before you dis and flame

[Dwinsgames]

do yourself a favor first and LOOK at Bens record as a starting QB when he throws 30 times or more a game .....

Then tell me he is the guy you want leading this team in a QB driven passing league ...

but do not complain about this post UNTIL you are ready to present facts proving it wrong because when he throws 30+ times our teams record is abysmal

thats all

[X-Terminator]

Look dude, the Steelers may very well get rid of him, and you will get your wish. And when it happens, I hope you enjoy your next 25 years without a franchise QB.

That is all.

[fansince'76]

Let's see, the defense gacks up 28 points in a single quarter against NE en route to a team record of 55 given up in a game. They gack up another 27 in a single quarter against the Lions today. On top of that, the line can't run or pass block, we can't run the ball whatsoever negating any hope for effective play action and forcing us to be one-dimensional, allowing opposing defenses to pin their ears back and tee off on Ben on a weekly basis.

Yep, Ben's definitely the problem...

[bayz101]

Ben sucks! 3 Touchdowns and 340 yards is NOT enough! :chuckle:

Hell, 99 yard drives ending in TD's SUCK.

[Mojouw]

Correlation is not always causation.

[Dwinsgames]

Look dude, the Steelers may very well get rid of him, and you will get your wish. And when it happens, I hope you enjoy your next 25 years without a franchise QB.

That is all.

you know it all , sorry forgot about that ...

Glad you have a crystal ball that shows the future unlike the rest of the free world ...

that is all

- - - Updated - - -


Correlation is not always causation.


at least SOMEONE has a brain !!

- - - Updated - - -

whats Bens record again when he throws 30+ times

come on surely one of the know it alls ( and apologists ) can answer this ...

1 win is not a season made

[X-Terminator]

you know it all , sorry forgot about that ...

Glad you have a crystal ball that shows the future unlike the rest of the free world ...

that is all

Nah, that's fine. You want life without a good QB? I hope you get it. And if it happens, I don't want to hear you or anyone else bitch because the team is stuck playing garbage behind center.

Please Steelers, trade Ben. He deserves better, while the fans do not.

[Psycho Ward 86]

do yourself a favor first and LOOK at Bens record as a starting QB when he throws 30 times or more a game .....

Then tell me he is the guy you want leading this team in a QB driven passing league ...

but do not complain about this post UNTIL you are ready to present facts proving it wrong because when he throws 30+ times our teams record is abysmal

thats all

i dont think anyone was going to diss and flame you up until you thought it was necessary to start a threat just to defend yourself. lol, like come on. seriously.

[Mistah Q]

Correlation is not always causation.
This

And... props to Haley

[Dwinsgames]

Nah, that's fine. You want life without a good QB? I hope you get it. And if it happens, I don't want to hear you or anyone else bitch because the team is stuck playing garbage behind center.

Please Steelers, trade Ben. He deserves better, while the fans do not.


1) thinking a player is irreplaceable before he is in a wheel chair is your first mistake

2) there is no way to predict for certain whom they would draft to play QB as his replacement so proclaiming said player will suck is pure stupidity on your part because we do not even know that players name at this point

3) that is a Zu sentiment , take that up with him not me

4) Ben is headed into his mid 30s at contracts end and will command another 100 million contract , something our cap can not absorb if you want a team built around a guy that will eat 1/6th of the cap all by himself while the rest of the team suffers go for it ... but don't let us hear you crying when the team is not competitive for the next decade because of it

so please lets keep it real , I will be more than happy to debate you on facts and statistics but do not come into a thread in full attack mode unarmed

[X-Terminator]

1) thinking a player is irreplaceable before he is in a wheel chair is your first mistake

2) there is no way to predict for certain whom they would draft to play QB as his replacement so proclaiming said player will suck is pure stupidity on your part because we do not even know that players name at this point

3) that is a Zu sentiment , take that up with him not me

4) Ben is headed into his mid 30s at contracts end and will command another 100 million contract , something our cap can not absorb if you want a team built around a guy that will eat 1/6th of the cap all by himself while the rest of the team suffers go for it ... but don't let us hear you crying when the team is not competitive for the next decade because of it

so please lets keep it real , I will be more than happy to debate you on facts and statistics but do not come into a thread in full attack mode unarmed

I don't want to hear it. Trading Ben at this point would be a monumental mistake, and I will not waver from that opinion no matter how many "facts" you present before me. I lived through 26 years of shit behind center, and I'll be DAMNED if I want to go through that again any time soon.

Oh, and Zu's opinion is FAR different from mine. He wants him traded because he feels he deserves better because the team will suck for the next however many years (which I also take issue with, but I digress). I want him traded because the fans don't deserve him. Big difference.

[Dwinsgames]

since nobody bothers to look for results of 30+ passes per game prior through 2011 here is the results

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/09/is-30-passing-attempts-or-less-the-magic-number-for-roethlisberger/

don't argue with me , argue the facts

- - - Updated - - -


I don't want to hear it. Trading Ben at this point would be a monumental mistake, and I will not waver from that opinion no matter how many "facts" you present before me. I lived through 26 years of shit behind center, and I'll be DAMNED if I want to go through that again any time soon.

Oh, and Zu's opinion is FAR different from mine. He wants him traded because he feels he deserves better because the team will suck for the next however many years (which I also take issue with, but I digress). I want him traded because the fans don't deserve him. Big difference.


future be damned , lets win 6-8 games a year LIKE we did when we had shit QBs because we cant pay the rest of the team and keep Ben.... its like cutting off your nose to spite your face

[X-Terminator]

future be damned , lets win 6-8 games a year LIKE we did when we had shit QBs because we cant pay the rest of the team and keep Ben.... its like cutting off your nose to spite your face

You assume, of course, that:

A: The salary cap will stay stagnant (it won't), and
B: They can't get some relief in the initial years of the extension, like the Ravens did with Flacco's contract.

So yeah, they can pay him what he wants, and still have plenty of money left over to pay the rest of the team. Besides, if you want to blame someone's contract for fucking things up, you can start with LaMarr Woodley's. Not Ben's. Bottom line, unless you are getting a shot at an Andy Luck, you DO NOT trade your franchise QB. That would simply be stupid beyond belief.

[Mojouw]

since nobody bothers to look for results of 30+ passes per game prior through 2011 here is the results

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/09/is-30-passing-attempts-or-less-the-magic-number-for-roethlisberger/

don't argue with me , argue the facts

The important points were noted by the author of the linked post. This simple attempts per game and won/loss record needs to be linked (somehow) with game situation for each instance and compared to the rest of the league across the same time period. That would be a monumental undertaking. But without some context/background the analysis is just #'s in a vacuum.

The whole "the Steelers are worse and will likely lose wen Ben throws more than X number of times per game" argument stems from his first 2 years in the league. Back then it was likely true. No it is likely that Ben throwing is all that makes some of those 30+ attempts games close because the defense is getting torched.

[GoSlash27]

Correlation is not always causation.

^^ This.

When you're far behind, you have no choice but to pass it. It stands to reason that pass- heavy games would have a bad record.

[fansince'76]

since nobody bothers to look for results of 30+ passes per game prior through 2011 here is the results

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/09/is-30-passing-attempts-or-less-the-magic-number-for-roethlisberger/


I noticed the 2008 AFCCG, Super Bowl XLIII and the 2010 Divisional game against the Ravens were all conspicuously absent from that list. Or does the postseason not count? You know, the games that that truly separate the men from the boys at the QB position and which the likes of O'Donnell and Stewart used to lose for us on a fairly regular basis?

[stillers4me]

402199230225604608

[cold-hard-steel]

Wow , such devotion to the statistics of a franchise QB . I'm not clear on your point , but does that go all the way back to highschool ,and college football also ? Or is it just since he has been our starter ? Also , does that compare to all of our QB's since Joe , and Terry , i'm sorry , by Terry , maybe i should have said , Terries .

[dislocatedday]

..... Besides, if you want to blame someone's contract for fucking things up, you can start with LaMarr Woodley's. Not Ben's. Bottom line, unless you are getting a shot at an Andy Luck, you DO NOT trade your franchise QB. That would simply be stupid beyond belief.

That last sentence should be a sticky at the top of any thread where the thought of trading Ben is discussed. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement 100%. This team has no business even considering trading Ben at this stage. When you have a proven winner at QB, you keep him.

Woodley's contract is the biggest problem IMO as well. The return on that investment has been poor. Of course, Woodley does not have trade value at his current cap level, and no sane team would take on his current contract.

[zulater]

do yourself a favor first and LOOK at Bens record as a starting QB when he throws 30 times or more a game .....

Then tell me he is the guy you want leading this team in a QB driven passing league ...

but do not complain about this post UNTIL you are ready to present facts proving it wrong because when he throws 30+ times our teams record is abysmal

thats all

Stupid.:crazy::cuckoo: http://ts1.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H.4551618597881272&pid=15.1

- - - Updated - - -


The important points were noted by the author of the linked post. This simple attempts per game and won/loss record needs to be linked (somehow) with game situation for each instance and compared to the rest of the league across the same time period. That would be a monumental undertaking. But without some context/background the analysis is just #'s in a vacuum.

The whole "the Steelers are worse and will likely lose wen Ben throws more than X number of times per game" argument stems from his first 2 years in the league. Back then it was likely true. No it is likely that Ben throwing is all that makes some of those 30+ attempts games close because the defense is getting torched.

It wasn't even true back then. In those first two years they generally did most of their passing in the first 40 minutes of the game, building a lead, then they "took the air out of the ball" for the final 20 minutes, relying on the running game and defense to finish the game out.

it was a fallacy that Ben was along for the ride those for two seasons. Ben was the straw that stirred the drink.

[zulater]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/5536/year/2005/ben-roethlisberger

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/5536/year/2004/ben-roethlisberger

Take note of first half passing attempts as opposed to 2nd half attempts.

[steelerdude15]

do yourself a favor first and LOOK at Bens record as a starting QB when he throws 30 times or more a game .....

Then tell me he is the guy you want leading this team in a QB driven passing league ...

but do not complain about this post UNTIL you are ready to present facts proving it wrong because when he throws 30+ times our teams record is abysmal

thats all


You can make this argument all you want, but I'll throw this stat at you. 91-45.

That's all.

[Dwinsgames]

You can make this argument all you want, but I'll throw this stat at you. 91-45.

That's all.


the vast Majority of the 91 he threw less than 30 times.....

the majority of the 45 he threw more than 30 times .....

and you can save your " that's all's " for the one who started the condescending remarks in this thread

[steelreserve]

Look dude, the Steelers may very well get rid of him, and you will get your wish. And when it happens, I hope you enjoy your next 25 years without a franchise QB.

That is all.

Why would we go 25 years without a good QB? The only way that happens is if you aren't trying. If you're willing to do things like, you know ... use a first-round pick on a QB more than once every 20 years, chances are you'll find one. It'll take you more like one or two tries over 0-5 years, unless you are the Chicago Bears.

[Dwinsgames]

You assume, of course, that:

A: The salary cap will stay stagnant (it won't), and
B: They can't get some relief in the initial years of the extension, like the Ravens did with Flacco's contract.

So yeah, they can pay him what he wants, and still have plenty of money left over to pay the rest of the team. Besides, if you want to blame someone's contract for fucking things up, you can start with LaMarr Woodley's. Not Ben's. Bottom line, unless you are getting a shot at an Andy Luck, you DO NOT trade your franchise QB. That would simply be stupid beyond belief.

not anymore than you have outright assumed whomever replaces him will suck and we would go 25 years with the likes of Mark Malone or ( insert scrub here ) .....

at the rate Ben has been hit during his tenure here it is unreasonable to assume he will have great longevity ( couple in a face plant from a motorcycle into a car ) ... his best days are behind him , sure he may have a few good years left but then what ????? we are without him and without compensation as well .... you think it will be tough to replace him with compensation just think how hard it will be to replace him without compensation while potentially still taking a cap hit for him because this team has a dependency on restructures because of so many years of cap management neglect and the neglect that coincides with restructures itself ....

[Dwinsgames]

.

When you're far behind, you have no choice but to pass it. It stands to reason that pass- heavy games would have a bad record.


that happens sure , but in todays game throwing 30 times is closer to the norm than abnormal


today prime examples of such

Peyton Manning 40 attempts in a winning effort in which they won by more than 1 score and was not a come from behind win

Brees also 40+ attempts in a 3 point victory that is considered a rather low scoring affair in todays game Kaerpernick 31

Luck Thursday 36 attempts 3 point win

Flacco and McCown both 31 attempts in a low scoring 3 point game

Raiders rookie McGloin from PSU 32 attempts in a 5 point victory

Henne and Palmer both put it up 42 times with palmer winning by 3 scores

Ben 46 Stafford 45 attempts

Tannehill - Rivers 34 and 35 attempts respectively

Tolzien - Eli 34 and 35

Wilson -Ponder didnt combine for the attempts Ben had today
....


so yes teams down by a lot throw a lot , but teams just playing todays game for the most part throw a lot anyways

[cold-hard-steel]

Guess we will have to let this 2013 team unfold .

[X-Terminator]

not anymore than you have outright assumed whomever replaces him will suck and we would go 25 years with the likes of Mark Malone or ( insert scrub here ) .....

at the rate Ben has been hit during his tenure here it is unreasonable to assume he will have great longevity ( couple in a face plant from a motorcycle into a car ) ... his best days are behind him , sure he may have a few good years left but then what ????? we are without him and without compensation as well .... you think it will be tough to replace him with compensation just think how hard it will be to replace him without compensation while potentially still taking a cap hit for him because this team has a dependency on restructures because of so many years of cap management neglect and the neglect that coincides with restructures itself ....

See, so many fans here (not just you) assume that because Ben has been hit a lot, he won't have the longevity that other QBs have had, and/or he will severely regress to the point where he won't be worth the money or the cap hit he will get. I strongly disagree with both premises and have so for quite some time. I think Ben will play into his late 30s, and he will still be effective until then. Maybe not as good as he is now or in previous years, but still plenty good enough. Plus, has anyone associated with the team or Ben himself ever said he wanted $20 million a year? I haven't, and I take any report to the contrary with a grain of salt (I'm looking at you, Ian Rapaport). Even if they pay him that much, I doubt it's for longer than 4 or 5 years (he'll be 34 when his contract expires...anything longer than that is a risk, I will admit that). I believe Brady only signed a 3-year extension and Manning got a 3 or 4-year deal...4 years and $80 million with a hefty signing bonus wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility considering both the salary cap increase AND the expiring contracts when Ben's cap hit really takes hold. So long story short, Dwins, we will just have to agree to disagree, because IMO trading Ben would be a bad move, and I sure as shit am not ready to deal with another long stretch of sub-par QB play just to save a couple of bucks.

[Count Steeler]

If Ben and the Steelers come out aggressive and get a lead in the 1st quarter, it completely changes the dynamic. The first 9 games this year, with Haley's scripted plays, has been a colossal failure. 19 points in the 1st quarter for the first 9 games. 14 points yesterday. Completely changes the way you can play. Unfortunately, the D fell asleep in the 2nd quarter, but they played an excellent 2nd half.

If he happens to pass 30 times in yesterday's scenario, we win. If we come out with Haley's philosophy and we are behind by 14 at the end of the first, Ben passing for 30 would probably be a loss.

We NEED to come out aggressive.

[zulater]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006011500/2005/POST19/steelers@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

Here's an example of the fallacy of the 30 pass attempters (like birthers :chuckle:) and why it was always a bs proposition. The Steelers passed early and often in order to stake themselves to a 14-0 lead against the Colts in this 2005 playoff game. They did the same the following week against the Broncos in the AFC title game. Anyway first 3 series alone Ben had 14 pass attempts in this game. That's all in the first quarter. By halftime Ben had 20 pass attempts, but as Cowher was want to do he used his defense and running game to finish it off, and minimized Ben's role one the lead was established. So Ben ends up only passing 4 times in the 2nd half.

