How hot is Keith Butler’s seat?

[hawaiiansteeler]

Pittsburgh Steelers: How hot is Keith Butler’s seat?

by Noah Strackbein

There’s no denying the Pittsburgh Steelers’ defense has come a long way in the last five years. But if they continue not to meet expectations, someone needs to pay for it.

Pittsburgh is a city that loves their football. It’s a family atmosphere for the Steelers. Whether you’re a player, coach or fan, you are a part of a living legacy that has been in the making for generations.

The team isn’t one to bounce from coach to coach, looking for the right man. That’s how you end up with three head coaches over the last 39 years. But that’s only because these men met the level of play they were brought in to obtain.

Six Super Bowl rings wasn’t handed to anyone. Whether you were/are a fan of the coach or not, taking home a Lombardi is nearly impossible. Explaining why Pittsburgh has only had three men leading the charge for as long as most can remember.

But defense still wins championships.

to read rest of article:

https://stillcurtain.com/2018/07/02/pittsburgh-steelers-hot-keith-butlers-seat/

[st33lersguy]

Should be red hot. If that defense doesn't improve every defensive coach from 2017 that wasn't fired this offseason should be gone next offseason barring significant improvements

[Edman]

Butler should've been let go after the playoff loss, but like Lebeau after the Tebow debacle in 2011, he's kept on board. While Blake Bortles is a legitimate NFL QB unlike Tebow, he's nothing special.

I don't have particularly high expectations for the Defense this year. All I can ask for it is not to be hot garbage.

[st33lersguy]

Butler should've been let go after the playoff loss, but like Lebeau after the Tebow debacle in 2011, he's kept on board. While Blake Bortles is a legitimate NFL QB unlike Tebow, he's nothing special.

I don't have particularly high expectations for the Defense this year. All I can ask for it is not to be hot garbage.

At least in 2011, LeBeau oversaw a defense that was no. 1 in scoring defense and was still one of the top units that keyed numerous low scoring wins that season. 2017, Butler's defense got shredded by Brett Hundley, the duo of a way past his prime Flacco and Alex Collins, and DeShone Kizer before surrendering over 40 points to Bortles

[Dwinsgames]

Butlers seat should be so hot he should be walking around with smoke coming off his ass every time he stands up , but I am not so sure he is ...

that said I am on record of not liking the hire to start with and nothing he has done since getting the job has changed my mind one iota , in fact it only reinforces it

[DesertSteel]

Butler's seat hot? It's as cool as the other side of the pillow...

[86WARD]

I just had a brief moment where I thought he was already fired and this was a bumped thread...lol.

[hawaiiansteeler]

I just had a brief moment where I thought he was already fired and this was a bumped thread...lol.

I would have fired him right after the Jacksonville game.

[vasteeler]

It should have been hotter than Haley's

[hawaiiansteeler]

It should have been hotter than Haley's

I think Ben was fed up with Haley and Tomlin had no choice but to fire him.

[DesertSteel]

Haley wasn’t renewed because of Ben. That’s probably undisputed by people around the organization.

[teegre]

Butler got a pass since he lost Shazier.

I expect the Steelers to win the SuperBowl, because the offense (finally) gels. More on topic, I see Tuitt & Watt making huge leaps; ergo, the defense will be “good enough” to win a ring.

[Craic]

I think he gets a two-year window. This year, they're going to try the safety-heavy defense, and then next year when they either have Shazier back or have cap room due to his salary being over, they will use the money to fill what holes they think the defense has left. If they don't perform well at the end of next year (not this coming season, but the following season) then I think he's gone.

[86WARD]

I think Craic pretty much hit the nail
On the head in Rogers’s to Butlers tenure. Unless a major collapse occurs, I think that’s how it plays out as well.

[Neversatisfied]

Not as hot as Tomlins should be

[Craic]

Not as hot as Tomlins should be
LMAO.
I still don't get this. Tomlin oversaw the rebuilding an offensive line that was in shambles thanks to Russ Grimm not replacing aging players with good rookies. He oversaw a draft that brought in two LBs that took our defense from good to great. He oversaw a complete overhall of the WRs two or three times, and now has possibility the most talented corp yet. Oh, and let us not forget a RB that has him on target to be, statistically, a great RB in the game (Again, statistically, as in 17th in yards per game rushing for all RBs in their first five years, 25th all time in yards for receptions and yards per target, and pretty much in the top fifty for all running backs ever to play the game for any stat in the top five years, and this on an offense with the number one WR and top 5-8 QB). And, while rebuilding all of that, has never had a losing season. Sure, he's broken even a couple of times, but never had a losing season.

