PDA

View Full Version : Rookie Jones to make first start for Steelers against Bengals



vader29
09-11-2013, 07:00 PM
The Steelers plan to increase the number of snaps outside linebacker Jarvis Jones plays against the Cincinnati Bengals, and it appears that will happen in a big way.

Jones, the team's No. 1 draft choice, said he is running with the first-team defense in practice and plans to stay there for Monday night's nationally televised game.

"That's the way it is right now," Jones said after today's practice. "As long as I continue to keep doing what I'm doing, I hope it stays like that."

Jason Worilds started the season opener against the Tennessee Titans and was rotated every third series with Jones at right outside linebacker. On the second play of his first series, Jones made a jarring tackle on running back Chris Johnson, dropping him for a 2-yard loss.

After that, he played even more in the second half. Worilds played 47 snaps against the Titans, Jones 26. The Steelers wanted to shrink that disparity this week.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/steelers/rookie-jones-to-make-first-start-for-steelers-against-bengals-702839/#ixzz2edFN41NC

steeldawg
09-11-2013, 07:14 PM
Yessss get ready for some turnovers steelers fans.

salamander
09-11-2013, 07:27 PM
Good.

SteelMayhem72
09-11-2013, 07:35 PM
Awesome!! I heard Timmons will be taking Footes play calling duties! Im expecting Timmons to have a career year!

- - - Updated - - -

Mark my words jones is gonna have us asking james who?

Dwinsgames
09-11-2013, 07:38 PM
Awesome!! I heard Timmons will be taking Footes play calling duties! Im expecting Timmons to have a career year!


I highly doubt Timmons will be any better at calling the Def sets than Foote ....

Foote takes a ton of heat for a ton of things but making the line calls was never one of them ... if anything Timmons has big shoes to fill in that department

that is not to say he is not up for the challenge but I do not look for results to be any better and will be pleased if they are close to equal ( Foote knows this def as well as anyone and better than most )

tube517
09-11-2013, 07:44 PM
Uncle Jarvis! (Ryan Clark's nickname for jarvis jones)

SteelerFanInStl
09-11-2013, 08:30 PM
Good! Might as well throw him in there and let him get the experience.

Psycho Ward 86
09-11-2013, 08:43 PM
well that was fast. nice to see us taking some charge instead of letting the young guns sit for years and rot on the bench

st33lersguy
09-11-2013, 09:07 PM
This is overdue by one week

Craic
09-11-2013, 10:38 PM
Why is everyone so excited about a player that made one good hit and was half lost the rest of the game? That's not a knock on the kid, it's a statement about him being a rookie. Only one I'm excluding from this question is SteelerFanInStl. Though I hope you're post isn't the thinking of the staff . . . that means the coaching staff has thrown in the towel for the year.

Seven
09-11-2013, 11:16 PM
well that was fast. nice to see us taking some charge instead of letting the young guns sit for years and rot on the bench

Expecting Jones to play better than Worilds is hyperbolic overoptimism :chuckle:

st33lersguy
09-12-2013, 12:07 AM
Why is everyone so excited about a player that made one good hit and was half lost the rest of the game? That's not a knock on the kid, it's a statement about him being a rookie. Only one I'm excluding from this question is SteelerFanInStl. Though I hope you're post isn't the thinking of the staff . . . that means the coaching staff has thrown in the towel for the year.

Not like Worilds did anything in that game to warrant being the starter over Jones

Craic
09-12-2013, 01:49 AM
Not like Worilds did anything in that game to warrant being the starter over Jones

I'd disagree. He had a solid start. His numbers are small, 1 tackle and three assists, but remember how little the run game gained against our team. Once again we're getting too caught up in the individual flashy play(er)s and not in the total picture, which was in all actually, a very good effort by this defense last week. Worilds had a good, solid game. Nothing flashy, but absolutely nothing worth losing a spot over, either.

Master Blaster
09-12-2013, 09:04 AM
I'd disagree. He had a solid start. His numbers are small, 1 tackle and three assists, but remember how little the run game gained against our team. Once again we're getting too caught up in the individual flashy play(er)s and not in the total picture, which was in all actually, a very good effort by this defense last week. Worilds had a good, solid game. Nothing flashy, but absolutely nothing worth losing a spot over, either.
I agree.