So to use this as an indictment on Ben is fucking laughable. :pointlaugh: They rode Ben to the lead in those playoff games.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006012200/2005/POST20/steelers@broncos#tab=analyze&recap=fullstory&analyze=playbyplay

[steelerdiva]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006011500/2005/POST19/steelers@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

Here's an example of the fallacy of the 30 pass attempters (like birthers :chuckle:) and why it was always a bs proposition. The Steelers passed early and often in order to stake themselves to a 14-0 lead against the Colts in this 2005 playoff game. They did the same the following week against the Broncos in the AFC title game. Anyway first 3 series alone Ben had 14 pass attempts in this game. That's all in the first quarter. By halftime Ben had 20 pass attempts, but as Cowher was want to do he used his defense and running game to finish it off, and minimized Ben's role one the lead was established. So Ben ends up only passing 4 times in the 2nd half.

So to use this as an indictment on Ben is fucking laughable. :pointlaugh: They rode Ben to the lead in those playoff games.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006012200/2005/POST20/steelers@broncos#tab=analyze&recap=fullstory&analyze=playbyplay

Score 1 for zu....

[zulater]

Score 1 for zu....


Thank you. Anyone who doesn't understand what a difference maker Ben has been his entire career isn't paying attention or doesn't understand what they're seeing. 25-30 passes from Ben was all it took for those teams to succeed. Keep in mind though those passes weren't back end passes in garbage time, they were front end plays that dictated the tempo and outcome of the game. The game manager insinuation this thread makes, as if to lump him in with the Trent Dilfer's of the world is beyond ridiculous. :doh:

Sorry Dwins but I get outsiders looking in and making this sort of statistical connection. But any Steeler fan who's witnessed Ben's entire career and sees him as a glorified game manager comes of as trolling or stupid.

[Dwinsgames]

Thank you. Anyone who doesn't understand what a difference maker Ben has been his entire career isn't paying attention or doesn't understand what they're seeing. 25-30 passes from Ben was all it took for those teams to succeed. Keep in mind though those passes weren't back end passes in garbage time, they were front end plays that dictated the tempo and outcome of the game. The game manager insinuation this thread makes, as if to lump him in with the Trent Dilfer's of the world is beyond ridiculous. :doh:

Sorry Dwins but I get outsiders looking in and making this sort of statistical connection. But any Steeler fan who's witnessed Ben's entire career and sees him as a glorified game manager comes of as trolling or stupid.


never let the facts get in the way of a good argument Zu ....

after all I have only been a steeler fan for 2 or 3 days :sarcasm:

but the fact is I was a fan when you was a twinkle in your daddy's eye ..

"Ben is a game manager" , those words are closer to truth than anything else you wrote ....

quit living off the mans reputation from a few years and a handful of games .....

[zulater]

never let the facts get in the way of a good argument Zu ....

after all I have only been a steeler fan for 2 or 3 days :sarcasm:

but the fact is I was a fan when you was a twinkle in your daddy's eye ..

"Ben is a game manager" , those words are closer to truth than anything else you wrote ....
quit living off the mans reputation from a few years and a handful of games .....

I'm 53 dude. And you're as clueless about my age as you are Ben's relative worth. Quit living off your own mis-perceptions.

[86WARD]

If Ben and the Steelers come out aggressive and get a lead in the 1st quarter, it completely changes the dynamic. The first 9 games this year, with Haley's scripted plays, has been a colossal failure. 19 points in the 1st quarter for the first 9 games. 14 points yesterday. Completely changes the way you can play. Unfortunately, the D fell asleep in the 2nd quarter, but they played an excellent 2nd half.

If he happens to pass 30 times in yesterday's scenario, we win. If we come out with Haley's philosophy and we are behind by 14 at the end of the first, Ben passing for 30 would probably be a loss.

We NEED to come out aggressive.

This

[86WARD]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006011500/2005/POST19/steelers@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

Here's an example of the fallacy of the 30 pass attempters (like birthers :chuckle:) and why it was always a bs proposition. The Steelers passed early and often in order to stake themselves to a 14-0 lead against the Colts in this 2005 playoff game. They did the same the following week against the Broncos in the AFC title game. Anyway first 3 series alone Ben had 14 pass attempts in this game. That's all in the first quarter. By halftime Ben had 20 pass attempts, but as Cowher was want to do he used his defense and running game to finish it off, and minimized Ben's role one the lead was established. So Ben ends up only passing 4 times in the 2nd half.

So to use this as an indictment on Ben is fucking laughable. :pointlaugh: They rode Ben to the lead in those playoff games.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006012200/2005/POST20/steelers@broncos#tab=analyze&recap=fullstory&analyze=playbyplay

...and this.

[Dwinsgames]

I'm 53 dude. And you're as clueless about my age as you are Ben's relative worth. Quit living off your own mis-perceptions.


dam you act like Carl ....

and this ....

He deserves better than what this organization can give him.

Seriously this team is going to be bad for a long time. Need a full rebuilding and a different construction team.

Anyway after your 3-13 season get what you can for him, because you'll never be a contender in his career span again.

you put the player not only above the team but the entire organization talk about CLASSIC idiocy

then you turn around and tell us this Uber great player is more worthy than the entire organization and all of its parts combined would only be capable of 3 wins on his super human talents .....

your head has always been harder than a cement block once you have your mind made up . nothing has changed ...so with all that superior football knowledge to the rest of us ( whom know nothing compared to you ) please enlighten us of all things football including some draft profiles on whom we should be targeting and how they fit this team moving forward , some coaches to fulfill our impending vacancies and how and why they fit what we are trying to do schematically etc ....

we are all ears to your wealth of knowledge but somehow I suspect we will get a bunch of fence crawling esp when it comes to specifics and you will do as you always do and revert to your blind faith to the organizational powers that be to know best then to bitch and complain when they fail ....

you are always quick to attack anything that does not conform to your line of thinking but never have a fucking clue on what to do as a backup plan other than complain ... nothing has changed in the last 10 years why would I or anyone else expect it to change now

[zulater]

dam you act like Carl ....

and this ....


you put the player not only above the team but the entire organization talk about CLASSIC idiocy

then you turn around and tell us this Uber great player is more worthy than the entire organization and all of its parts combined would only be capable of 3 wins on his super human talents .....

your head has always been harder than a cement block once you have your mind made up . nothing has changed ...so with all that superior football knowledge to the rest of us ( whom know nothing compared to you ) please enlighten us of all things football including some draft profiles on whom we should be targeting and how they fit this team moving forward , some coaches to fulfill our impending vacancies and how and why they fit what we are trying to do schematically etc ....

we are all ears to your wealth of knowledge but somehow I suspect we will get a bunch of fence crawling esp when it comes to specifics and you will do as you always do and revert to your blind faith to the organizational powers that be to know best then to bitch and complain when they fail ....

you are always quick to attack anything that does not conform to your line of thinking but never have a fucking clue on what to do as a backup plan other than complain ... nothing has changed in the last 10 years why would I or anyone else expect it to change now


Impressive ramble. Did anyone bother trying to read it though? :yawn: Let me know if there's anything pertinent in there, because I sure didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a good stat. The Steelers are 49-4 when Ben puts up a passer rating off 100+. Guess his arm does have some influence over the outcome of the games after all?

[Dwinsgames]

Here's a good stat. The Steelers are 49-4 when Ben puts up a passer rating off 100+. Guess his arm does have some influence over the outcome of the games after all?


to bad he has more games in the 70s than he does in the 100s in 2013 but hey its not his fault when he does bad ( find someone else to blame ) but you damn sure have to give him all the credit when he does well ...


and guess what every QB in the nfl has a winning record ( by a landslide margin ) when they have a rating over 100 ....


http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6



(http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6)

[zulater]

to bad he has more games in the 70s than he does in the 100s in 2013 but hey its not his fault when he does bad ( find someone else to blame ) but you damn sure have to give him all the credit when he does well ...


and guess what every QB in the nfl has a winning record ( by a landslide margin ) when they have a rating over 100 ....


http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6



(http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6)

Cut him he sucks. The Steelers would be 10-0 with a good quarterback.

Trade our 1st rounder for Foles!

[Dwinsgames]

Cut him he sucks. The Steelers woiud be 10-0 with a good quarterback.


Yep , I said that :sarcasm:..... once again make it up as you go along :crazy:

[fansince'76]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2006011500/2005/POST19/steelers@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

Here's an example of the fallacy of the 30 pass attempters (like birthers :chuckle:) and why it was always a bs proposition. The Steelers passed early and often in order to stake themselves to a 14-0 lead against the Colts in this 2005 playoff game. They did the same the following week against the Broncos in the AFC title game. Anyway first 3 series alone Ben had 14 pass attempts in this game. That's all in the first quarter. By halftime Ben had 20 pass attempts, but as Cowher was want to do he used his defense and running game to finish it off, and minimized Ben's role one the lead was established. So Ben ends up only passing 4 times in the 2nd half.

And we damn near lost that game against the Colts by turtling up like that as I recall. Should have NEVER come down to Ben having to make a miracle tackle.

[zulater]

Yep , I said that :sarcasm:..... once again make it up as you go along :crazy:

You might as well have said it. Well actually you'd want to get Foles for a 2nd ( you couldn't get him for less if they do put him on the trade block this offseason)


So admit it. If you could get out from under Ben's contract and get Foles for a 2nd you'd jump at it. Getting a talented guy on a rookie contract is the ultimate cap remedy correct?


And in your mind Foles is as good or better than Ben is now and possibly ever was.

So of course I spoke the truth.

[fansince'76]

to bad he has more games in the 70s than he does in the 100s in 2013...

So does Brady (http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/2330/tom-brady) (who is the blueprint of what the Ben naysayers say Ben should try to be), yet the Pats are 7-2. Go figure. :noidea:

[Dwinsgames]

You might as well have said it. Well actually you'd want to get Foles for a 2nd ( you couldn't get him for less if they do put him on the trade block this offseason)


So admit it. If you could get out from under Ben's contract and get Foles for a 2nd you'd jump at it. Getting a talented guy on a rookie contract is the ultimate cap remedy correct?


And in your mind Foles is as good or better than Ben is now and possibly ever was.

So of course I spoke the truth.


Nope never suggested it nor thought it .... Foles will not be on the block he will be the starter in 2014 in Philly

no point considering something that would be a virtual impossibility .... but getting a talented guy on a rookie wage scale is a cap remedy ( that part is correct and goes for every pos not just QB )

Never made that statement , but Foles is playing lights out and anyone that does not realize that is blind or stupid ....

you made it up , guessed or fantasized what my thoughts are ....



IF Ben is traded I would draft a rookie , I would also consider taking a look at Kirk Cousins to compete with a rookie draft pick if he could be pried away from the Skins for a middle round pick ( which I highly doubt ) ...

what I am looking at is we have a lot of holes that need filled and very little money to do so to be competitive , I also am looking at the fact this team in unlikely to win another championship with Ben because of the holes that need filled and the lack of cap space to fill them adequately to be a championship caliber team ....

what good is Ben if the best you can do is mediocrity with him ?

are we not better served if a trade became available that is fair ( or better than fair ) to move on , save the money and use the picks to rebuild and get our cap straightened out in the process ?

why waist the few years Ben has left struggling to be average when we can be average anyways and fix the team in that same time frame and build for the future ?

[zulater]

Nope never suggested it nor thought it .... Foles will not be on the block he will be the starter in 2014 in Philly

no point considering something that would be a virtual impossibility .... but getting a talented guy on a rookie wage scale is a cap remedy ( that part is correct and goes for every pos not just QB )

Never made that statement , but Foles is playing lights out and anyone that does not realize that is blind or stupid ....

you made it up , guessed or fantasized what my thoughts are ....



IF Ben is traded I would draft a rookie , I would also consider taking a look at Kirk Cousins to compete with a rookie draft pick if he could be pried away from the Skins for a middle round pick ( which I highly doubt ) ...

what I am looking at is we have a lot of holes that need filled and very little money to do so to be competitive , I also am looking at the fact this team in unlikely to win another championship with Ben because of the holes that need filled and the lack of cap space to fill them adequately to be a championship caliber team ....

what good is Ben if the best you can do is mediocrity with him ?

are we not better served if a trade became available that is fair ( or better than fair ) to move on , save the money and use the picks to rebuild and get our cap straightened out in the process ?

why waist the few years Ben has left struggling to be average when we can be average anyways and fix the team in that same time frame and build for the future ?

I never said there weren't solid reasons to consider trading Ben. In fact I was the first to suggest that it might come to that sooner or later.

But I don't need to diminish Ben or minimize his contributions to this team now or in the past in order to make that case. In other words that's a separate issue to me.

[zulater]

Just remember passer rating doesn't reward volume, it measures efficiency, and ratings are based on making the most of your attempts.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

And Ben stacks up pretty well here.

[st33lersguy]

There are probably at least 20 teams that would die for a QB like Ben

[Dwinsgames]

There are probably at least 20 teams that would die for a QB like Ben


if that is the case the Steelers sit in a pretty good spot if they intend to field offers .....

let the bidding war begin and lets see where it takes us ..... you should ALWAYS be willing to listen to offers , you do not have to accept something you do not feel is a good deal

[Shoes]

I honestly believe Ben will take a lot less $ than folks think. He has said over and over he want's to remain a Pittsburgh Steeler…. I say he'll back it up when it's money talk time. We get the O-line fixed……. I mean really fixed….Ben will be able to get at least one more SB, maybe two.

[fansince'76]

I honestly believe Ben will take a lot less $ than folks think. He has said over and over he want's to remain a Pittsburgh Steeler…. I say he'll back it up when it's money talk time.

I do as well. He already made his big money with the $100 million contract, which he has almost fulfilled (and that rarely ever happens with those kinds of contracts). I can see him taking a substantial haircut on an extension to help the team get better if he is really serious about wanting to win 5 rings. The clock is ticking.

[LLT]

the vast Majority of the 91 he threw less than 30 times.....

the majority of the 45 he threw more than 30 times .....



...And the reality of the game of football is that you ALWAYS throw more often when you are losing, 1) because of clock management and 2) because you need big yards on each play.

So you have to admit that some of those stats are a direct result of Ben having to throw when we are behind by scores that proved to be insurmountable....correct?

[Craic]

I honestly believe Ben will take a lot less $ than folks think. He has said over and over he want's to remain a Pittsburgh Steeler…. I say he'll back it up when it's money talk time. We get the O-line fixed……. I mean really fixed….Ben will be able to get at least one more SB, maybe two.


I do as well. He already made his big money with the $100 million contract, which he has almost fulfilled (and that rarely ever happens with those kinds of contracts). I can see him taking a substantial haircut on an extension to help the team get better if he is really serious about wanting to win 5 rings. The clock is ticking.

This and this.

Has Ben lost something? Yeah. He doesn't have the magic he used to have, when he'd basically will a broken offense to victory. Fact of the matter is, an 85% Ben is 90% better than the rest of the league.

[Dwinsgames]

...And the reality of the game of football is that you ALWAYS throw more often when you are losing, 1) because of clock management and 2) because you need big yards on each play.

So you have to admit that some of those stats are a direct result of Ben having to throw when we are behind by scores that proved to be insurmountable....correct?

to a degree yes , but not the mark of 30 ...... teams sling it on average of 30+ times a game in many cities in the league ( perhaps most cities ) in todays NFL ...

I am saying Ben is not built to be that guy , sure he will win one here and there with that formula but not consistently he makes far to many mental errors to be that kind of QB...

not that there is anything wrong with that provided you place him in a system more attuned to his skill set , run the ball 30-35 times a game and throw it 25 times a game he can still be dangerous but at the same time less dangerous to his own team by making mental mistakes and adjust that formula only when necessary ....

Ben is an old school style QB he is not Peyton Manning and trying to impersonate Mannings game style is playing against his makeup ....

give him a strong running game , open up play action and he is as deadly as they get but that is not what we have been doing at all

[Craic]

to a degree yes , but not the mark of 30 ...... teams sling it on average of 30+ times a game in many cities in the league ( perhaps most cities ) in todays NFL ...