I just don't get it.

[Hawkman]

LMAO.
I still don't get this. Tomlin oversaw the rebuilding an offensive line that was in shambles thanks to Russ Grimm not replacing aging players with good rookies. He oversaw a draft that brought in two LBs that took our defense from good to great. He oversaw a complete overhall of the WRs two or three times, and now has possibility the most talented corp yet. Oh, and let us not forget a RB that has him on target to be, statistically, a great RB in the game (Again, statistically, as in 17th in yards per game rushing for all RBs in their first five years, 25th all time in yards for receptions and yards per target, and pretty much in the top fifty for all running backs ever to play the game for any stat in the top five years, and this on an offense with the number one WR and top 5-8 QB). And, while rebuilding all of that, has never had a losing season. Sure, he's broken even a couple of times, but never had a losing season.

I just don't get it.

Me either....but then again, he is “Neversatisfied”.

[fansince'76]

LMAO.
I still don't get this. Tomlin oversaw the rebuilding an offensive line that was in shambles thanks to Russ Grimm not replacing aging players with good rookies. He oversaw a draft that brought in two LBs that took our defense from good to great. He oversaw a complete overhall of the WRs two or three times, and now has possibility the most talented corp yet. Oh, and let us not forget a RB that has him on target to be, statistically, a great RB in the game (Again, statistically, as in 17th in yards per game rushing for all RBs in their first five years, 25th all time in yards for receptions and yards per target, and pretty much in the top fifty for all running backs ever to play the game for any stat in the top five years, and this on an offense with the number one WR and top 5-8 QB). And, while rebuilding all of that, has never had a losing season. Sure, he's broken even a couple of times, but never had a losing season.

I just don't get it.

Simple. People have zero patience and demand instant (and constant) gratification and Tomlin simply isn't the "flavor of the week" - Doug Pederson currently is (on a side note, it will be interesting to see how the Eagles do now that they have the bull's eye on their backs as well as a first place schedule instead of a fourth place schedule).

On the AFC side, and thanks to recent head-to-head matchups, to somewhat of a lesser extent the "flavor of the week" would be Doug Marrone. (And of course, all the top-5 draft picks the Jaguars have had in recent seasons are naturally discounted as well - if only Tomlin/Colbert had the luxury of a top-5 draft pick for about half a decade or so running...)

And before them, it was Ron Rivera and Pete Carroll.

To borrow a shopworn Tomlinism, it is what it is.

[Craic]

Simple. People have zero patience and demand instant (and constant) gratification and Tomlin simply isn't the "flavor of the week" - Doug Pederson currently is (on a side note, it will be interesting to see how the Eagles do now that they have the bull's eye on their backs as well as a first place schedule instead of a fourth place schedule).

On the AFC side, and thanks to recent head-to-head matchups, to somewhat of a lesser extent the "flavor of the week" would be Doug Marrone. (And of course, all the top-5 draft picks the Jaguars have had in recent seasons are naturally discounted as well - if only Tomlin/Colbert had the luxury of a top-5 draft pick for about half a decade or so running...)

And before them, it was Ron Rivera and Pete Carroll.

To borrow a shopworn Tomlinism, it is what it is.

Sure makes me happy we have owners like the Rooneys rather than the ownership of teams like the Browns, Raiders, chiefs, Bucs, Redskins, and so on who change coaches more often than an SJW snowflake has to change soiled underwear at a gun range.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Man with a plan

Saturday, Jul 07, 2018

The objective for a defense that showed promise as last season progressed but eventually came unglued in the wake of inside linebacker Ryan Shazier’s season-ending injury in December is obvious:

Be better than the Steelers were in their 45-42 playoff loss to Jacksonville in January.