Devilsdancefloor
09-12-2013, 09:11 AM
I'd disagree. He had a solid start. His numbers are small, 1 tackle and three assists, but remember how little the run game gained against our team. Once again we're getting too caught up in the individual flashy play(er)s and not in the total picture, which was in all actually, a very good effort by this defense last week. Worilds had a good, solid game. Nothing flashy, but absolutely nothing worth losing a spot over, either.

I agree he actually surprised me on how well he set the corner and he stayed home which as much as i like JJ he still needs to learn some discipline

dislocatedday
09-12-2013, 11:00 AM
Awesome!! I heard Timmons will be taking Footes play calling duties! Im expecting Timmons to have a career year!

- - - Updated - - -

Mark my words jones is gonna have us asking james who?

That's a very bold prediction....but I hope you are right !!

st33lersguy
09-12-2013, 11:31 AM
I'd disagree. He had a solid start. His numbers are small, 1 tackle and three assists, but remember how little the run game gained against our team. Once again we're getting too caught up in the individual flashy play(er)s and not in the total picture, which was in all actually, a very good effort by this defense last week. Worilds had a good, solid game. Nothing flashy, but absolutely nothing worth losing a spot over, either.

Jarvis Jones could help the defense force turnovers, a category Worilds is completely useless in. Turnovers is what the defense needs.

Master Blaster
09-12-2013, 11:46 AM
Not like Worilds did anything in that game to warrant being the starter over Jones
It's not like he didn't have a solid outing either. Worilds happens to have suffered the misfortune of finally getting his chance to start by replacing James Harrison while at the same time having to compete for the job with new phenom, Jones. It's an unenviable position to be in for a player trying to cement a starting job.

steelreserve
09-12-2013, 11:48 AM
Jarvis Jones could help the defense force turnovers, a category Worilds is completely useless in. Turnovers is what the defense needs.

Exactly. When Jones was on the field, things took on a little different edge. The plays were more frenzied and dynamic. With Worilds, he was decent individually, but everything was business as usual. That kind of disruption doesn't show up in the stat sheet, but it's exactly why everyone was excited.

Craic
09-12-2013, 11:58 AM
Jarvis Jones could help the defense force turnovers, a category Worilds is completely useless in. Turnovers is what the defense needs.

I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).


It's not like he didn't have a solid outing either. Worilds happens to have suffered the misfortune of finally getting his chance to start by replacing James Harrison while at the same time having to compete for the job with new phenom, Jones. It's an unenviable position to be in for a player trying to cement a starting job.

For someone I disagree with so much in certain areas, it's amazing how much we agree in others. :chuckle:

steelreserve
09-12-2013, 12:46 PM
I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).

Don't worry. Woodley is already overdue for his hamstring pull, so it won't be long before the Jones and Worilds supporters are both happy.

I agree that our defense does not need a whole lot of changes; they did pretty well regardless of which OLB was out there. But even if you're good, there's no reason you can't get better. If we could shut down the opposing offense AND get turnovers? Now THAT would be something I like.

steeldawg
09-12-2013, 03:42 PM
I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).



For someone I disagree with so much in certain areas, it's amazing how much we agree in others. :chuckle:

Lol this is true but I like jones over worilds He is flying around out there has a nose for the ball and I think that will eventually lead to some good things for our defense.

st33lersguy
09-12-2013, 05:06 PM
I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).

Wrong, they needed to force turnovers, especially against one of the worst offenses in the NFL and one of the crappiest QBs and WR corps in the NFL. A turnover could have changed the momentum of the game and made it easier for the offense to score (like 2010 at Baltimore). Also down by 8 points with Tennessee facing a 2nd and 11 at their own 11, they needed a three and out to give Pittsburgh better field position, not allow a bottom 10 offense to march down the field to kick a field goal to make it 2 possessions like they did, very un-clutch. They also should have stopped the Tennessee RB in the backfield on a 3rd and short instead of allowing him to break a couple of tackles in the backfield and get the first down on what turned into a touchdown drive

Jones out-performed Worilds in the preseason and in this game. Jones looks like he can be an impact player, Worilds most definitely is not

Craic
09-12-2013, 05:49 PM
Wrong, they needed to force turnovers, especially against one of the worst offenses in the NFL and one of the crappiest QBs and WR corps in the NFL. A turnover could have changed the momentum of the game and made it easier for the offense to score (like 2010 at Baltimore). Also down by 8 points with Tennessee facing a 2nd and 11 at their own 11, they needed a three and out to give Pittsburgh better field position, not allow a bottom 10 offense to march down the field to kick a field goal to make it 2 possessions like they did, very un-clutch. They also should have stopped the Tennessee RB in the backfield on a 3rd and short instead of allowing him to break a couple of tackles in the backfield and get the first down on what turned into a touchdown drive

Jones out-performed Worilds in the preseason and in this game. Jones looks like he can be an impact player, Worilds most definitely is not

Sigh.