I am saying Ben is not built to be that guy , sure he will win one here and there with that formula but not consistently he makes far to many mental errors to be that kind of QB...

not that there is anything wrong with that provided you place him in a system more attuned to his skill set , run the ball 30-35 times a game and throw it 25 times a game he can still be dangerous but at the same time less dangerous to his own team by making mental mistakes and adjust that formula only when necessary ....

Ben is an old school style QB he is not Peyton Manning and trying to impersonate Mannings game style is playing against his makeup ....

give him a strong running game , open up play action and he is as deadly as they get but that is not what we have been doing at all

And yet, there was NO running game to speak of in 2008. There was little if any running game in 2010. Both times, we went the SB. Both times, we were dependent on Ben to lead us from behind to win games that got us there (and in the case of 2008, win).

Is Ben the most accurate? No. Does he force things at times? Yes. But what I think you're forgetting, is that most of those mistakes come when we're behind and Ben's having to force things that isn't there. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But seriously, we haven't had a run game since Willie Parker left, and if you take away his long runs, we didn't even have one then!

[Mojouw]

I think we are missing an important component here. How many of the bad things that happen when Ben puts it up 30+ times a game are because of sandlot football? How many of his cringe worthy picks are because he throws up some half-assed prayer with defenders draped all over him?

I bet it is a decent amount. I think with Roethlisberger you have to live by sword and die by the sword with him. If you want him to convert 3rd and a country mile with a totally collapsing pocket, or run around and do the kinds of things that beat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl, then you have to live with a bunch of bad stuff.

Two sides of a coin.

[LLT]

to a degree yes , but not the mark of 30 ...... teams sling it on average of 30+ times a game in many cities in the league ( perhaps most cities ) in todays NFL ...

I am saying Ben is not built to be that guy , sure he will win one here and there with that formula but not consistently he makes far to many mental errors to be that kind of QB...

not that there is anything wrong with that provided you place him in a system more attuned to his skill set , run the ball 30-35 times a game and throw it 25 times a game he can still be dangerous but at the same time less dangerous to his own team by making mental mistakes and adjust that formula only when necessary ....

Ben is an old school style QB he is not Peyton Manning and trying to impersonate Mannings game style is playing against his makeup ....

give him a strong running game , open up play action and he is as deadly as they get but that is not what we have been doing at all

But here is the kicker...by admitting that those stats are possibly a direct result of Ben having to throw when we are behind by scores that proved to be insurmountable...then you have to know that the stats are slanted against Ben because, in those situations, the other team is going to be ready for the pass.

[steeldawg]

...And the reality of the game of football is that you ALWAYS throw more often when you are losing, 1) because of clock management and 2) because you need big yards on each play.

So you have to admit that some of those stats are a direct result of Ben having to throw when we are behind by scores that proved to be insurmountable....correct?

This is exactly right If you are throwing the ball less than 30 times in a game your probably nursing a comfortable lead so your more likely to come away with a win in those situations. If your involved in a shootout or trying to mount a comeback you will throw more passes and in those situations a loss is more likely.

[Dwinsgames]

But here is the kicker...by admitting that those stats are possibly a direct result of Ben having to throw when we are behind by scores that proved to be insurmountable...then you have to know that the stats are slanted against Ben because, in those situations, the other team is going to be ready for the pass.

many of those games throwing the ball is what got us behind too ( insurmountably so ) , Turnovers kill and Ben seems to toss them at the most inopportune times esp against teams we should beat handily and we end up with a loss after throwing 40 balls or more to try and make up for the two that got away from him early and cost us 14 points

its as broad as it is wide in many cases

- - - Updated - - -


If your involved in a shootout or trying to mount a comeback you will throw more passes and in those situations a loss is more likely.

not if your guy is better than their guy if both teams are airing it out " shoot out " the better QB should win the bulk of those matchups

[Craic]

not if your guy is better than their guy if both teams are airing it out " shoot out " the better QB should win the bulk of those matchups
That completely ignores the fact that there's 11 guys on the opposite side of the ball. It also ignores the fact that you throw the ball TOO someone, who has to catch it. Of course, then you have the guys blocking for you.

When you dismiss 21 other people on the field to prove a point, the point's no longer worth proving.

[Shoes]

Ben hasn't had the pleasure of having a moat around him as Brady and Manning have. He has one more SB than Manning and one less than Brady. Manning and Brady would have had zero SB's if in Ben's place imo. Does he always make the right field decisions? No, but I believe he's earned the right to play his last seasons behind a solid O-line….something he's never really had.

[Craic]

Ben hasn't had the pleasure of having a moat around him as Brady and Manning have. He has one more SB than Manning and one less than Brady. Manning and Brady would have had zero SB's if in Ben's place imo. Does he always make the right field decisions? No, but I believe he's earned the right to play his last seasons behind a solid O-line….something he's never really had.

I wouldn't say that. he had a solid line his first two years. But in general, your point is right on.

[Butch]

Ok I have read about 1/2 this thread and that's about all I can take at this point.

Ok so when Ben throws 30 or more we lose. Who if anyone is shocked by this???

Being a fan of a team for x more years than someone else does not mean squat unless you are reminising on players you saw play, it doesn't make you any wiser.

Now one more for the sake of arguments and it ties in with stats. How good is Phil rivers in the regular season??? How many really great QB's have never won a Superbowl??? Hell Marino had stats for all eternity...but he never won a Superbowl. How bout Dan Fouts???

Anyone who calls Ben a game manager go look at the final drive against the cards in 43. Look at what he did his rookie year against Dallas. Game manager my ass. sorry if that offends but those are my feelings.

Oh and one more thing if you state something as fact make sure it really is fact and not opinion. Saying we will never win another Superbowl with Ben as our QB is opinion. If may become fact, but at this point it is ones opinion.

[Dwinsgames]

That completely ignores the fact that there's 11 guys on the opposite side of the ball. It also ignores the fact that you throw the ball TOO someone, who has to catch it. Of course, then you have the guys blocking for you.

When you dismiss 21 other people on the field to prove a point, the point's no longer worth proving.

sorry not ignoring it in the slightest , considering every season but this one that Ben has been here he played with a top 10 ( most times top 5 ) def on HIS team and most times he has faced lesser defenses against him ....

and come on he has has some pretty good talent at WR and TE so lets not bother heading down that road

[Butch]

what I am looking at is we have a lot of holes that need filled and very little money to do so to be competitive , I also am looking at the fact this team in unlikely to win another championship with Ben because of the holes that need filled and the lack of cap space to fill them adequately to be a championship caliber team ....


This is not fact it's an opinion

[Dwinsgames]

Ben hasn't had the pleasure of having a moat around him as Brady and Manning have. He has one more SB than Manning and one less than Brady. Manning and Brady would have had zero SB's if in Ben's place imo. Does he always make the right field decisions? No, but I believe he's earned the right to play his last seasons behind a solid O-line….something he's never really had.


Mannings line has backups starting too ....

and you are actually helping my point by bringing him back into the conversation and SB wins ..... Manning never had a def in indy because he took up so dam much of the cap they could not afford much else and still field a 53 man roster , a few stars on D but the rest was backups compared to what we fielded on D

- - - Updated - - -


This is not fact it's an opinion


ok sport where we going to find a dozen plus players worth a dam to fill our roster ( and a handful of them need to be starter quality ) with about 7 mill in cap space for 2014 or is our cap situation just opinion too ?

[Butch]

Sport??? Yeah ok whatever you are either trying to get under my skin or you just got a little full of yourself.

There are plenty of players who could be looked at as cap liabilities. You don't even know what Ben is going to be getting and yet you are all ready to send him packing. I disagree with you and anyone else who feels like this and I don't need any stats it's called having a gut feeling.

Do I understand you correctly that Ben is a game manager??? Based on what some lousy stats??? He's done pretty well in games that count. Not perfect, a damn site better than a lot of others.

The Greatest Steeler coach of all time had a saying about stats and I agree whole heartedly with him. Emperor Chaz "Stats are for losers".

Let's see neal o'donnel had some pretty damn good defense and was one of the most accurate qb's at the time he played. How did that turn out???

[Dwinsgames]

. You don't even know what Ben is going to be getting and yet you are all ready to send him packing. I disagree with you and anyone else who feels like this and I don't need any stats it's called having a gut feeling.



1) Yes I have a dam good clue what he is going to get in 2014 its all right here and posted in another thread I started on the cap so you stand corrected http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/18753-2014-Salary-cap

2) a gut feeling , is that not opinion ??? sorry I did not realize I was not permitted to have mine and backed up by something more than what Might be confused with indigestion

[Butch]

1) Yes I have a dam good clue what he is going to get in 2014 its all right here and posted in another thread I started on the cap so you stand corrected http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/18753-2014-Salary-cap

2) a gut feeling , is that not opinion ??? sorry I did not realize I was not permitted to have mine and backed up by something more than what Might be confused with indigestion

Hmmm where did I ever say you couldn't state your opinion??? No what I was pointing out to you is that you represented your opinion as FACT, it's not. If you want to state your opinion state it as an opinion not a FACT.

Re read what I have posted and point out where I have said you couldn't post your opinion. Seems like you are not reading the entire post rather you are getting twisted around one little piece of the post.

It's very much like stats, you can twist those too.

[SteelMagnolia]

I wouldn't say that. he had a solid line his first two years. But in general, your point is right on.

De-lurking to quickly add: yeah, maybe the run blocking was solid.... but the pass pro pretty much sucked in those years too.

.....OK.....carry on...... :couch2:

[Shoes]

>snip<


Mannings line has backups starting too ....

Which makes it pretty clear that Denvers backups are better than our starters since Manning wasn't touched yesterday.

[fansince'76]

Which makes it pretty clear that Denvers backups are better than our starters since Manning wasn't touched yesterday.

I'm hoping the OL is finally starting to come around - Ben stayed pretty clean yesterday and Detroit's defensive front are no slouches. We do have to remember that we have the youngest OL in the league.

[Dwinsgames]

>snip<



Which makes it pretty clear that Denvers backups are better than our starters since Manning wasn't touched yesterday.

it seems that way , but I am not sure it is that way ....

1) Adams should be a RT but he isnt on this team for whatever reason ( square peg round hole ) who is to blame is where the debate begins

2) Foster is a RG who is playing LG ( another square peg round hole ) he does not have the feet and agility to pull like we expect our LG to do ...again who is to blame is up for debate

3) No Natural depth at T to start the season other than the guy you have slated as the top backup for every spot on the line and is now the starter at LT .... who is to blame is the debate again

4) No backup C other than your now starting LT at the start the season ...... who gets the blame ???

5) the man starting at LT was the backup RT. LT.RG.LG. and C as well as taking reps at TE , classic example of putting all your eggs in the same basket ..who is to blame ??????

6) going into the season with no proven depth on the o-line KNOWING the starting RT . LT and C all have durability concerns coupled with not knowing if the guy penciled in at LT can even do the job

common theme here no depth , no anticipation of injury , no plan B if your original plan fails ...only 2 directions to point the finger ... Tomlin or Colbert or some combination of both

that being said we still have the square peg round hole syndrome aspect to look at and for me that is on Tomlin and Bicknell ..someone has to be responsible for evaluation at practices and determine the best fits for each spot on the line and simply put they failed in their duties to do so .....

but back to the original part of it , I am not sure I would say Denvers line is more talented but they are deeper no doubt because we have no depth , I would say they are WAY better coached and put in a pos to succeed , I would also Add Mannings awareness does not hurt

[zulater]

I'm hoping the OL is finally starting to come around - Ben stayed pretty clean yesterday and Detroit's defensive front are no slouches. We do have to remember that we have the youngest OL in the league.

No huddle shotgun helps the line. You dictate pace and keep defensive replacements to a minimum. Why the Steelers couldn't figure this out before we got 10 games in is beyond me?

[Psycho Ward 86]

it seems that way , but I am not sure it is that way ....

1) Adams should be a RT but he isnt on this team for whatever reason ( square peg round hole ) who is to blame is where the debate begins

2) Foster is a RG who is playing LG ( another square peg round hole ) he does not have the feet and agility to pull like we expect our LG to do ...again who is to blame is up for debate

3) No Natural depth at T to start the season other than the guy you have slated as the top backup for every spot on the line and is now the starter at LT .... who is to blame is the debate again

4) No backup C other than your now starting LT at the start the season ...... who gets the blame ???

5) the man starting at LT was the backup RT. LT.RG.LG. and C as well as taking reps at TE , classic example of putting all your eggs in the same basket ..who is to blame ??????

6) going into the season with no proven depth on the o-line KNOWING the starting RT . LT and C all have durability concerns coupled with not knowing if the guy penciled in at LT can even do the job

common theme here no depth , no anticipation of injury , no plan B if your original plan fails ...only 2 directions to point the finger ... Tomlin or Colbert or some combination of both

that being said we still have the square peg round hole syndrome aspect to look at and for me that is on Tomlin and Bicknell ..someone has to be responsible for evaluation at practices and determine the best fits for each spot on the line and simply put they failed in their duties to do so .....

but back to the original part of it , I am not sure I would say Denvers line is more talented but they are deeper no doubt because we have no depth , I would say they are WAY better coached and put in a pos to succeed , I would also Add Mannings awareness does not hurt

thats a pretty big post thats mostly about salary cap that can be answered with one sentence.

We like to shit on our salary cap

[Shoes]

No huddle shotgun helps the line. You dictate pace and keep defensive replacements to a minimum. Why the Steelers couldn't figure this out before we got 10 games in is beyond me?

Don't get me started on Tomlin! :chuckle:

[zulater]

Big Ben, Browns and a touchstone moment

http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/1878/ben-the-browns-and-a-touchstone-moment

The Pittsburgh Steelers always provide the Cleveland Browns a measuring stick. One way to measure is to realize that the Steelers have had Ben Roethlisberger starting at quarterback since he was a first-round draft pick in 2004.

How that happened constantly provides the Browns with a nightmare memory of one of those touchstone moments when the entire course of two franchises could have changed based on one decision.

Butch Davis was coach of the Browns then, and the team was coming off a 5-11 season in which Tim Couch and Kelly Holcomb each started eight games.

Davis started the 2003 season with Holcomb, based mainly on his 400-yard plus playoff performance in Pittsburgh the season before -- a game Couch missed with a broken leg.

But Holcomb broke his leg in '03 on a quarterback sneak in San Francisco -- a break Davis called "a teeny, tiny break in a non-weight bearing bone."

Couch and Holcomb see-sawed back and forth until Holcomb threw a couple of interceptions in a Monday night loss to St. Louis. After that game, Davis called Couch in his office and told him he was his quarterback for years to come.

The Browns had the seventh pick in the first round. The front office wanted tight end Kellen Winslow or wide receiver Roy Williams. Davis tried to trade up for safety Sean Taylor, but after initially saying yes to the deal the Giants changed their mind and instead swapped Philip Rivers for Eli Manning.

San Diego and New York both found their quarterback.

Davis never really considered Roethlisberger -- even though he had thrown for more than 10,000 yards at Miami of Ohio and even though he grew up in Findlay, Ohio.

Davis privately told people he simply was not a Roethlisberger guy.

The Browns coach favored one of two kinds of players: Guys he recruited and signed to the University of Miami, and guys he tried to recruit.

Winslow and Taylor fit the profile; Roethlisberger was from the MAC and didn’t.

The Browns wound up trading up one spot in the draft to get Winslow and gave up a second-round pick to do it.

Roethlisberger went to the Steelers at No. 11. He went on to win Rookie of the Year and take the Steelers to the AFC Championship Game in his first season. He eventually won two Super Bowls.

The Browns signed Jeff Garcia, cut Couch (the quarterback for years to come) and went 4-12 in '04 only because Holcomb started the last game and won it.

They are still looking for their quarterback.

In a draft in which three franchises found quarterbacks who are still starting for the teams that drafted or dealt for them on draft day, the Browns got a tight end and traded a second-round pick to move up one spot for him.

