PDA

View Full Version : Context is Key



Mojouw
01-04-2016, 10:56 AM
The threads on this board have me thinking a ton about what reasonable standards are for coaching and player performance. Not sure I ever reach any answers, but wanted to highlight a few things from this past Sunday - where my schedule finally lined up and I could watch multiple games. It was glorious.

1. Seattle just absolutely throttled Arizona. This leads to two questions. The first is that Arizona and Pittsburgh have spent most of this season in the conversation for most explosive offense in the league. Arizona couldn't move the ball against Seattle and Pittsburgh could. Not sure what that means, but it means something. Second, Arizona has on paper a superior secondary to the Steelers. They got roasted. Again, that means something - not sure what.

2. Did anyone else see the mangled timeout situation in GB at the end of the game? Packers screwed themselves a bit by taking an unnecessary timeout late in the game. Point here is that it happens to other good teams as well. This may be damning the Steelers with faint praise, but if every other team is often screwing up clock management, then how bad is the Steelers situation in comparison?

3. The Jets just had to win and they were in. Playing on the road makes it a bit difficult but still a reasonable win. Fitzmagic throws 4 picks. 4! Also the team had multiple drops (one was a certain TD by Decker), penalties, and other early game miscues. So is that all on Todd Bowles for not having his team prepared or the players for executing?

That's all I got for right now. Just thinking that the more football I watch, the less angry and frustrated this team makes me. Look around the league, really look, and then tell me this team is actually as bad and dysfunctional as it is made out around here sometimes.

polamalubeast
01-04-2016, 11:02 AM
For Arizona, the game was meaningless yesterday since it was certain that Carolina would win against Tampa Bay.The Cardinals have scored 39 points in their win in Seattle in Week 10.

fansince'76
01-04-2016, 11:09 AM
Most of the league is mediocre - at best. And there isn't a great team out there. Not one.

GoSlash27
01-04-2016, 11:11 AM
IRT point #3, I watched the Bills/ Jets game exclusively yesterday. The Jets were *horrible* in the first half. If I were a Jets fan, I would've blamed them for beating themselves. About the only thing I could see them doing well was stopping the run.

polamalubeast
01-04-2016, 11:15 AM
Most of the league is mediocre - at best. And there isn't a great team out there. Not one.


And no defense is dominant this year.

Seattle finished first in points allowed, but in the best QB that the seahawks have played this year (Rodgers, Newton, Ben,Palmer and Dalton) they gave at least 27 points in each of their games(I not include the game who was meaningless for the Cardinals yesterday).

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 11:20 AM
The threads on this board have me thinking a ton about what reasonable standards are for coaching and player performance. Not sure I ever reach any answers, but wanted to highlight a few things from this past Sunday - where my schedule finally lined up and I could watch multiple games. It was glorious.

1. Seattle just absolutely throttled Arizona. This leads to two questions. The first is that Arizona and Pittsburgh have spent most of this season in the conversation for most explosive offense in the league. Arizona couldn't move the ball against Seattle and Pittsburgh could. Not sure what that means, but it means something. Second, Arizona has on paper a superior secondary to the Steelers. They got roasted. Again, that means something - not sure what.

2. Did anyone else see the mangled timeout situation in GB at the end of the game? Packers screwed themselves a bit by taking an unnecessary timeout late in the game. Point here is that it happens to other good teams as well. This may be damning the Steelers with faint praise, but if every other team is often screwing up clock management, then how bad is the Steelers situation in comparison?

3. The Jets just had to win and they were in. Playing on the road makes it a bit difficult but still a reasonable win. Fitzmagic throws 4 picks. 4! Also the team had multiple drops (one was a certain TD by Decker), penalties, and other early game miscues. So is that all on Todd Bowles for not having his team prepared or the players for executing?

That's all I got for right now. Just thinking that the more football I watch, the less angry and frustrated this team makes me. Look around the league, really look, and then tell me this team is actually as bad and dysfunctional as it is made out around here sometimes.


1. I don't think the Cardinals' offense was actually as explosive as it was made out to be. Both their defense and our defense got shredded by Seattle. I think Seattle put it together at the right time, is what that means.

2. Judging by the way other teams have performed against us in clock management in critical situations, mistakes seem to be the exception rather than the rule, and we are the ones typically making the mistakes. I don't think it happens "all the time" by any means.

