought PFF was about way more than box-score stats like INTS?

When you say that the only thing he really got better at was not turning it over, is really the only thing that drove the improved PFF ratings? If so, why pay for PFF when you can just look at turnovers?

Don't you understand? Windy is focused on how they won, not whether they won. He's all about context.

[Captain Lemming]

Don't you understand? Windy is focused on how they won, not whether they won. He's all about context.

"But what if the quarterback didn't play clutch at the end of games?"

"Or what if our best player was out even more than 7 games, I bet our record would be worse."

Yeah, ok

[hackjam]

With the offense scoring 18 PPG, and all the same coaches/players back, what do you think is a reasonable increase in PPG? 2? That would bring us to 20 PPG. (That would put us in the AZ and Carolina territories - both non-play off teams.) 3? That would bring us to 21. (That would bring us up to the Browns and Falcons of the NFL, neither play off teams.)

Coincidently, the two teams with the highest PPG were Philly and KC, tied with 28.7 PPG and that happens to be the two teams in the Super Bowl. Other play off teams included Cinci (7th), Bills (3rd), Dallas (4th), SF (6th), MN (8th). In other words, If Cool Shades and Art II think they are gonna contend with anything but a massive degree in an increase in points scored, I got news for them: They are delusional. If you aren't in top 10 in PPG you aren't gonna contend for jack shlt. (More like top 4).

Pgh sits at 26th in PPG. We need to move up by more than 10 spots. Who sees that happening with the same coaching? Go ahead, I'm all ears.

They were at ~21pts/game after the bye. If, and this is a big if, they can get 4 or so more points/game on top of that, that's real progress. The top 7 or so offenses this past year were at 26+ points/game BUT scoring was way down so it kinda depends where that trend goes too.

To your point, I'm pessimistic at best about their chances to really improve with Canada as the OC but I guess we'll see...