Since the Steelers drafted Roethlisberger in 2004, the Browns took two other quarterbacks in the first round (Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden) and two in the third round (Charlie Frye and Colt McCoy). They may take another in 2014.

Since the Manning-Rivers-Roethlisberger draft, the Browns have used 17 starting quarterbacks. And in games Roethlisberger has started against the Browns, the Steelers are 15-1.

[cold-hard-steel]

The "hard facts are cold " similar to "cold - hard -steel " . Rock on ZU !

[steelerdude15]

the vast Majority of the 91 he threw less than 30 times.....

the majority of the 45 he threw more than 30 times .....

and you can save your " that's all's " for the one who started the condescending remarks in this thread

So, did you actually do your research and see that he threw less than thirty times in those ninety-one wins or are you just saying that?

On top of that, you were the one who started with that's all. Don't bash others for "condescending remarks" when you started it with your original post.

[Shoes]

Good thing we're all pulling for the same team. :chuckle:

[Dwinsgames]

So, did you actually do your research and see that he threw less than thirty times in those ninety-one wins or are you just saying that?

On top of that, you were the one who started with that's all. Don't bash others for "condescending remarks" when you started it with your original post.

guess you didn't read the initial post

[steelerdude15]

I did read the original post. Did you research those numbers? Are you going to answer my question in my previous post?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Ben.

[Dwinsgames]

I did read the original post. Did you research those numbers? Are you going to answer my question in my previous post?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Ben.


http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2004/ben-roethlisberger

use the year selector and view every season of his career game by game he wins the vast majority of the games he throws less than 30 times and loses more often than not when that number exceeds 30 .... piss moan argue and twist my words and then when I answer you you say that was not what ya meant when its clear what you asked ....

you complain about steeldawg but you are two pees in a pod

[steelerdude15]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2004/ben-roethlisberger

use the year selector and view every season of his career game by game he wins the vast majority of the games he throws less than 30 times and loses more often than not when that number exceeds 30 .... piss moan argue and twist my words and then when I answer you you say that was not what ya meant when its clear what you asked ....

you complain about steeldawg but you are two pees in a pod

I think its pretty clear you're twisting my words as well. When on God's green Earth did I ever say anything bad or anything at all about steeldawg? I have never said anything about him. I have nothing against him nor anyone on this forum.

How on Earth am I moaning and saying that's not what you meant? I'm not twisting anything around. You argued a stat and I argued a stat. I don't see how that is twisting anything. Plus my question was about my stat that I presented to the post. Like I said, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Dwinsgames]

Plus my question was about my stat that I presented to the post.

what stat , I am not seeing it ??

[steelerdude15]

what stat , I am not seeing it ??

The stat that he is 91-45 as a starter.

[Dwinsgames]

The stat that he is 91-45 as a starter.

yea and here is the link to the data , have a look for yourself count em up he is far better with 30 or less throws http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2004/ben-roethlisberger

[steelerdude15]

yea and here is the link to the data , have a look for yourself count em up he is far better with 30 or less throws http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2004/ben-roethlisberger


O well, I've always argued that stats alone won't determine if a person is a great football player. There is much more to it than stats. Personally, if Ben throws under or over thirty times a game, I don't care. As long as the Steelers get the most important stat and that's a win, I'm happy.

[Dwinsgames]

36 losses thus far when he throws 30 or more times considering he has only 45 losses as the Steelers starter I would say that is a significant percentage of those losses ......

so yes the vast majority of his losses came with over 30 throws and the vast majority of his wins where where he threw 30 or less times

My guess is the coaching staff has no idea or they would devise a game plan to keep his attempts to 30 or less to maximize the chances of winning based on the averages

[steelerdude15]

do yourself a favor first and LOOK at Bens record as a starting QB when he throws 30 times or more a game .....

Then tell me he is the guy you want leading this team in a QB driven passing league ...

but do not complain about this post UNTIL you are ready to present facts proving it wrong because when he throws 30+ times our teams record is abysmal

thats all

So, after looking at the stats and checking my work five times, Ben has a 41-38 record as a starting quarterback when he throws at least thirty times a game. While that could be considered average, I wouldn't consider it abysmal. So with that being said, he has a winning record when he throws thirty times or more a game. My numbers included the postseason.

- - - Updated - - -


36 losses thus far when he throws 30 or more times considering he has only 45 losses as the Steelers starter I would say that is a significant percentage of those losses ......

so yes the vast majority of his losses came with over 30 throws and the vast majority of his wins where where he threw 30 or less times

My guess is the coaching staff has no idea or they would devise a game plan to keep his attempts to 30 or less to maximize the chances of winning based on the averages

We also must remember that there have been plenty of games, including this year, where we have been losing and the team has tried to pull even in those games. That could also explain the why his numbers could be this way.

[Psycho Ward 86]

this whole 30 or more/less throws thing has a little bit of merit, but it kind of doesnt because you arent accounting for so many other variables such as Ben improving during his career, and Ben's O-line getting progressively shittier and shittier

[Dwinsgames]

So, after looking at the stats and checking my work five times, Ben has a 41-38 record as a starting quarterback when he throws at least thirty times a game. While that could be considered average, I wouldn't consider it abysmal. So with that being said, he has a winning record when he throws thirty times or more a game. My numbers included the postseason.

- - - Updated - - -



We also must remember that there have been plenty of games, including this year, where we have been losing and the team has tried to pull even in those games. That could also explain the why his numbers could be this way.


30 is the magic number and should not be deviated from unless circumstances dictate it

- - - Updated - - -


this whole 30 or more/less throws thing has a little bit of merit, but it kind of doesnt because you arent accounting for so many other variables such as Ben improving during his career, and Ben's O-line getting progressively shittier and shittier

its been that way his entire career regardless of the talent around him so the other variables do not seem to matter in this case based on the numbers , I normally would agree with you IF there was a few year stretch where the line was significantly better and the results where also significantly better but that is not the case as the data shows

[Dwinsgames]

We also must remember that there have been plenty of games, including this year, where we have been losing and the team has tried to pull even in those games. That could also explain the why his numbers could be this way.


fair enough but if we are willing to do that then we also must be willing to look at why we got in that position to begin with and many times it was due to poor decision making and costly turnovers resulting from those decisions ....

turnovers kill , minimizing those errors comes with minimizing the passing numbers esp with a porous O-line Ben has been his own worst enemy in many games with fumbles and int's putting us in a deficit we where then unable to over come ....

sure the line sucks and I agree they are a large part of the problem but putting your QB in a situation where he is doomed to fail eventually because of them but that comes back to game planning and coaching an entirely different conversation ....

[Psycho Ward 86]

its been that way his entire career regardless of the talent around him so the other variables do not seem to matter in this case based on the numbers , I normally would agree with you IF there was a few year stretch where the line was significantly better and the results where also significantly better but that is not the case as the data shows

Simply put, which quarterbacks around the league do you honestly think could succeed behind the parking cones that make up our offensive line from 2006 to current day?

[Dwinsgames]

Simply put, which quarterbacks around the league do you honestly think could succeed behind the parking cones that make up our offensive line from 2006 to current day?


who knows , I surely do not ... nobody does

hell we haven't been able to keep Ben healthy and he is one of the bigger built QBs in the league at 240+ ....

its not all about those traffic cones though , its coaching man .... its putting players in a pos to succeed and IN pos....

Adams is 10 times the RT Gilbert is yet Adams sits and enters the game as a situational blocker at the TE pos because our coaches are stupid ....

Fosters best pos is RG yet he is playing LG

if you do not put players in a pos to succeed much of what you do thereafter is doomed to fail , you have to win 1 on 1 battles before you win team battles consistently but I didn't have to tell you that I am sure

[Seven]

What's the end game here, Dwins? You want to trade Ben? For what, a first round pick? I don't get it. I don't get how a first round pick (Jones, DeCastro, Heyward) is worth losing a top tier quarterback who has 3 - 6 years left in the tank. Hell, even if we say he only has two years left, give me two years with Ben over anything we'd get in return for him. Fact of the matter is, he's only what, 31? Quarterbacks can play until their almost 40, even ones who have taken plenty of hits. Trent Green was what, 39 when he left the game? He was a rag doll his entire career and still managed to play until he was almost 40. Green is no Ben, but there were several seasons there were he got absolutely destroyed behind awful offensive lines. I don't see why you would even consider trading Ben Roethlisberger, one of the best quarterbacks in the game, in the history of the game, for not much in return. Who are you going to replace him with? For every Nick Foles and Russell Wilson there are twelve Christian Ponder's. Do you really want to take that gamble when we have a champion at the position available for anywhere from 2 - 7 seasons left? I understand the premium to sign him will be high, but how is it not worth it? I just don't get this idea that somehow, trading your franchise quarterback is a good move. I don't think the Rooney's would ever make a mistake like that. Unless Arians wants to make some Herschel Walker style trade for him, I see absolutely nothing that would prompt me to trade Ben.

[Dwinsgames]

What's the end game here, Dwins? You want to trade Ben? For what, a first round pick? I don't get it. I don't get how a first round pick (Jones, DeCastro, Heyward) is worth losing a top tier quarterback who has 3 - 6 years left in the tank. Hell, even if we say he only has two years left, give me two years with Ben over anything we'd get in return for him. Fact of the matter is, he's only what, 31? Quarterbacks can play until their almost 40, even ones who have taken plenty of hits. Trent Green was what, 39 when he left the game? He was a rag doll his entire career and still managed to play until he was almost 40. Green is no Ben, but there were several seasons there were he got absolutely destroyed behind awful offensive lines. I don't see why you would even consider trading Ben Roethlisberger, one of the best quarterbacks in the game, in the history of the game, for not much in return. Who are you going to replace him with? For every Nick Foles and Russell Wilson there are twelve Christian Ponder's. Do you really want to take that gamble when we have a champion at the position available for anywhere from 2 - 7 seasons left? I understand the premium to sign him will be high, but how is it not worth it? I just don't get this idea that somehow, trading your franchise quarterback is a good move. I don't think the Rooney's would ever make a mistake like that. Unless Arians wants to make some Herschel Walker style trade for him, I see absolutely nothing that would prompt me to trade Ben.

as it stands I wouldnt want Zona's 1st rounder without most of the rest of their draft ... they are doing fairly well in the W-L department and look to draft later ( at this point than we are )

I would take a top 10 pick and a 3rd rounder ( two selections in the first 75 picks on top of the ones we already own fills some holes limits some base salaries and lessens the cap burden as well as getting younger team wide ) because of our cap situation , amount of team holes and his contract expires in two years and I do not think we can afford to keep him at that point without handcuffing the rest of the team , on top of that I am not sure how much longer he has ... his value will never be higher than it is right now ( from this point forward not all time ) 2 years from now he very well could be on his way out of the league esp with lines like we have trotted out there use the picks to solidify the line and replace the QB ....

The Trent Green comparison was not a good one IMO though its easy to play till close to 40 when you spend half your career on the bench not getting beat up

[Seven]

I would take a top 10 pick and a 3rd rounder.

The Trent Green comparison was not a good one IMO though its easy to play till close to 40 when you spend half your career on the bench not getting beat up.

I don't think a first and a third are nearly enough. I don't think the number one overall pick and a third would be enough. You're obviously entitled to disagree, but I'll take the sure thing over a roll of the dice any day.

- - - Updated - - -

Green, Brett Favre, Mark Brunell, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc.. all guys who played or are playing past 36 years old. Over half of them played at a high level. Favre took a ton of hits in some of those Green Bay years. I don't see why anyone would think Ben can't play until 36 or 37.

[Dwinsgames]

I don't think a first and a third are nearly enough. I don't think the number one overall pick and a third would be enough. You're obviously entitled to disagree, but I'll take the sure thing over a roll of the dice any day.

- - - Updated - - -

Green, Brett Favre, Mark Brunell, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc.. all guys who played or are playing past 36 years old. Over half of them played at a high level. Favre took a ton of hits in some of those Green Bay years. I don't see why anyone would think Ben can't play until 36 or 37.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_sacked_career.htm

Brunell 8 of his last 9 season he was a backup ..... http://www.nfl.com/player/markbrunell/2499883/careerstats

Favre , Manning and Brady are the only examples I consider good of the ones you presented ....

Favre was super human so may want to discount him just because of that LOL

Manning is the 50th most sacked QB in the history of the game at 36 years old

Brady is the 28th most sacked QB in history at 35 years old

Ben is the 13th most sacked QB at 30 years old

but of those guys Ben is the only 1 to try and stop a car with his face which IMO has to count for another 100 sacks at the very least which would place him closer to number 4 over all and still at 30 ...

[Seven]

Favre was super human so may want to discount him just because of that LOL

And Ben isn't? Favre was sacked 525 times in his career. Ben has been sacked 379. Ben's on pace to be sacked more, but Favre played for 19 years. Ben has played for ten. Ben has 5 - 7 seasons left before he hits 525. Favre handled the hits, I see no reason to believe Ben can't.

[Dwinsgames]

And Ben isn't? Favre was sacked 525 times in his career. Ben has been sacked 379. Ben's on pace to be sacked more, but Favre played for 19 years. Ben has played for ten. Ben has 5 - 7 seasons left before he hits 525. Favre handled the hits, I see no reason to believe Ben can't.

not to split hairs but Ben is at 380 :)
Favre also got hit so hard by Greg Lloyd he puked blood and stayed in the game , he is a thing of legend and how many games did he play without missing a starts again ? he is not human ...

guess you do not like the idea of adding 100 sacks to Bens total for face planting a car ? that was a ton of abuse to the body and had to take time off the back end of his career something none of the other QBs you mentioned dealt with

[Seven]

not to split hairs but Ben is at 380 :)
Favre also got hit so hard by Greg Lloyd he puked blood and stayed in the game , he is a thing of legend and how many games did he play without missing a starts again ? he is not human ...

guess you do not like the idea of adding 100 sacks to Bens total for face planting a car ? that was a ton of abuse to the body and had to take time off the back end of his career something none of the other QBs you mentioned dealt with

No, sorry, I don't buy the motorcycle accident as 100 sacks. I can see where you're coming from, but by that standard we could say Favre's addictions to alcohol and pills should have shortened his career, and as far as I can tell they didn't. I separate on the field from off the field in this case. Again, I can see where you are coming from, but I just don't buy it. I see no reason to think Ben can't play until 36 or 38 years old.

- - - Updated - - -

So let's say we get the #10 pick for Ben and a third rounder. The chances of drafting a quarterback with that #10 pick who will be better than Ben Roethlisberger (immediately and over the length of his career) are insanely low. Last year we drafted Markus Wheaton in the third round, year before we drafted Sean Spence. The year before that we drafted Curtis Brown. Let's say we nail the #10 pick, a likely improbability, but for our purposes let's say we draft a player comparable to Nick Foles. Right now, would you trade Ben Roethlisberger for Nick Foles and Markus Wheaton (or Spence; Brown)? I absolutely would not. I'd rather ride Ben Roethlisberger until he loses it and groom Landry Jones in the meantime. But hey, that's just me.

[Dwinsgames]

I see no reason to think Ben can't play until 36 or 38 years old.


and this I have a tough time convincing myself of unless we are speaking of Brunell type years as a backup seeing the field a few snaps ( if at all ) a year ...

hits take their toll on or off the field and Ben has taken a ton of them both on and off the field during plays and after the whistle , its not just his head its his entire body being broken up year in year out ...

[Dwinsgames]

So let's say we get the #10 pick for Ben and a third rounder. The chances of drafting a quarterback with that #10 pick who will be better than Ben Roethlisberger (immediately and over the length of his career) are insanely low. Last year we drafted Markus Wheaton in the third round, year before we drafted Sean Spence. The year before that we drafted Curtis Brown. Let's say we nail the #10 pick, a likely improbability, but for our purposes let's say we draft a player comparable to Nick Foles. Right now, would you trade Ben Roethlisberger for Nick Foles and Markus Wheaton (or Spence; Brown)? I absolutely would not. I'd rather ride Ben Roethlisberger until he loses it and groom Landry Jones in the meantime. But hey, that's just me.