3. The Jets are so hurky-jerky and inconsistent it's hard to tell who's going to show up. Just as importantly, they don't really have a quarterback, which contributes a lot to that. They must be incredibly frustrating to root for. In other words, they're an average team that overachieved this year and their luck finally ran out. (For all that people say "If I told you so-and-so was going to be injured, and such-and-such was going to happen, would you have picked the Steelers to make the playoffs ... would you have picked the Jets to be anything other than 4-12 when we were reading about Geno Smith getting coldcocked by his own teammate?) Basically, we are a team that's head and shoulders more talented than the Jets on paper, and being in that position was a combination of them punching above their weight most of the season and us punching below ours. Their coach took an utter shit situation and made the best of it; ours started with a championship team and did OK.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 11:29 AM
1. I don't think the Cardinals' offense was actually as explosive as it was made out to be. Both their defense and our defense got shredded by Seattle. I think Seattle put it together at the right time, is what that means.

2. Judging by the way other teams have performed against us in clock management in critical situations, mistakes seem to be the exception rather than the rule, and we are the ones typically making the mistakes. I don't think it happens "all the time" by any means.

3. The Jets are so hurky-jerky and inconsistent it's hard to tell who's going to show up. Just as importantly, they don't really have a quarterback, which contributes a lot to that. They must be incredibly frustrating to root for. In other words, they're an average team that overachieved this year and their luck finally ran out. (For all that people say "If I told you so-and-so was going to be injured, and such-and-such was going to happen, would you have picked the Steelers to make the playoffs ... would you have picked the Jets to be anything other than 4-12 when we were reading about Geno Smith getting coldcocked by his own teammate?) Basically, we are a team that's head and shoulders more talented than the Jets on paper, and being in that position was a combination of them punching above their weight most of the season and us punching below ours. Their coach took an utter shit situation and made the best of it; ours started with a championship team and did OK.

A championship team? How do you figure that? Really good offense, sure. But the rest of the team projected to be pretty mediocre. Not trying to criticize you at all. Just that is about the most optimistic assessment of the Steelers I have seen in some time. Was it simply based on the offense and Heyward and Tuitt carrying the rest?

fansince'76
01-04-2016, 11:30 AM
I do have to wonder how much better our record would have probably been if we didn't have to start Vick and Jones for 1/4 of it...

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 11:32 AM
I do have to wonder how much better our record would have probably been if we didn't have to start Vick and Jones for 1/4 of it...
True. Let's say they win even two more games. Now the division is in play and so is a first round bye. If that had happened we would be hearing a lot of chatter about Tomlin as coach of the year.

fansince'76
01-04-2016, 11:34 AM
A championship team? How do you figure that? Really good offense, sure. But the rest of the team projected to be pretty mediocre. Not trying to criticize you at all. Just that is about the most optimistic assessment of the Steelers I have seen in some time. Was it simply based on the offense and Heyward and Tuitt carrying the rest?

Exactly. Most people had this team penciled in at 3rd place in the AFCN and about 7-9/8-8 before this season began. The defense is still a mess, and will be the reason we don't win it all if we stumble in the next couple of weeks.

polamalubeast
01-04-2016, 11:35 AM
I think the steelers would have been in the first seed if they would have won both games against the ravens.

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 12:14 PM
A championship team? How do you figure that? Really good offense, sure. But the rest of the team projected to be pretty mediocre. Not trying to criticize you at all. Just that is about the most optimistic assessment of the Steelers I have seen in some time. Was it simply based on the offense and Heyward and Tuitt carrying the rest?


What I meant is that when Tomlin first started out, he inherited a championship team, and going from there to here is ok. Todd Bowles inherited a shit parade and did much better than anyone expected. It's probably not a fair comparison, because you can always use the fact that Tomlin started out with an advantage to play down some of his accomplishments. But I wouldn't call the Jets' performance this week a result of poor coaching; by all rights it was incredible for them to be there in the first place.

As for the Arizona point, I think there's something else going on with their defense too ... they've got their own mini-Blake situation in the defensive backfield. Since Mathieu tore his ACL, the guy who replaced him has just been getting his shit ruined.

steelerdude15
01-04-2016, 12:50 PM
True. Let's say they win even two more games. Now the division is in play and so is a first round bye. If that had happened we would be hearing a lot of chatter about Tomlin as coach of the year.