“We didn’t stop the run and we let ’em score too much,” defensive coordinator Keith Butler bluntly assessed during mandatory veteran minicamp.

to read rest of article:

https://www.steelers.com/news/man-with-a-plan

[teegre]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhc6CRgwkqg&app=desktop

Butler’s seat is hot... but, not “Hansel” hot.

[DesertSteel]

“We didn’t stop the run and we let ’em score too much,” defensive coordinator Keith Butler bluntly assessed during mandatory veteran minicamp.

This is the kind of refreshing insight that tells me Butler is playing chess while all the other DCs are playing checkers!!

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Butler got a pass since he lost Shazier.

.

I agree, but somebody should be accountable for not upgrading Mike Mitchell earlier. The safety play was not varsity enough for a quality defense.

[Neversatisfied]

LMAO.
I still don't get this. Tomlin oversaw the rebuilding an offensive line that was in shambles thanks to Russ Grimm not replacing aging players with good rookies. He oversaw a draft that brought in two LBs that took our defense from good to great. He oversaw a complete overhall of the WRs two or three times, and now has possibility the most talented corp yet. Oh, and let us not forget a RB that has him on target to be, statistically, a great RB in the game (Again, statistically, as in 17th in yards per game rushing for all RBs in their first five years, 25th all time in yards for receptions and yards per target, and pretty much in the top fifty for all running backs ever to play the game for any stat in the top five years, and this on an offense with the number one WR and top 5-8 QB). And, while rebuilding all of that, has never had a losing season. Sure, he's broken even a couple of times, but never had a losing season.

I just don't get it.

The defense was gashed often and it turns out Tomlin oversaw the defense last season not to mention his mediocre playoff record and how many years has it been since the Steelers have been to a Superbowl ( 10 years). Rumor has it that a Steeler minority owner felt the same as I and many others do.

[Craic]

I agree, but somebody should be accountable for not upgrading Mike Mitchell earlier. The safety play was not varsity enough for a quality defense.

I keep hearing that, but context just doesn't bear it out. Over the last two years, the problem has been cornerbacks. We focused on getting good ones in the draft, some worked, some didn't, some didn't even make the field. We traded for a CB, and it was a great trade. On top of that, we had a real need at LB because Jarvis Jones failed to produce, and his contract was coming due. So, we had to focus on LB as well last year. Amid all that change—a first or second year CB, a new CB last year traded to the team, another new safety, and new Linebacker last year, you wanted to add ANOTHER new safety? We already had communication problems.

No, until last year, Mitchell's play, while not worth his salary, also didn't warrant artificially creating another hole in the roster that had to be filled, and filled with a veteran who would play for x amount of dollars per year.

[Craic]

The defense was gashed often and it turns out Tomlin oversaw the defense last season not to mention his mediocre playoff record and how many years has it been since the Steelers have been to a Superbowl ( 10 years). Rumor has it that a Steeler minority owner felt the same as I and many others do.

Wait a second . . . mediocre? You DO realize that Tomlin has the eighth best playoff win percentage among all active coaches in the NFL, right? And, among those are Pete Carroll who was able to come in and draft several college players that he had personal knowledge of and Bill Belichick who, personally, I think doesn't belong in this list due to cheating. Then, look at the actual records. Harbaugh went to the playoffs each of his first five years. Missed a year, went again and lost in the second game, and has missed the playoffs for three straight years. Whisenhunt took his team to the playoffs only two times, and then went on three year bender that he carried over to Tennessee. Dan Quinn has only taken his teams to the playoffs twice. Sean Payton had a good run between 2009-2013, then didn't sniff the playoffs for three years.

By comparison, Mike Tomlin has only missed the playoffs twice in a row once, and only three times since he started here. He's been to the AFCCG three times and won two of them. His teams have been in contention for the playoffs on the last weekend of the season virtually every year, and they now have perhaps the best set of CBs on the field since I don't know when (Ike was great but Gay struggled as a true CB. He played much better in the nickle and dime). Moreover, you say our defense got gashed. Fine. I agree. However, you DO remember the absolute disastrous mess on offense he was left with that took the first seven years to fix? The o line was falling apart, we had one good WR and one with a severe pot problem. Kind of funny that as soon as we fixed that, we moved over to work on the defense, and we've seen glimpses for the last two years of what could be, but then injury rears its head.