I would not have drafted Brown , Spence or Wheaton based on the players left on the board when we took them to begin with .... Wheaton was my favorite of the 3 , not a good comparison for me

I hate Colbert and think he sucks as a GM it seems he scouts 2 rounds and sometimes not even that , he is the most over rated GM in the league by far and THAT is my biggest fear in trading Ben is not getting good players from the selections garnered from a trade ...

I have more faith in myself than Colbert and he is the one with a budget and a scouting department at his disposal and is paid to do what I like to do as a hobby ... but my track record here on the draft is to small of a sample for you or anyone else to properly judge and at this juncture the players have yet to show their ability too ...

Demontre Moore or Brandon Williams would have been my pick in the 3rd round last year based on who was on the board when we selected to much talent to be ignored IMO and if forced to go WR I would probably have taken Bailey or Stills over Wheaton but that's not the point here anyways and its getting way to far off topic

I did post a " shits and giggles mock " in the draft section showing what I would do if a trade took place

[Seven]

I would not have drafted Brown , Spence or Wheaton based on the players left on the board when we took them to begin with .... Wheaton was my favorite of the 3 , not a good comparison for me

I hate Colbert and think he sucks as a GM it seems he scouts 2 rounds and sometimes not even that , he is the most over rated GM in the league by far and THAT is my biggest fear in trading Ben is not getting good players from the selections garnered from a trade ...

I have more faith in myself than Colbert and he is the one with a budget and a scouting department at his disposal and is paid to do what I like to do as a hobby ... but my track record here on the draft is to small of a sample for you or anyone else to properly judge and at this juncture the players have yet to show their ability too ...

Demontre Moore or Brandon Williams would have been my pick in the 3rd round last year based on who was on the board when we selected to much talent to be ignored IMO and if forced to go WR I would probably have taken Bailey or Stills over Wheaton but that's not the point here anyways and its getting way to far off topic

I did post a " shits and giggles mock " in the draft section showing what I would do if a trade took place

I have more respect for Colbert than you do, but the fact that you think his picks are poor is definitely another reason not to trade Ben. I would have taken Bailey or Stills over Wheaton, too. I still think Bailey is going to be a stud. I think I did read your original post in the topic you're talking about. I concur that McCarron is going to be a good pro. I really like him despite all the reasons I know I shouldn't. I'll check out that thread shortly.

[Dwinsgames]

I have more respect for Colbert than you do, but the fact that you think his picks are poor is definitely another reason not to trade Ben. I would have taken Bailey or Stills over Wheaton, too. I still think Bailey is going to be a stud. I think I did read your original post in the topic you're talking about. I concur that McCarron is going to be a good pro. I really like him despite all the reasons I know I shouldn't. I'll check out that thread shortly.

some vids where added to that thread as well showing some of the players mentioned

[Psycho Ward 86]

who knows , I surely do not ... nobody does

hell we haven't been able to keep Ben healthy and he is one of the bigger built QBs in the league at 240+ ....

its not all about those traffic cones though , its coaching man .... its putting players in a pos to succeed and IN pos....

Adams is 10 times the RT Gilbert is yet Adams sits and enters the game as a situational blocker at the TE pos because our coaches are stupid ....

Fosters best pos is RG yet he is playing LG

if you do not put players in a pos to succeed much of what you do thereafter is doomed to fail , you have to win 1 on 1 battles before you win team battles consistently but I didn't have to tell you that I am sure

if you cant answer the question than this is all irrelevant imo. Because the point of me asking that question is the fact that there are few who would be able to succeed behind our line, or succeed while throwing 30+ times a game for that matter. Ill answer my own question: I think Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers are THE only qb's in the league that could succeed behind our O-line. While Peyton has still shown over his career that he is extremely vulnerable to looking like a completely different qb when pressured, i think he would be the one guy able to make the pre-snap adjustments to make up the difference. Aaron Rodgers imo is pretty close to as dangerous as ben when out of the pocket or scrambling. But call me biased, i am from wisconsin.

The point is, if there are so few who would be able to do succeed behind our O-line (just 2 in my opinion, i bet you would have about the same number of qb's), what do you expect to get out of the 1st rounder (at the very least) we would get out of trading ben? Most certainly not a peyton manning, aaron rodgers, or ben roethlisberger-esque quarterback who can do shit behind our o-line. At least not very likely. We certainly would be in no position to get someone of value in free agency for obvious reasons.

I would be interested in seeing a mock-scenario from you in which you think we would be the beneficiary in trading ben. I used to be luke-warm to the possibility of trading ben (hell, i even suggested a long time ago that landry jones could make ben great trade bait in a couple of years if he pans out), but when i really think about it, im not. But i still find this "What if?" scenario the most interesting one we can talk about on a steelers forum.

[Seven]

I would be interested in seeing a mock-scenario from you in which you think we would be the beneficiary in trading ben.

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/18740-shits-and-giggles-mock

[Psycho Ward 86]

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/18740-shits-and-giggles-mock

thanks. very interesting writeup Dwins, but i think thats an extremely over-optimistic draft. Even an excellent draft will usually only yield 3-4 good players. look at some successful drafts of any team in the past and it will tell you mostly the same. interesting choice in McCarron, but how would he do without that menacing Alabama O-line that has imposed its will on everybody in the country for the entirety of the Nick-Saban era?

[Dwinsgames]

thanks. very interesting writeup Dwins, but i think thats an extremely over-optimistic draft. Even an excellent draft will usually only yield 3-4 good players. look at some successful drafts of any team in the past and it will tell you mostly the same. interesting choice in McCarron, but how would he do without that menacing Alabama O-line that has imposed its will on everybody in the country for the entirety of the Nick-Saban era?

thanks

couple things ...

1) if you look at averages and then consider that as the limit / goal /top of the mark when analyzing draft talent and putting your board together then you are already setup to fail your eye should always be to do whats never been done , and exceed all expectations

2) most years we do not have as many holes therefore less roster spots to be had regardless of the talent drafted

3) as for our line 2 guys could make all the difference in the world esp if the players we have are put in the best possible place to succeed and I might argue we have not done that nor have we been running a system that is suited to best show their skill sets , so those things would also need to change


How would this look

Mathews at LT ( best LT prospect in the draft )

Yankey at LG ( best guard in the draft )

Valesco at C ( playing very well with suspect line mates )

Decastro at RG , showing improvement every week and looking like the stud we thought we where getting

Adams at RT , Played extremely well there as a rookie and his natural spot at the NFL level

leaving you depth with Foster at Guard either spot .... Beachum and Gilbert at Tackle

better coaching and a scheme more suited for these guys ( back to the power blocking scheme and end the madness )

I contend a line comprised of a unit such as the one proposed would be very good , young and inexpensive ... sure they will have some growing pains being young but they will be much better than anything we have trotted out there in many years and I also contend it is a unit that can keep most any QB relatively clean McCarron included

[Mistah Q]

Ben will give Favre a run for his money, not in any recordbooks probably (besides sacks taken), but for how beaten up over a career. Sure Ben is "tough" but I don't want him to wind up like this either

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2013/11/18/brett-favre-talks-of-memory-loss-footballs-toll/

[cold-hard-steel]

I . myself have thrown 49 passes and only have one completion . The poor girl is still sorry she caught it till this day .

[GoSlash27]

this whole 30 or more/less throws thing has a little bit of merit, but it kind of doesnt because you arent accounting for so many other variables such as Ben improving during his career, and Ben's O-line getting progressively shittier and shittier

We've had several people comment on this one. The ol' "Correlation <> causation" fallacy. And there is causality at work here, it's just that it's backwards.
Games where you are far behind dictate more passing, and are overwhelmingly losses. Games where you are far ahead dictate more running, and are overwhelmingly wins.
Statistically, the passes aren't creating the losses, but rather the losses are creating the passes.

Now... that's not to say that Dwins' opinion is incorrect. Just that the statistics are misleading when used in this context. It's like that old joke about the scientist who cuts the legs off a frog and then decides that it's deaf because it no longer jumps when he tells it to.

[Dwinsgames]

We've had several people comment on this one. The ol' "Correlation <> causation" fallacy. And there is causality at work here, it's just that it's backwards.
Games where you are far behind dictate more passing, and are overwhelmingly losses. Games where you are far ahead dictate more running, and are overwhelmingly wins.
Statistically, the passes aren't creating the losses, but rather the losses are creating the passes.

Now... that's not to say that Dwins' opinion is incorrect. Just that the statistics are misleading when used in this context. It's like that old joke about the scientist who cuts the legs off a frog and then decides that it's deaf because it no longer jumps when he tells it to.


not exactly slashy ...

you might be on to something if the passing game did not get us into the trouble to begin with as explained earlier , throwing to much early often times created the hole that was dug a couple picks and you are in big trouble

[GoSlash27]

Well, no... *that's* an entirely different argument; one which you have not attempted to support with the statistics. It is equally likely that attempting to run the ball when it clearly wasn't going to happen put us in the hole. Or turnovers, or poor special teams play, or about a million little detail errors.

Again, I'm not backing or refuting your argument itself. I'm just saying you can't use the statistics in the way you've attempted to use them. The fact that we've passed a lot in losing games *does not mean* that the passing caused the losses.

You said it yourself; "30 is the magic number and should not be deviated from unless circumstances dictate it". The circumstances usually *are* what dictate it.

Now if you can show a correlation between offensive balance in the first quarter and end result you might be onto something... but I suspect you'd only prove something we already know.

[HollywoodSteel]

I think we should use the victory formation more. We seem to win every time we use it. ;)

[zulater]

In 4 of the 5 wins this season Ben has thrown the ball 30 or more times.

[Dwinsgames]

In 4 of the 5 wins this season Ben has thrown the ball 30 or more times.


there are exceptions to every rule ... this looms larger to me
36 losses thus far when he throws 30 or more times considering he has only 45 losses as the Steelers starter I would say that is a significant percentage of those losses ......

[MrPgh]

Meh, this thread is an example of why people need to stop looking at the stat sheets and just watch the games. The Steelers weren't losing because Ben was throwing a lot, Ben was throwing a lot because the Steelers were losing (...and because they can't really run the ball that well).

How many time have we seen the Steelers come out with this kind of playcalling:

1st Down: Run up the middle or bubble screen
2nd Down: Run up the middle or bubble screen again
3rd Down: BEN HELP!

Rinse and repeat until the Steelers are down multiple possessions. Only then do the Steelers turn to Ben and ask him to throw 50 times for about 400 yards to try and get back into the game. After all, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust isn't going to bring a team back that is down multiple possessions.

What the Steelers should be doing is throwing early on in a game to score points and get a lead, then run the ball to finish off the game.

[Dwinsgames]

Meh, this thread is an example of why people need to stop looking at the stat sheets and just watch the games. The Steelers weren't losing because Ben was throwing a lot, Ben was throwing a lot because the Steelers were losing (...and because they can't really run the ball that well).

How many time have we seen the Steelers come out with this kind of playcalling:

1st Down: Run up the middle or bubble screen
2nd Down: Run up the middle or bubble screen again
3rd Down: BEN HELP!

Rinse and repeat until the Steelers are down multiple possessions. Only then do the Steelers turn to Ben and ask him to throw 50 times for about 400 yards to try and get back into the game. After all, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust isn't going to bring a team back that is down multiple possessions.

What the Steelers should be doing is throwing early on in a game to score points and get a lead, then run the ball to finish off the game.


its pretty presumptuous and insulting ( after 2 posts here ) to make it sound as if we are not watching the games ....

I will not make such assumptions towards you because it would be unfair of me to do so , but I do however suggest you learn more about the people your posts are directed toward before making such ridiculous assumptions they just might know more about this game than you want to give them credit for ....

4 ints and 4 fumbles by Ben in the first 3 football games of the season would not have anything to do with those losses or why we where behind ( damn forgive my ignorance )

welcome to the board all the same

[MrPgh]

its pretty presumptuous and insulting ( after 2 posts here ) to make it sound as if we are not watching the games ....

I will not make such assumptions towards you because it would be unfair of me to do so , but I do however suggest you learn more about the people your posts are directed toward before making such ridiculous assumptions they just might know more about this game than you want to give them credit for ....

4 ints and 4 fumbles by Ben in the first 3 football games of the season would not have anything to do with those losses or why we where behind ( damn forgive my ignorance )

welcome to the board all the same

A crappy defense wouldn't have anything to do with why the Steelers were down either, huh? Maybe some of Ben's turnovers don't happen if he didn't have to bail the team out after a terrible start, whether it be because of bad defense or ultra-conservative play calling on Haley's part. Ben's made his share of miscues, but he's far from being the main reason as to why the Steelers started 0-4. If anything, he was poorly under-used in those four games. You seem to be just looking at a number associated with Ben on the stat sheet and drawing a be-all-end-all conclusion as to why the Steelers were losing.

And from reading other posts on this thread, it doesn't sound like I'm the only one who feels this way. Apologies if you're insulted by it.

[Dwinsgames]

A crappy defense wouldn't have anything to do with why the Steelers were down either, huh? Maybe some of Ben's turnovers don't happen if he didn't have to bail the team out after a terrible start, whether it be because of bad defense or ultra-conservative play calling on Haley's part. Ben's made his share of miscues, but he's far from being the main reason as to why the Steelers started 0-4. If anything, he was poorly under-used in those four games. You seem to be just looking at a number associated with Ben on the stat sheet and drawing a be-all-end-all conclusion as to why the Steelers were losing.

And from reading other posts on this thread, it doesn't sound like I'm the only one who feels this way. Apologies if you're insulted by it.

well now I will question if YOU watch the games ...

Week 1 ) we gave up 16 points ( aided by turnovers ) hard to put that on the defense

week 2 ) we gave up 20 points ( aided by turnovers ) hard to put that on the defense

33 , 37 ,41 and 51 attempts in the first 4 games ... and you say under used ???


care to try again ?

[zulater]

well now I will question if YOU watch the games ...

Week 1 ) we gave up 16 points ( aided by turnovers ) hard to put that on the defense

week 2 ) we gave up 20 points ( aided by turnovers ) hard to put that on the defense

33 , 37 ,41 and 51 attempts in the first 4 games ... and you say under used ???


care to try again ?

Of course you're ignoring how much field position influences games. When the Steelers were doing bad their average starting field position was the worst in the league. Playing the game from inside your own 20 with absolutely no running game and a make shift offensive line is a recipe for disaster.

As the season's progressed our average starting field position has gradually improved, as has our line and occasionally our running game. Defensive turnovers are one of the reasons the field position has improved. It's all inter related. So now Ben's turning the ball over less.

The position that Ben was a primary source of the Steelers early season woes is misguided and flat out wrong. You see this is where having a franchise qb comes into play. Because when everything's shit a franchise qb can't make it right all by themselves. Witness Brees last year without a defense or a coach. But when you do get things sorted out a franchise qb gives you a chance to win every game.

Any Steeler old enough to remember the Steelers teams from 94-97 when their overall talent was at the top of the league should appreciate the difference a qb the magnitude of Ben makes. Because those teams rotted on the vine due to inferior qb play. Same thing happened with the Texans and Bengals the last couple years.

Long story short I think you're missing the forest through the trees. Get rid of Ben and there's a good chance you wont see another Super Bowl for the next 20 years. Make the right fixes this next offseason and you could very well be right back in the thick of things.

[zulater]

there are exceptions to every rule ... this looms larger to me

Ignore it all you like but we're on a 3 game winning streak. Ben's surpassed your arbitrary ceiling threshold for passing attempts every time. That's the here and now of it. Sorry that reality shoots holes through your theories.

[Craic]

Meh, this thread is an example of why people need to stop looking at the stat sheets and just watch the games. T


its pretty presumptuous and insulting ( after 2 posts here ) to make it sound as if we are not watching the games ....