Alright, I agree. We need three turnovers and our defense to give up two TDs in the last ten minutes of the game. Better? You'd think that, over the last few years, watching this defense reverse an entire game's worth of forced turnovers and great play in the last five to ten minutes of games would have cured most of the fanbase by now of the "big play" mentality.

Guess not.

- - - Updated - - -


Lol this is true but I like jones over worilds He is flying around out there has a nose for the ball and I think that will eventually lead to some good things for our defense.

I agree he is flying around. So did Kendrall Bell his rookie year. It's called being lost because you don't know the system yet. Bell is something I DON'T want to repeat.

I noticed however, that you snuck in "eventually" at the end. :chuckle: That changes your entire post. I agree that Jones has a good chance, heck, a very good chance of being our future OLB and maybe even to the point where we look back and wonder what the big deal was with losing Harrison. I just don't think NOW is the time to put him in there. Heck, wait six, seven weeks. Let him substitute in in packages or take a series or two to learn the game.

steeldawg
09-12-2013, 06:07 PM
Sigh.

Alright, I agree. We need three turnovers and our defense to give up two TDs in the last ten minutes of the game. Better? You'd think that, over the last few years, watching this defense reverse an entire game's worth of forced turnovers and great play in the last five to ten minutes of games would have cured most of the fanbase by now of the "big play" mentality.

Guess not.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree he is flying around. So did Kendrall Bell his rookie year. It's called being lost because you don't know the system yet. Bell is something I DON'T want to repeat.

I noticed however, that you snuck in "eventually" at the end. :chuckle: That changes your entire post. I agree that Jones has a good chance, heck, a very good chance of being our future OLB and maybe even to the point where we look back and wonder what the big deal was with losing Harrison. I just don't think NOW is the time to put him in there. Heck, wait six, seven weeks. Let him substitute in in packages or take a series or two to learn the game.

I posted on here before that I also thought jones found himself out of position or took bad angles on run plays, but If our offense is going to play like we did we may have to take some chances on defense in order to win some games. I think that the coaching staff might be thinking we need to make some big plays on D in order to win albeit a turnover a big sack something to keep us playing with good field position. We couldn't change field position against the titans and if your starting deep in your own territory with haleys short offense you are going to have to sustain a lot of long drives which is not a recipe for success in the nfl.

Mojouw
09-12-2013, 07:16 PM
The turnovers on defense go with success on offense and vice versa. If your offense is so putrid that they keep your defense on the field forever, that sucks. Also if another team is not worried AT ALL about your offense moving the ball, they will just hand off -- forever. Pretty hard to victimize the worst QB and WRs if they rarely put the ball in the air and are never forced into a position of having to take chances down the field due to points already scored by your offense or the impending threat of more.

The TEnnesse loss was not on the defense at all. Heck they could have pitched a shut-out for 16 quarters and I don't think the Steelers offense would have managed to take advantage of it.

HollywoodSteel
09-12-2013, 07:18 PM
I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).




I don't think you are wrong but let me just put forth another angle: A solid D should have won us the Titans game, but given the offense we have, a solid defense won't cut it against the Bengals. Think of Jones as a boom or bust option in week 2 (that's probably overstating it, but I'm willing to do that in service of a point). He might make mistakes and look lost but he could be responsible for the splash plays that we'll need to win it. I'd be willing to take the chance here since we might need to score on defense to have a chance in this one.