Seriously, if a minority owner felt that way, I'm thankful he's not the majority owner. In fact, I'd rather they buy him at and send him on his way for even suggesting such foolishness.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I keep hearing that, but context just doesn't bear it out. Over the last two years, the problem has been cornerbacks. We focused on getting good ones in the draft, some worked, some didn't, some didn't even make the field. We traded for a CB, and it was a great trade. On top of that, we had a real need at LB because Jarvis Jones failed to produce, and his contract was coming due. So, we had to focus on LB as well last year. Amid all that change—a first or second year CB, a new CB last year traded to the team, another new safety, and new Linebacker last year, you wanted to add ANOTHER new safety? We already had communication problems.

No, until last year, Mitchell's play, while not worth his salary, also didn't warrant artificially creating another hole in the roster that had to be filled, and filled with a veteran who would play for x amount of dollars per year.

Mike Mitchell was a bottom 1/3 NFL safety, possibly in the bottom 20% of his peers. The fact that he doesn't seem to have landed on an NFL roster shows that nobody wants his lack of talented self on their team. A talented safety, or at least adequate safety can do a lot to support CB play in the pass game and Mitchell never did that.

[FrancoLambert]

Wait a second . . . mediocre? You DO realize that Tomlin has the eighth best playoff win percentage among all active coaches in the NFL, right? And, among those are Pete Carroll who was able to come in and draft several college players that he had personal knowledge of and Bill Belichick who, personally, I think doesn't belong in this list due to cheating. Then, look at the actual records. Harbaugh went to the playoffs each of his first five years. Missed a year, went again and lost in the second game, and has missed the playoffs for three straight years. Whisenhunt took his team to the playoffs only two times, and then went on three year bender that he carried over to Tennessee. Dan Quinn has only taken his teams to the playoffs twice. Sean Payton had a good run between 2009-2013, then didn't sniff the playoffs for three years.

By comparison, Mike Tomlin has only missed the playoffs twice in a row once, and only three times since he started here. He's been to the AFCCG three times and won two of them. His teams have been in contention for the playoffs on the last weekend of the season virtually every year, and they now have perhaps the best set of CBs on the field since I don't know when (Ike was great but Gay struggled as a true CB. He played much better in the nickle and dime). Moreover, you say our defense got gashed. Fine. I agree. However, you DO remember the absolute disastrous mess on offense he was left with that took the first seven years to fix? The o line was falling apart, we had one good WR and one with a severe pot problem. Kind of funny that as soon as we fixed that, we moved over to work on the defense, and we've seen glimpses for the last two years of what could be, but then injury rears its head.

Seriously, if a minority owner felt that way, I'm thankful he's not the majority owner. In fact, I'd rather they buy him at and send him on his way for even suggesting such foolishness.


C'mon.....sure he cheated and skirts the rules. But you cannot say all of his success is the result of cheating.
Honestly, I think most of his success is related to how good a coach he is.
I've learned it's very hard for hard core haters of Belichik to give him the credit he deserves.
The guy knows football.

[vasteeler]

C'mon.....sure he cheated and skirts the rules. But you cannot say all of his success is the result of cheating.
Honestly, I think most of his success is related to how good a coach he is.
I've learned it's very hard for hard core haters of Belichik to give him the credit he deserves.
The guy knows football.

If that's the case, why cheat?

[Craic]

Mike Mitchell was a bottom 1/3 NFL safety, possibly in the bottom 20% of his peers. The fact that he doesn't seem to have landed on an NFL roster shows that nobody wants his lack of talented self on their team. A talented safety, or at least adequate safety can do a lot to support CB play in the pass game and Mitchell never did that.

Not being on a team does not equate to lack of talent. Otherwise, you'd have to say the same for Dez Bryant, Eric Reid, even Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. All three of them still have the talent to be on an NFL roster even if it isn't first string. No, the fact he isn't on a roster has to do with age/money/team contributions. Moreover, while I'd agree with you that last year he suffered, my argument is that there was no reason BEFORE last year to get rid of him. So, last year, we see a drop off. In the offseason, he's gone. Sounds about right.