Earlier in the season when the Steelers were still afloat with Ben out, some of the national media felt that Tomlin should have been coach of the year.

- - - Updated - - -


Exactly. Most people had this team penciled in at 3rd place in the AFCN and about 7-9/8-8 before this season began. The defense is still a mess, and will be the reason we don't win it all if we stumble in the next couple of weeks.

If Williams can't play because of his ankle, the Steelers offense will probably become one dimension which won't help either. We have an unproven backups at running back.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 01:05 PM
What I meant is that when Tomlin first started out, he inherited a championship team, and going from there to here is ok. Todd Bowles inherited a shit parade and did much better than anyone expected. It's probably not a fair comparison, because you can always use the fact that Tomlin started out with an advantage to play down some of his accomplishments. But I wouldn't call the Jets' performance this week a result of poor coaching; by all rights it was incredible for them to be there in the first place.

As for the Arizona point, I think there's something else going on with their defense too ... they've got their own mini-Blake situation in the defensive backfield. Since Mathieu tore his ACL, the guy who replaced him has just been getting his shit ruined.

But that is even more confusing to me. In 1995 the Steelers went to the SB and lost. It then took Cowher and company 10 years to rebuild/reload the team into another championship contender. They broke through and won in 2005. Tomlin takes over and helms the same core to a win in 2008 and a loss in 2010. In 2011 an aging crew racked by key injuries goes 12-4 and painfully gets bounced by Tebow and the Broncos. Then there are 2 down years while a championship caliber defense lead by multiple HOF candidates is torn down and rebuilt on the fly. The offense is reloaded and revamped, but a less complete tear down is required. In 2014 the team re-emerges and goes 11-5 and begins to show an offense that is Tecmo Bowl video game #'s good. The defense is still suspect at best. In 2015 the Steelers go 10-6 with games missed by the anchor of the o-line, the emerging top 10 LT, the starting QB, the star RB that is the engine of the offense, Bongtavious misses time, their annointed LB playmaker (who arguably doesn't actually make plays) misses stretches, and their secondary proves to be as swiss-cheesey as everyone thought they would be. But they still go 10-6 and make the playoffs. Additionally, progress is shown on defense. The team fields the best 3 man line that doesn't feature someone named JJ Watt. The rookie OLB shows promise, the FA safety actually makes plays (and annoyingly tells EVERYONE about it), and the ILB are solid.

But all that is just "OK"? What is the barometer here then?

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 01:41 PM
But that is even more confusing to me. In 1995 the Steelers went to the SB and lost. It then took Cowher and company 10 years to rebuild/reload the team into another championship contender. They broke through and won in 2005. Tomlin takes over and helms the same core to a win in 2008 and a loss in 2010. In 2011 an aging crew racked by key injuries goes 12-4 and painfully gets bounced by Tebow and the Broncos. Then there are 2 down years while a championship caliber defense lead by multiple HOF candidates is torn down and rebuilt on the fly. The offense is reloaded and revamped, but a less complete tear down is required. In 2014 the team re-emerges and goes 11-5 and begins to show an offense that is Tecmo Bowl video game #'s good. The defense is still suspect at best. In 2015 the Steelers go 10-6 with games missed by the anchor of the o-line, the emerging top 10 LT, the starting QB, the star RB that is the engine of the offense, Bongtavious misses time, their annointed LB playmaker (who arguably doesn't actually make plays) misses stretches, and their secondary proves to be as swiss-cheesey as everyone thought they would be. But they still go 10-6 and make the playoffs. Additionally, progress is shown on defense. The team fields the best 3 man line that doesn't feature someone named JJ Watt. The rookie OLB shows promise, the FA safety actually makes plays (and annoyingly tells EVERYONE about it), and the ILB are solid.

But all that is just "OK"? What is the barometer here then?


The barometer is other championship teams that didn't have to replace a HOF-caliber quarterback. I just think that in that situation, as long as that QB continues to play at a high level, a successful outcome is to be a contender for all of the next decade or so, maybe with one bad year thrown in where nothing went your way. A lot of teams with the really good quarterbacks have done exactly that. Some have even replaced the QB on the fly.