Master Blaster
09-12-2013, 09:54 PM
I don't think you are wrong but let me just put forth another angle: A solid D should have won us the Titans game, but given the offense we have, a solid defense won't cut it against the Bengals. Think of Jones as a boom or bust option in week 2 (that's probably overstating it, but I'm willing to do that in service of a point). He might make mistakes and look lost but he could be responsible for the splash plays that we'll need to win it. I'd be willing to take the chance here since we might need to score on defense to have a chance in this one.
Based on recent history, I concur.

tube517
09-13-2013, 12:28 AM
I disagree. What this defense needs is an offense that can put up more than a TD. There is nothing more that we needed from the defense in this last game. Once again, over a third of the series were three and outs. something like forty-five percent were four plays or less. They scored one TD on a short field. There is no reason to make changes on this defense (except, of course, for injury).



For someone I disagree with so much in certain areas, it's amazing how much we agree in others. :chuckle:

I would agree with you, Preach, on waiting a few more games for Jones to start but we need some playmakers. The turnovers, especially in the opponents' territory, DEEP in their territory, could help a putrid offense. We are 2-6 in our last 8 games (including 1 meaningless win against the Stains) and that trend needs to end. I think that is why this defense doesn't get "credit". I know they were statistically #1 but our offense is crippled without a real RB or our stud TE and our OL.........
Turnovers deep in their territory is what we need. This offense needs some short fields.

steelreserve
09-13-2013, 03:39 AM
One other thing worth mentioning: Woodley is like twice as good when there's a playmaker lined up at the other OLB spot. He made $60 million because Harrison was disruptive enough to draw the extra TE or RB blocking help most of the time. Maybe someone like Jones over there can have the same effect. Then about 3/4 of the way through the season, we say "Hey, Woodley's finally earning his contract!" while wondering why Jones started out so strong and then tapered off at the midway point. Hint: No, it wasn't because he was tired from the longer season.

Seven
09-13-2013, 03:49 AM
I think Worilds is better than he gets credit for but I'm okay with throwing Jones into the fire. I'm positive I saw him get double teamed on at least two passing downs in one of the later quarters of the game. He did look a little lost, but he definitely has the instincts to find the ball. I think he's going to be a great player for a long time.

Steeldude
09-13-2013, 03:51 AM
I would agree with you, Preach, on waiting a few more games for Jones to start but we need some playmakers. The turnovers, especially in the opponents' territory, DEEP in their territory, could help a putrid offense. We are 2-6 in our last 8 games (including 1 meaningless win against the Stains) and that trend needs to end. I think that is why this defense doesn't get "credit". I know they were statistically #1 but our offense is crippled without a real RB or our stud TE and our OL.........
Turnovers deep in their territory is what we need. This offense needs some short fields.

The offense is crippled by a poor O-line, not the lack of so-called real RB. The RB position is the least of the Steelers' problems. Miller isn't going to make up for this O-line. I am still hoping that last Sunday was a fluke, but from what I have seen of these players it looks to be a reality. Adams and Gilbert were bad last year. They looked bad in pre-season and it has continued into game 1.

Seven
09-13-2013, 03:56 AM
The offense is crippled by a poor O-line, not the lack of so-called real RB. The RB position is the least of the Steelers' problems. Miller isn't going to make up for this O-line. I am still hoping that last Sunday was a fluke, but from what I have seen of these players it looks to be a reality. Adams and Gilbert were bad last year. They looked bad in pre-season and it has continued into game 1.

A real left tackle would just about fix our problems completely. We tried to obtain Jake Long in the offseason but it didn't work out and we ended up with his brother Joe, instead. I thought Beachum might win the right to play in that spot this summer but I guess it didn't happen. I'd rather see him get a shot than Gilbert or Adams, though. If we could just keep Adams at right tackle and the rest of the line the way it is but add a stud on the left our line would probably be exceptional.

Master Blaster
09-13-2013, 09:15 AM
A real left tackle would just about fix our problems completely. We tried to obtain Jake Long in the offseason but it didn't work out and we ended up with his brother Joe, instead. I thought Beachum might win the right to play in that spot this summer but I guess it didn't happen. I'd rather see him get a shot than Gilbert or Adams, though. If we could just keep Adams at right tackle and the rest of the line the way it is but add a stud on the left our line would probably be exceptional.
Adams is a second round pick. Beachum is a seventh round pick. Each are being paid accordingly. That is a determining factor in who starts. I'm not suggesting that it is the only determining factor, but the amount of money each makes certainly enters the equation.