And, yes, there was adrop. In 2015 and 16, he had almost the same impact on the game (although 3 ints to 1 int in 16). He had 58 and then 55 tackles respectively, and 22 assists and nine passes defended both years.

According to "Approximate value" from pro-football reference, both years equaled his best year before coming to the Steelers. Funny thing, that number puts him tied for seventh BEST for all safeties in 2016 and tenth best in 2015. Yeah, not the bottom third by any means. Heck, an NFL 1000 "scout" put together a ranking system for this year, including coverage, recovery, slot performance, tackling, and position value. Mitchel was ranked 27 out of 45 this year, which is still not bottom third. For 2015, Pro football focus also slotted every Safety (twitter (https://twitter.com/pff/status/674756973930356736?lang=en)post) and Mitchell was 22, just after Charles Woodson and Kam Chancellor and Ha Ha Clinton-Dix. That's 22nd of 86, or in the top third and barely missing the top quarter.

So, no, every nonbiased stat site I find supports what my eyes told me. He was an above average safety that fell to average to sub-average because of age (and possible injury). However, he wasn't a bottom third talent by any means, not even last year.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Not being on a team does not equate to lack of talent. Otherwise, you'd have to say the same for Dez Bryant, Eric Reid, even Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. All three of them still have the talent to be on an NFL roster even if it isn't first string. No, the fact he isn't on a roster has to do with age/money/team contributions. Moreover, while I'd agree with you that last year he suffered, my argument is that there was no reason BEFORE last year to get rid of him. So, last year, we see a drop off. In the offseason, he's gone. Sounds about right.

And, yes, there was adrop. In 2015 and 16, he had almost the same impact on the game (although 3 ints to 1 int in 16). He had 58 and then 55 tackles respectively, and 22 assists and nine passes defended both years.

According to "Approximate value" from pro-football reference, both years equaled his best year before coming to the Steelers. Funny thing, that number puts him tied for seventh BEST for all safeties in 2016 and tenth best in 2015. Yeah, not the bottom third by any means. Heck, an NFL 1000 "scout" put together a ranking system for this year, including coverage, recovery, slot performance, tackling, and position value. Mitchel was ranked 27 out of 45 this year, which is still not bottom third. For 2015, Pro football focus also slotted every Safety (twitter (https://twitter.com/pff/status/674756973930356736?lang=en)post) and Mitchell was 22, just after Charles Woodson and Kam Chancellor and Ha Ha Clinton-Dix. That's 22nd of 86, or in the top third and barely missing the top quarter.

So, no, every nonbiased stat site I find supports what my eyes told me. He was an above average safety that fell to average to sub-average because of age (and possible injury). However, he wasn't a bottom third talent by any means, not even last year.

I'm happy that you liked the level of play of Mike Mitchell as a Steeler. I see that he was less impactful than former Steelers Chris Hope or Brent Alexander. IMO, whoever accepted that level of mediocrity should be on a hot seat.

[Craic]

I'm happy that you liked the level of play of Mike Mitchell as a Steeler. I see that he was less impactful than former Steelers Chris Hope or Brent Alexander. IMO, whoever accepted that level of mediocrity should be on a hot seat.
It's like you didn't even read my post. Top third. Almost top quarter. Fell off to just below top half this year and then was released. Several other positions more important to fill at the time.

Nope, let's ignore all of that. Mitchell was the entire problem! We should be expecting SB level performance this year, right? If not FIRE SOMEONE!

[teegre]

The defense was gashed often and it turns out Tomlin oversaw the defense last season not to mention his mediocre playoff record and how many years has it been since the Steelers have been to a Superbowl ( 10 years). Rumor has it that a Steeler minority owner felt the same as I and many others do.

The Steelers went to a SuperBowl in the 2010 season... so, that’s 8 years.

Since then, Tomlin has rebuilt a defense, while never having a losing record (which means picking in the second half of R1). He was an AB step-out against the Dolphins and a crappy/controversial FG (Chiefs-Chargers) from going to the playoffs two more times during that rebuild.