Going through a rebuilding period of a few years and then contending means you did OK, but you let the team crumble and lost your momentum. Going to losing consistently means you really fucked up. Given some of the missteps we've made alongside the moves that worked, it seems pretty obvious we're in that middle category.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 02:32 PM
The barometer is other championship teams that didn't have to replace a HOF-caliber quarterback. I just think that in that situation, as long as that QB continues to play at a high level, a successful outcome is to be a contender for all of the next decade or so, maybe with one bad year thrown in where nothing went your way. A lot of teams with the really good quarterbacks have done exactly that. Some have even replaced the QB on the fly.

Going through a rebuilding period of a few years and then contending means you did OK, but you let the team crumble and lost your momentum. Going to losing consistently means you really fucked up. Given some of the missteps we've made alongside the moves that worked, it seems pretty obvious we're in that middle category.

So that would be the Colts, the Patriots, the Packers, and the Giants. Take a look at each one.

1. Colts move on from Manning to Luck and it took a tank season to do it. They looked okay for 3 years and now the wheels are falling off. And they are 1-1 in SB appearances in the Manning-Luck era.
2. Patriots are the "gold standard" 4-2 in Brady era SB and a legitimate shot to win it all almost every year.
3. Packers. 1-1 in SB's in the 16 Favre years and 1 SB in the 7 Rodgers years before now.
4. Giants are 2 time SB winners in the Manning era. Mixed in with 3 losing seasons.

Who else is even in the conversation? Chargers basically wasted Rivers whole career except for about 2 seasons. Brees and the Saints? I guess we could go back to Montana-Young, but that transition is not "fair" as much of it happened pre-salary cap.

In the Roethlisberger era the Steelers are 2-1 in SBs and have had only 3 seasons at less than 9-7. Who are these teams that are just killing it every year? I honestly have no idea what franchises you are talking about.

The Bark
01-04-2016, 03:13 PM
But that is even more confusing to me. In 1995 the Steelers went to the SB and lost. It then took Cowher and company 10 years to rebuild/reload the team into another championship contender.

Not true at all.

The Steelers won the AFC Central in 1996. They lost to the Patriots after winning the wild card game.

In 1997, The Steelers were four (4) points away from defeating John Elway and the Broncos and going to the Super Bowl. The Steelers were actually the higher seed, too.

In 2001, The Steelers were 13-3 and lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots.

In 2002, The Steelers were 10-5-1 and lost to the Titans 34-31 in the Divisional Game.

In 2004, Ben's rookie year, The Steelers were 15-1 and lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots.

There were a couple of dud years in between some of those appearances. It may have been another 10 years before they played in a Super Bowl, but they were certainly contenders, and strong ones - if not favorites - a number of those years in between.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 03:35 PM
Not true at all.

The Steelers won the AFC Central in 1996. They lost to the Patriots after winning the wild card game.

In 1997, The Steelers were four (4) points away from defeating John Elway and the Broncos and going to the Super Bowl. The Steelers were actually the higher seed, too.

In 2001, The Steelers were 13-3 and lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots.

In 2002, The Steelers were 10-5-1 and lost to the Titans 34-31 in the Divisional Game.

In 2004, Ben's rookie year, The Steelers were 15-1 and lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots.

There were a couple of dud years in between some of those appearances. It may have been another 10 years before they played in a Super Bowl, but they were certainly contenders, and strong ones - if not favorites - a number of those years in between.

Fair enough. Poor word choice on my part. The overall tone of the discussion(s) around here lately when it comes to Steelers coaches is "SB or Bust" so I was attempting to highlight that fact. The point being is that SB appearances are generally the exception not the rule across the NFL.

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 03:51 PM
So that would be the Colts, the Patriots, the Packers, and the Giants. Take a look at each one.

1. Colts move on from Manning to Luck and it took a tank season to do it. They looked okay for 3 years and now the wheels are falling off. And they are 1-1 in SB appearances in the Manning-Luck era.
2. Patriots are the "gold standard" 4-2 in Brady era SB and a legitimate shot to win it all almost every year.
3. Packers. 1-1 in SB's in the 16 Favre years and 1 SB in the 7 Rodgers years before now.
4. Giants are 2 time SB winners in the Manning era. Mixed in with 3 losing seasons.

Who else is even in the conversation? Chargers basically wasted Rivers whole career except for about 2 seasons. Brees and the Saints? I guess we could go back to Montana-Young, but that transition is not "fair" as much of it happened pre-salary cap.