It is a well known fact that the success or failure of an OL depends on the weakest link in that chain. Adams is not a finished product and I believe he has room to grow and improve. He did improve over last season. Marcus Gilbert, on the other hand, is the weakest link on the Steelers' OL. He has shown no improvement from last season. He will be going against Geno Atkins and James Harrison Monday night. If I'm Todd Haley and see Gilbert continue to struggle thus allowing Ben to get sacked, I wouldn't hesitate more than a nano second before I insert Beachum in his place.

Psycho Ward 86
09-13-2013, 11:07 AM
We tried to obtain Jake Long in the offseason but it didn't work out and we ended up with his brother Joe, instead.

Pshhh. As if we were ever in serious contention for his services with our cap situation.

Master Blaster
09-13-2013, 11:24 AM
Pshhh. As if we were ever in serious contention for his services with our cap situation.
That is exactly why that didn't transpire. Colbert has the majority of the team's cap tied up in a handful of players. He kept those players that were justifying their signing. To be honest, that requires risk taking and I can't fault him for trying to keep the team competitive. It's a tough job balancing want verses need. With so much money tied up to the point that they are at or above the cap, Colbert is relegated to looking at the NFL's dollar menu to fill positions for depth. When a team is forced to rumage the bargain bins to fill those needs they get stuck with guys like Guy Whimper.

Psycho Ward 86
09-13-2013, 11:31 AM
That is exactly why that didn't transpire. Colbert has the majority of the team's cap tied up in a handful of players. He kept those players that were justifying their signing. To be honest, that requires risk taking and I can't fault him for trying to keep the team competitive. It's a tough job balancing want verses need. With so much money tied up to the point that they are at or above the cap, Colbert is relegated to looking at the NFL's dollar menu to fill positions for depth. When a team is forced to rumage the bargain bins to fill those needs they get stuck with guys like Guy Whimper.

thats only part of the problem. the other part is not being able to draft well when its supposed to be the foundational core of building this team. that forces us to cling onto/sometimes overpay veterans past their prime whose services we have or will lose soon to the point where we should be getting rid of them to make way for the young rising stars. But we cant, because we have drafted incompetently since 2008

Master Blaster
09-13-2013, 11:39 AM
thats only part of the problem. the other part is not being able to draft well when its supposed to be the foundational core of building this team. that forces us to cling onto/sometimes overpay veterans past their prime whose services we have or will lose soon to the point where we should be getting rid of them to make way for the young rising stars. But we cant, because we have drafted incompetently since 2008
Like I said, it's a tough job balancing want vs need. I've already articulated my views as to Colbert's, post round one, abysmal track record in the draft. The fact that there are no players from that draft still on the team speaks volumes about his drafting prowess, or lack thereof.

Psycho Ward 86
09-13-2013, 02:11 PM
Like I said, it's a tough job balancing want vs need. I've already articulated my views as to Colbert's, post round one, abysmal track record in the draft. The fact that there are no players from that draft still on the team speaks volumes about his drafting prowess, or lack thereof.

before you joined this forum, there was a hilarious amount of debate regarding Colbert and Tomlin's ability to draft in the past couple of years. Funny how quickly people are no longer refuting that they have done a pretty poor job.

SteelerFanInStl
09-13-2013, 02:39 PM
before you joined this forum, there was a hilarious amount of debate regarding Colbert and Tomlin's ability to draft in the past couple of years. Funny how quickly people are no longer refuting that they have done a pretty poor job.

Agreed. I think that people's eyes are finally opening up to this.

steelreserve
09-13-2013, 02:53 PM
It seems like they've done OK drafting on offense. Not great, but average. Defense has been the problem, which is not coincidentally why half of the starters there are veterans on $10M contracts and the other half are mostly ineffective.

When the team is winning in the present, it's really easy to say give the front office time, they know what they're doing. But then you get to the point where 5 years of draft history is pretty unmistakable, which incidentally is when it also catches up with you. I'm still holding out a lot of hope for this year's class, though - seems like we finally may have gotten a good one, but it's going to take a while to find out.

Master Blaster
09-14-2013, 08:50 AM
before you joined this forum, there was a hilarious amount of debate regarding Colbert and Tomlin's ability to draft in the past couple of years. Funny how quickly people are no longer refuting that they have done a pretty poor job.
When faced with irrefutable and undeniable evidence proving how abysmal Colbert's track record is there is no debate.