Actually, Dwins, I think you misrepresented what he said here. He wasn't saying that you weren't watching the games. Rather, that you should only watch the games to determine your opinions, rather than using stat sheets are part of the overall picture. He's right, and wrong, as are you IMO.

Yes, we lose more games when Ben throws more, but the reality is, Ben often throws more BECAUSE we are losing the games. In other words, you're falling into the correlation/causation fallacy. Just because Ben is throwing more doesn't mean that's the reason we're losing the games. Instead, we're behind because the RB fumbles, the WR's fumble, a ball bounces off a wide receiver's hands, our defense allows a 60 yard run or a 40 yard pass for a TD, etc. etc. We're down 10 or 14 points and have to come from behind. That means pass, pass, pass. So the more accurate stat would be, how far behind were the Steelers in those games, did we put up enough points to overcome the deficit, and then did our defense allow points late in the game, and why. After going through all of that, what you may end up finding is that in fact, Ben and his arm is the reason why we remained competitive for most of those games that we lost, rather than the reason we lost.

[Dwinsgames]

I do not thing I am misrepresenting anything ...



Split
G
Att
Comp
Pct
Yds
Avg
Lng
TD
Int
1st
1st%
20+
Sck
SckY
Rate




Wins
5
162
109
67.3
1,131
7.5
55
9
1
56
34.6
16
11
81
105.3


Losses
6
255
160
62.7
1,745
7.5
45
10

9
91
35.7
31
25
161
83.9






http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6

[zulater]

I do not thing I am misrepresenting anything ...



Split
G
Att
Comp
Pct
Yds
Avg
Lng
TD
Int
1st
1st%
20+
Sck
SckY
Rate




Wins
5
162
109
67.3
1,131
7.5
55
9
1
56
34.6
16
11
81
105.3


Losses
6
255
160
62.7
1,745
7.5
45
10

9
91
35.7
31
25
161
83.9






http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Ben-Roethlisberger/54dda34e-9e43-4c57-9397-1143ddced5d6

So according to you Ben's pass attempts tell the story of those games?

Sorry but that's beyond stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Dwins, how many pass attempts did Andrew Luck have against the Cardinals yesterday? Guess he's the reason they got boat raced.

[Dwinsgames]

So according to you Ben's pass attempts tell the story of those games?

Sorry but that's beyond stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Dwins, how many pass attempts did Andrew Luck have against the Cardinals yesterday? Guess he's the reason they got boat raced.

really Zu ???


you can not see the drop in performance in those games , look at the rating , look at the TD to INt ratio ... look at the differential in passes ...the more he throws the worse he is on average ..classic example of less is more ...

but hey I am not an Optometrist far be it from me to tell you that you have bad eyes

[zulater]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=RoetBe00

Here's Ben's career 4th quarter comebacks. In 20 out of the 31 he exceeded the "magic number". Guess he should have stopped at 29 those games. I'm sure the result would have been the same or better. :sarcasm:

- - - Updated - - -

cores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=331124022


http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=331110011

Here's proof that when Andrew Luck passes over 35 times the Colts suck.

[GoSlash27]

Dwins,
I think you're taking all of this a little too personally and I think you're not seeing what several of us keep trying to tell you: Yeah, Ben's throw attempts go up in losing games. We know that. Yeah, his stats go down in losing games. We know that too.
*That doesn't mean that passing more is causing us to lose games!* All it means is that being in losing games causes us to pass more.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and telling you: You *are* misrepresenting that, but not intentionally.
It's exactly like Hollywood pointed out earlier: We are undefeated in games where we do the victory formation on the last drive, but that doesn't mean that doing the victory formation is going to win more games.

[Dwinsgames]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=RoetBe00

Here's Ben's career 4th quarter comebacks. In 20 out of the 31 he exceeded the "magic number". Guess he should have stopped at 29 those games. I'm sure the result would have been the same or better. :sarcasm:



its 30 or less attempts too by the way .....

36 losses thus far when he throws 30 or more times considering he has only 45 losses as the Steelers starter I would say that is a significant percentage of those losses ...

so your point is what exactly ?

here you clearly need their services
http://www.pearlevision.com/ (http://www.pearlevision.com/)

[zulater]

Dwins,
I think you're taking all of this a little too personally and I think you're not seeing what several of us keep trying to tell you: Yeah, Ben's throw attempts go up in losing games. We know that. Yeah, his stats go down in losing games. We know that too.
*That doesn't mean that passing more is causing us to lose games!* All it means is that being in losing games causes us to pass more.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and telling you: You *are* misrepresenting that, but not intentionally.
It's exactly like Hollywood pointed out earlier: We are undefeated in games where we do the victory formation on the last drive, but that doesn't mean that doing the victory formation is going to win more games.

Good post.

[GoSlash27]

Correlation/ causation fallacy:
Whenever you see an increase in "A", you see an increase in "B". Therefore, A causes B.
This assumption is false.
It could be that A and B are not related, and it's just a coincidence.
It could be that B causes A.
It could be that A and B are both the result of C.

In this case, the mechanism at work is "C" causing both "A" and "B". Being in losing games forces more pass attempts and causes reduced completions and more interceptions.

All football is situational.

[zulater]

its 30 or less attempts too by the way .....

36 losses thus far when he throws 30 or more times considering he has only 45 losses as the Steelers starter I would say that is a significant percentage of those losses ...

so your point is what exactly ?

here you clearly need their services
http://www.pearlevision.com/ (http://www.pearlevision.com/)

My point is you pass when the situation calls for it. If you secure a lead you run the ball to use clock and impose your will on your opponent.

So what's your point? Trade Ben? For what? Look around the league and tell me how many given's there are coming into the league? Andrew Luck is a once in a decade player supposedly and you need the first overall pick to acquire his type. And as we can see the Colts are far from a serious Super Bowl threat even with him. He's in his second year. If memory serves me correct Ben was able to take a team to the Super Bowl in his second year. But I digress.

So tell me where are the sure fire qb's coming into the league at? You think you're going to luck into the next Tom Brady with next year's 6th? The next Russell Wilson with next year's 3rd? Yep happens all the time.

[Count Steeler]

I thought Landry was our future.

[zulater]

So here's the plan. We're going to trade Ben, then parlay one of those picks into finding his replacement. Because you know that's just so fucking easy. Then by 2015 we'll have his replacement playing better than Ben ever did on a rookie contract for 4 years. So we can go and address every other position on the team. And then win every Super Bowl for the next 4 years. But after 4 years we'll trade our superstar qb when he wants to be paid like the elite qb he's sure to be. And then we'll do it all again. Yep this is such a super plan it's amazing that every other team in the league isn't doing it.

On three! Hut... hut....

[Dwinsgames]

So here's the plan. We're going to trade Ben, then parlay one of those picks into finding his replacement. Because you know that's just so fucking easy. Then by 2015 we'll have his replacement playing better than Ben ever did on a rookie contract for 4 years. So we can go and address every other position on the team. And then win every Super Bowl for the next 4 years. But after 4 years we'll trade our superstar qb when he wants to be paid like the elite qb he's sure to be. And then we'll do it all again. Yep this is such a super plan it's amazing that every other team in the league isn't doing it.

On three! Hut... hut....


love how you do my talking for me , hell you may as well continue to make it up as you go along ... you have no plan , you have never had a plan and you never will have a plan in terms to a draft and because you do not understand it you want to mock people that do understand it ....

here is the Zu plan , has been the Zu plan since I met him in /or around 1998 ( give or take a a year or two ) ... """ I will trust in our front office and take the wait and see approach """ and be damed what anyone else thinks because if they knew anything they would be NFL GMs ... sound about right Zu ???

I can see a conversation with someone unwilling to think outside the box is a fruitless effort and is liking to :deadhorse:

so I am done before I lose my temper from your bullshit

[GoSlash27]

love how you do my talking for me , hell you may as well continue to make it up as you go along ... you have no plan , you have never had a plan and you never will have a plan in terms to a draft and because you do not understand it you want to mock people that do understand it ....

here is the Zu plan , has been the Zu plan since I met him in /or around 1998 ( give or take a a year or two ) ... """ I will trust in our front office and take the wait and see approach """ and be damed what anyone else thinks because if they knew anything they would be NFL GMs ... sound about right Zu ???

I can see a conversation with someone unwilling to think outside the box is a fruitless effort and is liking to :deadhorse:

so I am done before I lose my temper from your bullshit

Aww... don't go away mad, DWins. And I mean that sincerely; I'm not trying to get your goat and I don't think anyone else here is either. We're just trying to get you to understand that what you're doing here isn't "thinking outside the box", but rather engaging in a logical fallacy.
It happens to the best of us. Hell, Coach Noll led us to 4 Lombardis, and he once put forth a very similar argument, except instead of 30 or less pass attempts, it was 100 yards or more rushing per game.

Statistics can fool you. Sometimes they mean what they appear to mean, but often times they don't.

[zulater]

love how you do my talking for me , hell you may as well continue to make it up as you go along ... you have no plan , you have never had a plan and you never will have a plan in terms to a draft and because you do not understand it you want to mock people that do understand it ....

here is the Zu plan , has been the Zu plan since I met him in /or around 1998 ( give or take a a year or two ) ... """ I will trust in our front office and take the wait and see approach """ and be damed what anyone else thinks because if they knew anything they would be NFL GMs ... sound about right Zu ???

I can see a conversation with someone unwilling to think outside the box is a fruitless effort and is liking to :deadhorse:

so I am done before I lose my temper from your bullshit

Here's my box.





quarterbacks that are good enough to take you to multiple Super bowls don't grow on trees. So when you have one who still has several strong seasons left in the tank keep him!

[MrPgh]

I think it's hilarious that people think cutting Ben is the best way to go. Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to cut the washed-up guys on defense? Last I checked they were taking up a good chunk of the cap and some of them just aren't that effective anymore, namely Ike, Clark, and Woodley.

[Dwinsgames]

I think it's hilarious that people think cutting Ben is the best way to go. Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to cut the washed-up guys on defense? Last I checked they were taking up a good chunk of the cap and some of them just aren't that effective anymore, namely Ike, Clark, and Woodley.


NOBODY in the entire forum let alone this thread EVER said cut Ben ......

why would you cut Clark ? ( interested in this most specifically ) considering he is in his final year of his contract that as a Tenured Vet was fully guaranteed if on the roster week 1 thus cutting him saves you NOTHING and forces you to then fill the roster spot with another player costing us even more money .... so please explain why you would cut Clark


Cutting Woodley is almost not worth considering he has been over paid and restructured to death and cutting him would cost us almost as much as keeping him ( you have to pay a warm body in his spot too ) so we are taking the hit regardless


have not looked at the consequences of Ike since his last restructure ( THIS year ) but he will make 10 mill or something close in 2014 if memory serves but the cap hit could be even more , but its just a guess since I have not looked at it recently .... I suspect he will be tough to deal with as well based on all the restructures

none of those 3 will provide this team with much if any cap relief once you consider replacement of a roster spot on top of the dead money hit that will cover 2 years of our cap

[MrPgh]

NOBODY in the entire forum let alone this thread EVER said cut Ben ......

why would you cut Clark ? ( interested in this most specifically ) considering he is in his final year of his contract that as a Tenured Vet was fully guaranteed if on the roster week 1 thus cutting him saves you NOTHING and forces you to then fill the roster spot with another player costing us even more money .... so please explain why you would cut Clark


Cutting Woodley is almost not worth considering he has been over paid and restructured to death and cutting him would cost us almost as much as keeping him ( you have to pay a warm body in his spot too ) so we are taking the hit regardless


have not looked at the consequences of Ike since his last restructure ( THIS year ) but he will make 10 mill or something close in 2014 if memory serves but the cap hit could be even more , but its just a guess since I have not looked at it recently .... I suspect he will be tough to deal with as well based on all the restructures

none of those 3 will provide this team with much if any cap relief once you consider replacement of a roster spot on top of the dead money hit that will cover 2 years of our cap

The Steelers will have to deal with the dead money sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. That's what happens when a team keeps trying to squeeze one more year out of veterans rather than realizing when it is time to move on.

Letting Keenan Lewis walk and keeping Ike just looks dumber and dumber every week. Easy to say in hindsight, but this team just can't get over the defense from 2008, even at the expense of younger players.

[X-Terminator]

so I am done before I lose my temper from your bullshit

Now you see why I bowed out of the other thread so soon. No offense, but no one on this forum is worth losing my cool over.


The Steelers will have to deal with the dead money sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. That's what happens when a team keeps trying to squeeze one more year out of veterans rather than realizing when it is time to move on.

Letting Keenan Lewis walk and keeping Ike just looks dumber and dumber every week. Easy to say in hindsight, but this team just can't get over the defense from 2008, even at the expense of younger players.

The Steelers USED to do that, but they didn't want to upset the fans by shedding popular veterans and giving them the illusion of a rebuild, so they kept them around longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that; however it's put the team in a deep hole with the salary cap. So at some point, hard decisions are going to have to be made, and they will simply have to cut their losses and move on, even if it means a couple of bad seasons. The fans will simply have to deal with that if they want to eventually get back to the top of the mountain.

[Dwinsgames]

The Steelers will have to deal with the dead money sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. That's what happens when a team keeps trying to squeeze one more year out of veterans rather than realizing when it is time to move on.

Letting Keenan Lewis walk and keeping Ike just looks dumber and dumber every week. Easy to say in hindsight, but this team just can't get over the defense from 2008, even at the expense of younger players.

cutting Clark now does nothing good for this team now or later his cap hit is over at seasons end ....

cutting Woodley does little to help us , as said before its almost cheaper to keep him so why cut him and be down a player ?

Ike again not sure ... cap wise where we stand

I agree about Keenan Lewis to a degree , we didnt try to sign him but there could be more to that than whats meets the eye to you and me , they may have spoke with him and found out he wanted to go home and it would cost way above market value for him to consider staying ? I do not know its just a guess but I must believe they at the very least had a conversation at seasons end and considering how well Cortez Allen played for us last year there was no reason to believe he would not be the best CB on this roster in 2013 even if Lewis had stayed so I understand not signing Lewis when put in that perspective ...

Ike and old man Rooney are buddies ( he has Ike on speed dial on his cell for gods sakes and he only has 5 numbers on speed dial ) , I doubt he is going anywhere that is not saying he shouldn't ... just doubt he is ..I think he retires a Steeler

[Psycho Ward 86]

i think the 2 guys that we needed to step up the most this season were mike adams, steve mclendon and cortez allen. Boy did they all fail. And at 3 very important positions. i think if they had been playing like we expected them to, we would be 7-3 EASILY

[Dwinsgames]

i think the 2 guys that we needed to step up the most this season were mike adams, steve mclendon and cortez allen. Boy did they all fail. And at 3 very important positions. i think if they had been playing like we expected them to, we would be 7-3 EASILY

as a foot note to this ( and I agree by the way ) ....

In Cortez Allen's defense he did not have a preseason to get acclimated because of his knee injury , then surgery and recovery time .... sure he was back early on but that is not to say he was 100% ( injury report or not ) just because you can run and cut does not mean you can run and cut like you could pre injury ...I think he is just now getting back to form ( just in time if I am correct ) for the stretch run ...

time will tell but I do not believe what we seen the first few weeks in his return is any indication of what we will see moving forward from now on ... ( I hope I am correct ) not just for the sake of being right but because I am a fan of the kid and want to see him do well .....

[Mojouw]

Correlation/ causation fallacy:
Whenever you see an increase in "A", you see an increase in "B". Therefore, A causes B.
This assumption is false.
It could be that A and B are not related, and it's just a coincidence.
It could be that B causes A.
It could be that A and B are both the result of C.

In this case, the mechanism at work is "C" causing both "A" and "B". Being in losing games forces more pass attempts and causes reduced completions and more interceptions.

All football is situational.

Logic and reason have no place on an internet message board! Good posting all the same.

[Mistah Q]

Now you see why I bowed out of the other thread so soon. No offense, but no one on this forum is worth losing my cool over.