In the Roethlisberger era the Steelers are 2-1 in SBs and have had only 3 seasons at less than 9-7. Who are these teams that are just killing it every year? I honestly have no idea what franchises you are talking about.


I'd say all but the Giants have been perennial contenders as long as they've had their star QB ... The current Giants team doesn't really fit anyway because it's not about changing quarterbacks, it's about changing coaches without replacing a star QB, and in any case they've had the same of both for the whole time. (I don't know if I'd call Eli Manning a "great" QB either.)

Take the Colts, for instance. Forget the Andrew Luck portion of it. As long as they had Manning, they were contending no matter who the coach was.

Packers - pretty much perennial contenders with Favre no matter who the coach was. Patriots - we all know how that goes. Call the 49ers' situation unfair, but it's out there ... you want a better comparison, take the Cowboys from the era immediately following that, when they did have a salary cap. They contended right up until Aikman couldn't get it done anymore, with or without Jimmy Johnson. You want to go back even further, how about the Raiders, who were one of the top teams for almost two decades with three different coaches; the one consistent thing being good QB play. No, there wasn't a salary cap, but money wasn't a factor like in the '80s and '90s either.

What you have there is a range of teams who have changed coaches with a great QB and gone all over the map, some did great, some poorly. Doing an excellent job means you are like the '70s Raiders, '80s 49ers, or (ugh) current Patriots. Doing a shitty job ... well, nobody really did a completely shitty job because their quarterback was going to carry them to roughly .500 no matter what. The mid-to-low end of the spectrum looks about like this, unless we win more championships soon.

It'll be OK because we still have Ben, but I don't think we kept it rolling quite like the really good ones. Does anyone think Barry Switzer was a great coach? Hey, his run was like a compressed version of Tomlin's tenure, .625 winning percentage and all.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 04:23 PM
I'd say all but the Giants have been perennial contenders as long as they've had their star QB ... The current Giants team doesn't really fit anyway because it's not about changing quarterbacks, it's about changing coaches without replacing a star QB, and in any case they've had the same of both for the whole time. (I don't know if I'd call Eli Manning a "great" QB either.)

Take the Colts, for instance. Forget the Andrew Luck portion of it. As long as they had Manning, they were contending no matter who the coach was.

Packers - pretty much perennial contenders with Favre no matter who the coach was. Patriots - we all know how that goes. Call the 49ers' situation unfair, but it's out there ... you want a better comparison, take the Cowboys from the era immediately following that, when they did have a salary cap. They contended right up until Aikman couldn't get it done anymore, with or without Jimmy Johnson. You want to go back even further, how about the Raiders, who were one of the top teams for almost two decades with three different coaches; the one consistent thing being good QB play. No, there wasn't a salary cap, but money wasn't a factor like in the '80s and '90s either.

What you have there is a range of teams who have changed coaches with a great QB and gone all over the map, some did great, some poorly. Doing an excellent job means you are like the '70s Raiders, '80s 49ers, or (ugh) current Patriots. Doing a shitty job ... well, nobody really did a completely shitty job because their quarterback was going to carry them to roughly .500 no matter what. The mid-to-low end of the spectrum looks about like this, unless we win more championships soon.

It'll be OK because we still have Ben, but I don't think we kept it rolling quite like the really good ones. Does anyone think Barry Switzer was a great coach? Hey, his run was like a compressed version of Tomlin's tenure, .625 winning percentage and all.

Much of that is simply not true. Take a look:

Packers under Favre - not contenders every year based on record. They had two stretches during the Favre years where they didn't make the playoffs for two seasons. Just like the Tomlin era Steelers. Sprinkle in some WC losses and you basically have the Tomlin-Roethlisberger era Steelers.

Manning era Colts made the playoffs every year but 2. So that was a sustained period of success. Brady era Pats we both agree are also an incredible consistently championship contender.

The Cowboys won 1 SB in the post 1994 salary cap NFL. They basically had a 6 year run from 1991-1996. In terms of SB appearances, the 2004-2010 Steelers matched them. Unfortunately, not in victories.

The 49'ers won the SB in the first year of the cap (1994). They haven't won it since. And except for the 2011-2013 mini-run under Harbaugh and Kapernik have been pretty mediocre since 1998 when Young moved on.

So in the parity driven salary cap limited NFL, we have TWO teams that have laid down the kind of success you are talking about - the Pats and the Colts. That's it. Frankly, I'm, putting the Steelers 3rd on that list for sure and making an argument for them to pass the Colts for 2nd with the Packers and Cowboys a distant 4th and 5th.

Again, I am not trying to tear anyone down personally or start a hippo-fart ad hominen straw man cool shades poker game, but if we are holding the Steelers to standards and evaluation criteria that basically no one ever has met, then what is the point? Of course they will fall short in such an evaluation.

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 05:45 PM
I mean, shit. I think we just have different ideas of what success is, and I'm probably holding them to a higher standard. Whatever the historical context, for the past 4 years or so after the most recent Super Bowl appearance just felt like they were not so good. A lot of "Hey, this year might have some promiseaaaaaa -- aw, shit. Nope." Call it a gut feeling or whatever you will. We were dangerously close to that again this year; the playoff berth might take some edge off of that, but if we flame out next week, I'm sure we'll be right back to agonizing over whatever the hell it means.

Anyway, I don't think it's anything terrible, or that the pro-Tomlin people are completely clueless coming out of left field; I simply think he's closer to just a regular coach than a great one. Could do worse, but could do better. It's not going to get settled now, or likely 10 years from now. There's always a case for and a case against. What we really need to do is win the fucking Super Bowl. Of that, I am certain.

Oh yeah - and make no mistake about it, I am now about 99% convinced this is all a rhetorical debate as of yesterday, because there is no way they will ACTUALLY fire Tomlin for the next 3-4 years unless they find out he's been embezzling money or something. So from a realist perspective, it ought to be "what can he do better," not "get rid of this guy," or at least that's how this debate should be taken from here on out. And yeah, the real knee-jerk Fire Tomlin stuff after every loss is stupid as hell, just like it always has been.

Mojouw
01-04-2016, 05:48 PM
I mean, shit. I think we just have different ideas of what success is, and I'm probably holding them to a higher standard. Whatever the historical context, for the past 4 years or so after the most recent Super Bowl appearance just felt like they were not so good. A lot of "Hey, this year might have some promiseaaaaaa -- aw, shit. Nope." Call it a gut feeling or whatever you will. We were dangerously close to that again this year; the playoff berth might take some edge off of that, but if we flame out next week, I'm sure we'll be right back to agonizing over whatever the hell it means.

Anyway, I don't think it's anything terrible, or that the pro-Tomlin people are completely clueless coming out of left field; I simply think he's closer to just a regular coach than a great one. Could do worse, but could do better. It's not going to get settled now, or likely 10 years from now. There's always a case for and a case against. What we really need to do is win the fucking Super Bowl. Of that, I am certain.

Oh yeah - and make no mistake about it, I am now about 99% convinced this is all a rhetorical debate as of yesterday, because there is no way they will ACTUALLY fire Tomlin for the next 3-4 years unless they find out he's been embezzling money or something. So from a realist perspective, it ought to be "what can he do better," not "get rid of this guy," or at least how it should be taken from here on out.

Yes. I'm totally onboard with that. Without at least one more championship, Ben's career is a bit of a "Waste".

ETL
01-04-2016, 06:40 PM
Life imitating fantasy. Week to week in the NFL reminds me of how my fantasy football team did. 160 points one week and then 50 points the next and then 146 the next. And as predictable as lotto balls

polamalubeast
01-04-2016, 06:54 PM
I want of course to see the Steelers win another SB, but winning a SB is very hard, so I will not considered the career of Roethlisberger as a waste if he not win a another SB, since only 4 QB have won at least 3 SB.

But I would at least want to see the steelers compete a few more times for the Super Bowl and not missed the playoffs again with Ben.

steelreserve
01-04-2016, 06:59 PM
I want of course to see the Steelers win another SB, but winning a SB is very hard, so I will not considered the career of Roethlisberger as a waste if he not win a another SB, since only 4 QB have won at least 3 SB.

But I would at least want to see the steelers compete a few more times for the Super Bowl and not missed the playoffs again with Ben.


That's probably the best way of putting it. Although since he won two Super Bowls very early on, and had at least 10 more years in which he was good enough to win another, it would sure be a shame if he didn't.