The Steelers USED to do that, but they didn't want to upset the fans by shedding popular veterans and giving them the illusion of a rebuild, so they kept them around longer than they should have. I can't blame them for that; however it's put the team in a deep hole with the salary cap. So at some point, hard decisions are going to have to be made, and they will simply have to cut their losses and move on, even if it means a couple of bad seasons. The fans will simply have to deal with that if they want to eventually get back to the top of the mountain.
I agree with you here, but to be fair, we took plenty of swings at O-line... had even just a few of those swings been hits rather than misses, we'd have gotten away with it probably despite the cap hell. We might get away with it yet, if this Velasco/Beachum miracle holds true and carries on into next season

[Dwinsgames]

Logic and reason have no place on an internet message board! Good posting all the same.

it was a good post , it would have been better if it was correct in some of the factual aspects of it ....

however many times dropping back to pass ( and a fumble by Ben ) or an int setting up the opponent is what created the deficit to begin with .....

and then we press and continue to do the same things over and over and expect different results and instead get some more of the same often times making that deficit even larger compounding the problem .....

but I am not going to continue this debate , its bringing out far to much hostility in some of us ( myself included ) and its just not worth it

just go back and look at this season and last , note the points of turnovers against us and the points differential in those games and it should be clear what the issue is ... if not I just do not know what else to say

[zulater]

One last thing. I watched that MNF game last night, here were two quarterbacks everyone at the start of the season thought were going to be this year's stars. Neither one impressed me as much of being anything last night. Doesn't mean one or both wont be great in time. But it also isn't necessarily a given that either will ever live up to the hype that was afforded them this past offseason. The point is figuring out who the next great quarterbacks in the league are going to be is pretty damn hard. This is even true of guy's we've seen in the league for a short amount of time. The league gets film on you and defensive coordinator's adjust. And as hard as it is to gauge guys we've seen for a limited amount of games in the league, it's even harder to gauge the ones still in collage.

Earlier in this thread Dwins said this


how you do my talking for me , hell you may as well continue to make it up as you go along ... you have no plan , you have never had a plan and you never will have a plan in terms to a draft and because you do not understand it you want to mock people that do understand it ....

here is the Zu plan , has been the Zu plan since I met him in /or around 1998 ( give or take a a year or two ) ... """ I will trust in our front office and take the wait and see approach """ and be damed what anyone else thinks because if they knew anything they would be NFL GMs ... sound about right Zu ???


Well Dwins I'm not mocking you, I'm just pointing out it's not as easy as you believe. Particularly when it comes to finding a true franchise quarterback. One that is capable of taking you to multiple Super Bowls. One that's play can survive the test of time and the scrutiny of the league's best defensive minds and talent. Yeah it's always easy to point out your self perceived track record as a pretend G.M. when you don't actually have to live and die with the results of mistakes. Or be confined with the realities of an actual draft room competing with 31 other teams who have the same information you do on all these players. And I'm not playing Steeler homer as you accuse me off. It's the whole fucking league Dude. It's a crap shoot finding the right quarterback. Jim Harbaugh, a pretty damn good football mind, was convinced he found the right one in Kaepernick. Most everyone agreed. Now it's pretty questionable whether he processes information well enough to ever be elite. The kind of quarterback who could possibly take a team to 3 Super Bowls in 8 years.

So no I'm not blowing smoke up the Steeler ass as you're accusing me off. I'm saying it takes more luck than skill when it comes to finding that qb who can put a good team over the top.That goes for the entire league! And we've got that guy already. I think he has maybe up to 5 more good years left. I was wrong earlier this season when I thought the Steelers couldn't compete as a team at a high enough level that a top qb could make a difference. Now that things have settled into place I can see there's a genuine possibility that with Ben this team could compete as early as next season for a championship.

So in conclusion there's two major differences of opinion here that we wont be able to resolve in the short term.

1. Your opinion and mine of Ben's overall value to this team, in the past, now and in the future differs greatly. You seem to think he was more or less along for the ride.

I think he was the most important player on a team that advanced to 3 Super Bowls in 8 years.

2. You seem to think you would have little if any problem replacing him if you were in the drivers seat of the Steelers organization.

I look around and see a league comprised of 32 teams many who have been looking for "that" guy for years, and have to come to the conclusion that it's just not that easy to find a "that" guy after all. A lot of good NFL personnel people have thrown a lot of money and resources into trying to find their guy and have come up wanting. So if you have "that" guy, and he still has tread on the tires keep him. Yeah he may stress the salary cap a bit. But if you're inferior at qb you can have all the other parts in place and you get nowhere in the end. So it's a price you have to pay. Manage the cap in other areas better.

[GoSlash27]

it was a good post , it would have been better if it was correct in some of the factual aspects of it ....

however many times dropping back to pass ( and a fumble by Ben ) or an int setting up the opponent is what created the deficit to begin with .....

and then we press and continue to do the same things over and over and expect different results and instead get some more of the same often times making that deficit even larger compounding the problem .....

but I am not going to continue this debate , its bringing out far to much hostility in some of us ( myself included ) and its just not worth it

just go back and look at this season and last , note the points of turnovers against us and the points differential in those games and it should be clear what the issue is ... if not I just do not know what else to say

This is a different argument than the one you presented, and you're asking us to find the statistics supporting it. Going back and finding the turnovers and correlating them to point differentials is *your* job.
At first glance, it appears that our RBs were responsible for more turnovers than our QB... but I could be mistaken.

[zulater]

This is a different argument than the one you presented, and you're asking us to find the statistics supporting it. Going back and finding the turnovers and correlating them to point differentials is *your* job.
At first glance, it appears that our RBs were responsible for more turnovers than our QB... but I could be mistaken.


And the receivers are often responsible for interceptions. Early in the season you could see that Sanders and Ben weren't always on the same page. If the receiver zigs when the qb expects him to zag good chance that's a pick.

The two biggest differences lately are getting Heath back, and the offensive line stabilizing as a pass blocking unit. The run blocking still isn't there. But at least lately Ben isn't being met by a DB or LB before he completes his drop back.

[Dwinsgames]

This is a different argument than the one you presented, and you're asking us to find the statistics supporting it. Going back and finding the turnovers and correlating them to point differentials is *your* job.
At first glance, it appears that our RBs were responsible for more turnovers than our QB... but I could be mistaken.


its not a different argument it has always been part of it .... go back and look his ball security has been part of the equation all along and the reason why this thread exists and limits being considered

4 ints ...4 fumbles .... first 3 games alone by Ben , sure Redman had his gaffs too but Ben has been the largest offender by a mile in turnovers .......

[zulater]

its not a different argument it has always been part of it .... go back and look his ball security has been part of the equation all along and the reason why this thread exists and limits being considered

4 ints ...4 fumbles .... first 3 games alone by Ben , sure Redman had his gaffs too but Ben has been the largest offender by a mile in turnovers .......

Could have something to do with the fact that all offensive plays go through the quarterback, aka volume, and if he's hit before he's set good chance the ball could come out.

Line stabilizes last 4 games, turnovers go down. Amazing how that works huh?

- - - Updated - - -


its not a different argument it has always been part of it .... go back and look his ball security has been part of the equation all along and the reason why this thread exists and limits being considered

4 ints ...4 fumbles .... first 3 games alone by Ben , sure Redman had his gaffs too but Ben has been the largest offender by a mile in turnovers .......

Could have something to do with the fact that all offensive plays go through the quarterback, aka volume, and if he's hit before he's set good chance the ball could come out.

Line stabilizes last 4 games, turnovers go down. Amazing how that works huh?

[Dwinsgames]

Could have something to do with the fact that all offensive plays go through the quarterback, aka volume, and if he's hit before he's set good chance the ball could come out.

Line stabilizes last 4 games, turnovers go down. Amazing how that works huh?

- - - Updated - - -



Could have something to do with the fact that all offensive plays go through the quarterback, aka volume, and if he's hit before he's set good chance the ball could come out.

Line stabilizes last 4 games, turnovers go down. Amazing how that works huh?

was no need to say it twice ....

a loser always looks to lay blame elsewhere , when the ball is in your hands YOU are the one responcible for taking care of it regardless to circumstances surrounding you ......

just like if you loan your car out to an uninsured driver , if he crashes it , you are responsible maybe not the best scenario but I am in a hurry ( long story will tell it later in another thread )

go back and look at the SB loss to the packers 3ints 21 GB points off those turnovers ....

[zulater]

So Ben's a loser now? Wow. Welcome to ignore.

Just kidding. You know I can't stay made at you. :chuckle:


But Ben's not a loser by any definition.

[Dwinsgames]

So Ben's a loser now? Wow. Welcome to ignore.

Just kidding. You know I can't stay made at you. :chuckle:


But Ben's not a loser by any definition.


no Ben never lays blame elsewhere he takes it all himself , but people do in able to defend him ...

this is a BAD day ..... as said earlier will post about it in another thread when time permits

[MrPgh]

cutting Clark now does nothing good for this team now or later his cap hit is over at seasons end ....

cutting Woodley does little to help us , as said before its almost cheaper to keep him so why cut him and be down a player ?

Ike again not sure ... cap wise where we stand

I agree about Keenan Lewis to a degree , we didnt try to sign him but there could be more to that than whats meets the eye to you and me , they may have spoke with him and found out he wanted to go home and it would cost way above market value for him to consider staying ? I do not know its just a guess but I must believe they at the very least had a conversation at seasons end and considering how well Cortez Allen played for us last year there was no reason to believe he would not be the best CB on this roster in 2013 even if Lewis had stayed so I understand not signing Lewis when put in that perspective ...

Ike and old man Rooney are buddies ( he has Ike on speed dial on his cell for gods sakes and he only has 5 numbers on speed dial ) , I doubt he is going anywhere that is not saying he shouldn't ... just doubt he is ..I think he retires a Steeler

The Steelers need to cut Woodley because he isn't worth what they are paying him. Yes there would be dead money issues, but that's something the Steelers would need to deal with anyways. The Steelers would be much better off in the future cutting Woodley at the end of the season.

As for Ike being friends with Dan Rooney, why should that have anything to do with Ike's performance on the field or the salary cap? If the Steelers get sentimental with Ike they are only hurting themselves. It's the cap era. Guys can't be kept around just because they are buddy-buddy with the owner.

[GoSlash27]

its not a different argument it has always been part of it .... go back and look his ball security has been part of the equation all along and the reason why this thread exists and limits being considered

4 ints ...4 fumbles .... first 3 games alone by Ben , sure Redman had his gaffs too but Ben has been the largest offender by a mile in turnovers .......

All due respect, but no Sir it wasn't. Your original argument was that running 30 or more passing plays per game caused us to lose games and caused Ben's numbers to go down and that *therefore* we should not have Ben passing any more than 30 times per game. That argument was based on a logical fallacy, supported by incorrectly- applied statistics.

*This* argument is that Ben is responsible for most of our turnovers the last 2 seasons, which put us behind early in games, forcing us to pass more. Unfortunately, you haven't supported it with anything, so who knows if it's true or not?

The sad part about all of this is I really don't disagree with you. Heck, maybe you're right. *shrug*. And I certainly didn't come all this way just to pee in your toasty-os.
I'm just trying to inject a little rationality into this discussion, ya know? State your case, cite your facts, establish causality, and avoid logical fallacies. *That's* a compelling argument.

[Craic]

really Zu ???


you can not see the drop in performance in those games , look at the rating , look at the TD to INt ratio ... look at the differential in passes ...the more he throws the worse he is on average ..classic example of less is more ...

but hey I am not an Optometrist far be it from me to tell you that you have bad eyes

According to your statistical method, carrots kill people. After all, every person who ate carrots in 1875 is dead. STOP EATING CARROTS!

Until you put CONTEXT in with the numbers, the number you quote mean absolutely nothing.

[Dwinsgames]

2012 losses a sample ... as far as I am concerned if ya all want more proof or want to disprove it , be my guest but also provide evidence of such claims my burden has been met

denver 1 (lost by 12 Broncos scored 7 points off turnovers

Oakland 2 (lost by 3 Raiders scored 10 points off turnovers

Tenn 1 (lost by 3 Titans scored 3 points off turnovers and 7 by blocked punt

Balt 3 (lost by 3 Ravens scored 6 points off turnovers and 7 by punt return

Brown 8 (lost by 7 Browns Scored 17 off turnovers , not Ben in this one

Chargers 2 (lost by 10 Chargers Scored 14 off turnovers

[GoSlash27]

2012 losses a sample ... as far as I am concerned if ya all want more proof or want to disprove it , be my guest but also provide evidence of such claims my burden has been met

denver 1 (lost by 12 Broncos scored 7 points off turnovers

Oakland 2 (lost by 3 Raiders scored 10 points off turnovers

Tenn 1 (lost by 3 Titans scored 3 points off turnovers and 7 by blocked punt

Balt 3 (lost by 3 Ravens scored 6 points off turnovers and 7 by punt return

Brown 8 (lost by 7 Browns Scored 17 off turnovers , not Ben in this one

Chargers 2 (lost by 10 Chargers Scored 14 off turnovers

Not sure what I'm looking at here. The first column is total number of turnovers? If so, it needs to be narrower than that. Specifically, turnovers that are directly attributable to Ben, *before* we were forced to become one- dimensional. Otherwise, it doesn't support your assertion.

[Dwinsgames]

Not sure what I'm looking at here. The first column is total number of turnovers? If so, it needs to be narrower than that. Specifically, turnovers that are directly attributable to Ben, *before* we were forced to become one- dimensional. Otherwise, it doesn't support your assertion.

when you lose by 3 points how are you 1 dimensional ???? 3 of those examples where 3 point losses where turnovers produced 3 or more points for the opponent in every case....

don't be lazy look some of it up yourself you have a starting point , my mind is already made up I need no convincing nor do I truly care if anyone else can see it or not ...

the info is out there if you are interested in it enough you will look for it

[GoSlash27]

when you lose by 3 points how are you 1 dimensional ???? 3 of those examples where 3 point losses where turnovers produced 3 or more points for the opponent in every case....

"One dimensional" is defined by the point at which you abandon the running game for expediency, not the final score.


don't be lazy look some of it up yourself you have a starting point , my mind is already made up I need no convincing nor do I truly care if anyone else can see it or not ...

the info is out there if you are interested in it enough you will look for it

No, Sir. It's *your* argument, so it's incumbent upon *you* to support it.

[Dwinsgames]

"One dimensional" is defined by the point at which you abandon the running game for expediency, not the final score.



No, Sir. It's *your* argument, so it's incumbent upon *you* to support it.


1) you are never out of the game down by 3 unless you do not have the ball

2) we did not lose games by 3 points because of a turnover with 1 or 2 min left in the game ( except the OT loss to Dallas that I did not include in this sample but it was still a loss created by turnovers it was a later example that I did not bother to go that far in the schedule because the body of evidence was already there ) but I remember it all the same


again I could care less if you or anyone else goes and examines when ,where and why the turnovers took place , if you care to know it is readily available ..I remember the frustrations from those games and the timing perhaps not each individual play but I know what took place and do not care to relive it ...

its a discussion if you want to be more a part of it by knowing what happened go look , I should not have to show you all the facts , lay it out and then try the case we are supposed to be interested parties and if we are in fact interested we would have a look and investigate the claims ...

if we are not all that interested and just want to argue blind facts/statements and want someone else to do the work and practically think for us then that is another story in itself

- - - Updated - - -

but either way it is what it is

[GoSlash27]

1) you are never out of the game down by 3 unless you do not have the ball
Actually, there are a lot of scenarios where that does happen.


2) we did not lose games by 3 points because of a turnover with 1 or 2 min left in the game ( except the OT loss to Dallas that I did not include in this sample but it was still a loss created by turnovers it was a later example that I did not bother to go that far in the schedule because the body of evidence was already there ) but I remember it all the same
That's fine, but if you want to convince anybody you're gonna have to show 'em.


*snip*


its a discussion if you want to be more a part of it by knowing what happened go look , I should not have to show you all the facts , lay it out and then try the case we are supposed to be interested parties and if we are in fact interested we would have a look and investigate the claims ...
Begging your pardon, but that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. Otherwise you're just blowing unsubstantiated smoke.


if we are not all that interested and just want to argue blind facts/statements and want someone else to do the work and practically think for us then that is another story in itself
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jagoff here. I'm just pointing out that there's no percentage in getting mad at people for disagreeing with you if you won't support your own argument.

[Spike]

win on Thursday in our super bowl game and go from there

6-6 baby!

yeah!

[Dwinsgames]

Actually, there are a lot of scenarios where that does happen.


That's fine, but if you want to convince anybody you're gonna have to show 'em.


*snip*


Begging your pardon, but that's *exactly* what you're supposed to do. Otherwise you're just blowing unsubstantiated smoke.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jagoff here. I'm just pointing out that there's no percentage in getting mad at people for disagreeing with you if you won't support your own argument.


No worries I am past getting mad about it ... the way I see it is there has been enough evidence produced that if someone truly is interested they will do a bit of investigation themselves ...

if they are to lazy or not interested enough to be so inclined that is fine too , however if not ready to present something other than opinion for the other side of the argument or debate ( how ever you deem this ) then they should walk away from it and say nothing because facts outweigh opinions and some facts have been shown and NOBODY has done a thing to disprove any of it to date

conequently I will walk away from this until such time that someone shows documented evidence to counter my claims , opinions are not evidence ...

will gladly talk in PM about this or anything else but am not going to clutter the forum with it anymore and do all the work ....

[GoSlash27]

win on Thursday in our super bowl game and go from there

6-6 baby!

yeah!

Haha did you ever suspect that the prospect of 6-6 would be cause for celebration? :alcohol:
/ at least we ain't the Brahns!

[zulater]

Arrogant much? Your "facts" such as they are have been disputed and dispelled by many. You just don't choose to see it.

If Ben throw's 35 times against the Ravens and the Steelers win Thursday I guess you'll just accuse him of being obstinate for refusing to acknowledge your "facts".

[GoSlash27]

No worries I am past getting mad about it ... the way I see it is there has been enough evidence produced that if someone truly is interested they will do a bit of investigation themselves ...

if they are to lazy or not interested enough to be so inclined that is fine too , however if not ready to present something other than opinion for the other side of the argument or debate ( how ever you deem this ) then they should walk away from it and say nothing because facts outweigh opinions and some facts have been shown and NOBODY has done a thing to disprove any of it to date

conequently I will walk away from this until such time that someone shows documented evidence to counter my claims , opinions are not evidence ...

will gladly talk in PM about this or anything else but am not going to clutter the forum with it anymore and do all the work ....

Fair enough, and best wishes to you and yours. :hug:

[zulater]

https://twitter.com/PFF

QBs with most completions on deep throws (20+yds downfield):
23 B.Roethlisberger
22 R.Wilson
21 D.Brees
21 A.Dalton
21 P.Manning
21 G.Smith

gee look what category the "game manager" leads the NFL in.

[Spike]

Haha did you ever suspect that the prospect of 6-6 would be cause for celebration? :alcohol:


you know what I say, fuck em!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQX2413dXeIIwyM9OcP9V-Je56CSTpy5LRtnuXtsDt6xIO0k3ljiw

[Dwinsgames]

https://twitter.com/PFF

QBs with most completions on deep throws (20+yds downfield):
23 B.Roethlisberger
22 R.Wilson
21 D.Brees
21 A.Dalton
21 P.Manning
21 G.Smith

gee look what category the "game manager" leads the NFL in.


so ?

he is top 10 in INTS too http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&season=2013&seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&statisticCategory=PASSING&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_INTERCEPTIONS

[zulater]

so ?

he is top 10 in INTS too http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&season=2013&seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&statisticCategory=PASSING&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_INTERCEPTIONS

And he's 6th in passing attempts. So?

I mean really, you think Ben's the problem? Well fuck it, think what you want. Enjoy the next Kent Graham when he gets here. Because obviously you can't spot the difference anyway. :doh:

[Spike]

If I was mayor of Pittsburgh, I'd have all Ben haters castrated

[zulater]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=281019004&period=4

Here's a perfect example of a flaw in the "theory" In the first 48 minutes of the game Ben passes 27 times helping the Steelers build up a big lead. Last 12 minutes doesn't pass at all because Leftwich goes in for garbage time.

Or was Ben benched so we wouldn't blow the 28 point lead Dwins? You know those last 3 pass attempts probably would have tipped the scales back in the Bengals favor! :pointlaugh:

[zulater]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=311204023

Here's another blowout win Ben doesn't get credit for because he was "benched" after helping lead the Steelers to a huge lead.

[Dwinsgames]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=281019004&period=4

Here's a perfect example of a flaw in the "theory" In the first 48 minutes of the game Ben passes 27 times helping the Steelers build up a big lead. Last 12 minutes doesn't pass at all because Leftwich goes in for garbage time.

Or was Ben benched so we wouldn't blow the 28 point lead Dwins? You know those last 3 pass attempts probably would have tipped the scales back in the Bengals favor! :pointlaugh:


for every example you show that Ben threw over 30 times and won I will show you 2 ( or more ) where he screwed the pooch ....

now quit giving opinionated bullshit and solo examples and trying to pass them off as the normal outcome ...

in other words grow a pair put your nose to the grindstone and produce some solid statistics that back up your claims ...

counter post 162 with evidence in a season where he has been better when passing more than worse ...

I know you wont do it for several reasons ...

1) its to much like work and you would rather ramble on with opinionated BS and singular examples than over all bodies of work

2) you can't even if you wanted to because the proof does not exist because he has lost more games than he has won in such examples

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/chess_surender.gif

[zulater]

for every example you show that Ben threw over 30 times and won I will show you 2 ( or more ) where he screwed the pooch ....

No you wont. Because Ben's won far more games than he's lost. He's thrown far more touchdown than interceptions Had many more excellent games than bad ones.


now quit giving opinionated bullshit and solo examples and trying to pass them off as the normal outcome ...
How 'bout you quit being a "hater"
. I hate that term, but damn if you haven't earned that title on this thread.


in other words grow a pair put your nose to the grindstone and produce some solid statistics that back up your claims ...

Dude I got a pair, but I don't need one to disprove your silly nonsense. Because I already have to just about everyone here.


counter post 162 with evidence in a season where he has been better when passing more than worse ...


Don't really have to because the post really doesn't say much of anything. And besides as has been pointed out and ignored by you the quarterback alone isn't responsible for every turnover, incompletion, and sack.

I know you wont do it for several reasons ...

1) its to much like work and you would rather ramble on with opinionated BS and singular examples than over all bodies of work


Well I do have a life, and pretty much you and Q are the only ones that need anything proved to them. So really not worth my time.

2) you can't even if you wanted to because the proof does not exist because he has lost more games than he has won in such examples

Again make sure you give a nice big hug to our next Kent Graham when he gets here. In the meantime I'm going to enjoy what's left of Ben's time in Pittsburgh.

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/chess_surender.gif[/QUOTE]

- - - Updated - - -

Checkmate huh? :lol: Want to take an independent vote on that Dwins?

[Dwinsgames]

No you wont. Because Ben's won far more games than he's lost. He's thrown far more touchdown than interceptions Had many more excellent games than bad ones.


How 'bout you quit being a "hater"
. I hate that term, but damn if you haven't earned that title on this thread.



Dude I got a pair, but I don't need one to disprove your silly nonsense. Because I already have to just about everyone here.



Don't really have to because the post really doesn't say much of anything. And besides as has been pointed out and ignored by you the quarterback alone isn't responsible for every turnover, incompletion, and sack.


Well I do have a life, and pretty much you and Q are the only ones that need anything proved to them. So really not worth my time.


Again make sure you give a nice big hug to our next Kent Graham when he gets here. In the meantime I'm going to enjoy what's left of Ben's time in Pittsburgh.

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/chess_surender.gif[/QUOTE]

brush up on your reading comprehension skills why don't ya , I said let me point it out as clearly as possible ....

for every example you can show us of Ben winning when he has thrown more than 30 times in a game I will show you two or more where he lost ......

that is FACT

and your answer was
No you wont. Because Ben's won far more games than he's lost. that is a LIE when put into the framework of the statement you responded to

- - - Updated - - -



Checkmate huh? :lol: Want to take an independent vote on that Dwins?

based on FACTS sure ... based on opinions is worth nothing ...

bring the facts and leave your koolaid at home

- - - Updated - - -

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/kool-aid-stand.gif

[zulater]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2004103110/2004/REG8/patriots@steelers#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

Here's another "Won" :heh: Ben passes 22 times in the first 32 minutes of the game helping the Steelers build a 31-10 lead. Then only passes twice more the rest of the way.

So how the fuck do you think we built that lead? How many passes does 22 in 32 minutes project out to in a full 60 minutes? This sinking in yet? http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa247/lowes48team/27673724_foghorn.gif

- - - Updated - - -

Last 3 games Ben's exceeded the "magic threshold". Guess we lost those games. Someone tell the league.

[Dwinsgames]

ok I am quickly tiring of your childish shit ....


grow the fuck up and present a case that refutes my claims or shut the fuck up


http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2005/ben-roethlisberger

that link provides all you need to prove or disprove your case based on wins and losses when passing over 30 times a game for his career ( that is the only fair sample not 1 game )

[zulater]

ok I am quickly tiring of your childish shit ....


grow the fuck up and present a case that refutes my claims or shut the fuck up


http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/5536/year/2005/ben-roethlisberger

that link provides all you need to prove or disprove your case based on wins and losses when passing over 30 times a game for his career ( that is the only fair sample not 1 game )

Why don't you grow up. No one is buying your garbage. So go root for the Ravens until Ben's traded.

[Count Steeler]

Gentlemen, that is enough. I can understand the passion, but you are getting out of hand.

Cool off and discuss the topic with civility or this thread gets shut down.

[Spike]

let them slug it out!


we demand entertainment!

Hua

[zulater]

Gentlemen, that is enough. I can understand the passion, but you are getting out of hand.

Cool off and discuss the topic with civility or this thread gets shut down.

Good by me.

Honestly I'm sick of the subject matter. I mean I guess Ben should have cut off his right arm in the 4th quarter of the Lions game. "Cause you know once you exceed that 29 pass limit it all goes bad.

[Dwinsgames]

Fuck you asshole. Why don't you grow up. No one is buying your garbage. So go root for the Ravens until Ben's traded.


nice Zu nice ....

I see you resort to the same BS as always , you throw little digs at someone who does not share your point of view until they get fed up with you and let you have a little bit in return , then when that happens you blow up ... nothings changed I see ...

would it not been a whole lot more grown up of you to make an argument based on the facts , hell I even provided you with the links to get the information from ....

but no its far less work to be a dick than it is to back up your opinion with some cold hard facts ( even when the link to those facts is laid in your lap ) ....

but hey I am the asshole right even though I had to defend my point of view vs half the board and you just had to show something to back up your opinion other than a game here or there reference ...

what ever coming from you asshole is almost a compliment after all I witnessed some of your battles with other posters elsewhere haven't I


I have been called worse by better so I will consider the source

[Dwinsgames]

Gentlemen, that is enough. I can understand the passion, but you are getting out of hand.

Cool off and discuss the topic with civility or this thread gets shut down.


close it down , its beyond clear to me he is unable to debate based on factual evidence and his only tool is ridicule and condemnation

[zulater]

close it down , its beyond clear to me he is unable to debate based on factual evidence and his only tool is ridicule and condemnation

If your "facts" had any relevance the Steelers would have lost their last 3 games. :coffee:

[Mistah Q]

Zu it's as easy as

"Neat... I disagree."

You can add a "here's why" or skip the reasoning, either way that can be about the end of it. Instead you place personal digs along for the ride... it's one thing when you disagree with analysis; when you call people names or question their comprehension skills, what can you really expect in return? You've called me names here too but I decided to deflect and let it pass... I haven't time for that sort of thing. Saw you go through the same saga with JT, then with Carl (to be fair Carl was one angry man)... take a breather my friend ;)

[Spike]

if somebody doesn't punch somebody in the nose pretty soon I'm gonna declare this a catfight

[zulater]

Zu it's as easy as

"Neat... I disagree."

You can add a "here's why" or skip the reasoning, either way that can be about the end of it. Instead you place personal digs along for the ride... it's one thing when you disagree with analysis; when you call people names or question their comprehension skills, what can you really expect in return? You've called me names here too but I decided to deflect and let it pass... I haven't time for that sort of thing. Saw you go through the same saga with JT, then with Carl (to be fair Carl was one angry man)... take a breather my friend ;)

You do realize you're about the only one who agrees with him here?

And the point I'm making is if Ben throws 20 times in the first half building a lead and then only throws 7 or 8 times the rest of the game what relevance does the 30 attempt threshold have to success? Surely games that the Steelers used Ben's arm to build a lead shouldn't be used to discredit him as a "game manager" because they decided to take the "air out of the ball" to finish it out?

And again the last 3 Steeler games, all wins, Ben's thrown 30 or more passes. So again where' the relevance? Should Tomlin have pulled the plug on Ben in the 4th quarter of the Lions game when he completed 9-12 for 2 touchdowns because the limit was already reached? Maybe we should have just jammed Leveon down their throat there? Hell we probably would have won by more right?

:frusty:

You got it Q. Ben sucks fuck him. Hope he breaks his leg and retires.

[Mistah Q]

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with my perspective. I've never come close to using this sort of language:


You got it Q. Ben sucks fuck him. Hope he breaks his leg and retires.

Nor really implying same. I'm fine with disagreement, things like "banging head against wall" and "moron" and "fuck you" and such however... Life's too short to get so angry over a football discussion... lol.

[zulater]

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with my perspective. I've never come close to using this sort of language:



Nor really implying same. I'm fine with disagreement, things like "banging head against wall" and "moron" and "fuck you" and such however... Life's too short to get so angry over a football discussion... lol.


And of course dwins said nothing of the sort. The fact you called me out and not him on it is all I need to see. Bye Q.

[Mistah Q]

lol.

[Craic]

I started to post in order to show how far off Dwin's numbers were from the reality of gametime - that the context very much disapproves what he's trying to say the numbers show.

Then I realized, it doesn't matter. Just enjoy the game and the Turkey this Thursday everyone!

[GoSlash27]

I started to post in order to show how far off Dwin's numbers were from the reality of gametime - that the context very much disapproves what he's trying to say the numbers show.

Then I realized, it doesn't matter. Just enjoy the game and the Turkey this Thursday everyone!

Right back atcha! Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
/ Go Steelers!

[Dwinsgames]

12 hours after my last post in this thread and a full nights sleep to let cooler heads prevail I log in to see this


Latest Reputation Received



11-27-2013 09:10 AM
zulater (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/member.php/10-zulater)

Thread: before you dis and flame (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/18746-before-you-dis-and-flame?p=409226#post409226)
fuck you asshole.



good to see you have the ability to be an adult Zu ...

[Mistah Q]

Happy Thanksgiving all - have fun cooking and being with family today and tomorrow... and don't eat yourself into a pricier insurance bracket ;)

[Craic]

12 hours after my last post in this thread and a full nights sleep to let cooler heads prevail I log in to see this



good to see you have the ability to be an adult Zu ...

Um, doesn't that belong in a moderator's in-box, rather than exposed on the forum?

[MrPgh]

I think the message here is simple: Forget the stats, just watch the damn games.

[X-Terminator]

*Sighs*

Again, this thread is why I often bow out of discussions before I get upset.

We're done here.

[fansince'76]

One more thing - remember this, guys?


Dwins!!!! Welcome to the board!!!!:whoo:

This is a great addition to our board folks! I hope you post here often dwins! :drink:


I agree wholeheartedly with zulater's assessment above and I consider zulater to be a great member here too.

So can we please call a truce here? None of us like to have to lock down threads.