The Steelers have had Ben, AB, & Bell play in a playoff game just ONCE in their careers. Despite that, here’s who the Ateelers have lost to in the playoffs:

2010: lost to the SuperBowl champions
2011: puke fest
2014: lost to division rivals
2015: lost to the SuperBowl champions
2016: lost to the SuperBowl champions
2017: lost to the Jags (who have our number)

[GBMelBlount]

On a scale from 1 to Gisele, I would give him a 7.

https://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201616/dc/mood_5798.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg

[Iron Steeler]

No one fears our defense. To me as a Steeler fan that is a problem.

[Craic]

No one fears our defense. To me as a Steeler fan that is a problem.

I don't like it, but I'm come to understand that defense, in fact, does not win Superbowls. A good defensehelps you get to a SB, perhaps, but it doesn't win one. Not anymore.

[DesertSteel]

2017: lost to the Jags (who have our number)
No way am I ready to concede that!

[Edman]

2017: lost to the Jags (who have our number)

2-3 in the past five meetings against the Steelers.

Before last year, The Jaguars have not beaten the Steelers since 2007. That's not exactly "having a teams number". Jags have definitely grown into a formidable opponent however.

[hawaiiansteeler]

2-3 in the past five meetings against the Steelers.

Before last year, The Jaguars have not beaten the Steelers since 2007. That's not exactly "having a teams number". Jags have definitely grown into a formidable opponent however.

Jags kicked our asses last year, their offensive line pretty much owned our front 7 last season.

[Craic]

Jags kicked our asses last year, their offensive line pretty much owned our front 7 last season.

Yep, but there's been years where the Raven's have beaten us both games and by considerably larger margins. Then, the next year, it's a different situation. IMO, our first loss to them was due to Ben's poor play and a RB and Line still getting used to each other. The second loss was due to having to patch up a major hole in the defense with the loss of Shazier and having a safety that had lost enough of his step that he limited how the defense could respond to the loss. Remember, once is a mistake, twice a coincidence. Three times a pattern. I won't put much stock into the losses last year as an overall pattern, yet.

[Edman]

Jags kicked our asses last year, their offensive line pretty much owned our front 7 last season.

The first loss was Ben having one of the absolute worst games of his career, then came back and carved up their secondary.

The second loss was untimely turnovers putting Pittsburgh in a hole early and having to play from behind all game on top of a holey Defense (that weeks prior was ripped apart by the Ravens, Packers, and Browns) that had its bottom fall out. Those early turnovers made all the difference in that game. "Sacksonville" could not stop the B's.

Jacksonville did nothing otherworldly or special to beat the Steelers last year, they just won.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Jacksonville did nothing otherworldly or special to beat the Steelers last year, they just won.

re-watch the 2nd game and note how the Jags' offensive line manhandled our front seven...

[st33lersguy]

Jackassville won because Pittsburgh was looking ahead to new England. The first game I think they were looking ahead to then unbeaten Kansas city

[hawaiiansteeler]

Jackassville won because Pittsburgh was looking ahead to new England. The first game I think they were looking ahead to then unbeaten Kansas city

if true, that falls on the coaching staff...

[st33lersguy]

if true, that falls on the coaching staff...

Totally. A team with 10 pro bowlers playing in a paper thin conference, cant win a playoff game, and cant get past borderline draft bust Blake Bortles, it is on the coaches.

[Edman]

re-watch the 2nd game and note how the Jags' offensive line manhandled our front seven...

Again, nothing otherworldly or special. The dynamic duo of Joe Flacco and Alex Collins hung 38 on the Steelers Defense and Brett Hundley and the Packers torched them. Deshone Kizer shredded them as well in the last game. Even the Titans game hid some glaring problems. The issues where there the whole time, we just didn't want to see it. Some savvy posters on here saw the Jacksonville Playoff nightmare coming a mile away, but nobody listened.

They will tell you watching the Steelers Defense last year could see some problems, even before and especially after they lost Shazier. The 2017 Defense hides behind some pretty statistics, but it was probably one of the worst Steelers D's in over a decade. Jacksonville simply capitalized on something that was already exposed and there all along, but many of us didn't want to see: The 2017 Steelers had a paper Defense that won 13 games in spite of it. They could barely stop anyone, the pass rush was near nonexistent despite the record sacks, hardly made any meaningful impact plays, and barely turned the ball over.

Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened in the playoff game. The Steelers D could do none of those things. The 2015/16 Defense makes a play in that game that changes the tide, or at the very least, makes a stop when they need one.

All the more reason why Butler should be on the hot seat.

[Hawkman]

On a scale from 1 to Gisele, I would give him a 7.

https://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201616/dc/mood_5798.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg

I have to wonder......do you think she cheats?

- - - Updated - - -


Jackassville won because Pittsburgh was looking ahead to new England. The first game I think they were looking ahead to then unbeaten Kansas city

......and your bases for that comment is...........what?

[st33lersguy]

I have to wonder......do you think she cheats?

- - - Updated - - -



......and your bases for that comment is...........what?

They were talking about playing New England in a playoff rematch ever since November, and you could see it in the performance not only in the playoff game but the regular season as well as they struggled mightily against numerous bad and average teams during the regular season and were bailed out by Ben, AB, and Boz. Regular season, Jacksonville was 2-2 and Kansas City, the upcoming game was undefeated. It was likely they didn't respect Jacksonville coming into that game and had more respect for Kansas City. Plus, it's not like the team doesn't have a tendency to gloss over teams that are inferior to them

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

They were talking about playing New England in a playoff rematch ever since November, and you could see it in the performance not only in the playoff game but the regular season as well as they struggled mightily against numerous bad and average teams during the regular season and were bailed out by Ben, AB, and Boz. Regular season, Jacksonville was 2-2 and Kansas City, the upcoming game was undefeated. It was likely they didn't respect Jacksonville coming into that game and had more respect for Kansas City. Plus, it's not like the team doesn't have a tendency to gloss over teams that are inferior to them

I don't think they looked past Jacksonville. I think if a team beats you in the regular season and dominates the LOS in that game, then you probably don't look past them in the playoffs.

Defense and running game is a good formula to win in the playoffs, especially in outdoor games in January weather. Jags defense was better than Steelers, Jags run game was better than Steelers (or the Steelers run defense with Sean Spence at ILB was porous)

[st33lersguy]

I don't think they looked past Jacksonville. I think if a team beats you in the regular season and dominates the LOS in that game, then you probably don't look past them in the playoffs.

Defense and running game is a good formula to win in the playoffs, especially in outdoor games in January weather. Jags defense was better than Steelers, Jags run game was better than Steelers (or the Steelers run defense with Sean Spence at ILB was porous)

If they weren't, they did a very good job of hiding it considering how much they blathered about a rematch with New England since November

[Edman]

The Steelers didn't look past Jacksonville, they simply just weren't good enough (Defensively).

[Mojouw]

Turnovers dude. Turnovers and forcing a few punts. That's all the defense has to do.

All this moaning about the Jags playoff game. We everyone realizes that the Steelers D only needed to force one turnover or one more punt and the offense wins that game. Team was able to carve up one of the best all around defenses in the league like they weren't even there for almost the entire second half.

This is what the Steelers need to be now. A runaway train on offense and a defense that provides the offense with the one or two extra possession s needed to win the game.

For Mitchell and the rest it isn't so much a down to down thing. It is the lack of 3rd down stops and turnovers. Almost all of those came from Shazier and Watt. Until that changes, rest is just arguments about details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

If they weren't, they did a very good job of hiding it considering how much they blathered about a rematch with New England since November

Yup, and when the Steelers lost to the Colts in the regular season in 2005, they said "we will probably be seeing them again". Which the Steelers did see the Colts in the playoffs, on the way to winning SBXL. Just because some members of the team believed they would have to beat the champs to be the champs, it doesn't mean they looked past everybody else they played from week to week.

[DesertSteel]

The Steelers didn't look past Jacksonville, they simply just weren't good enough (Defensively).
Winner, winner!!

[43Hitman]

If they weren't, they did a very good job of hiding it considering how much they blathered about a rematch with New England since November

Ryan Shazier wasn't hurt in November either. We all know that had a huge difference in how the defense had to play.

[st33lersguy]

Obviously, the defense didn't play well enough, that is not out of the question, but just attributing the loss to Sean Spence playing instead of Shazier is an oversimplification. It's more than that. Blathering about playing New England was also a contributing factor. It not only gets them looking ahead to other games (evident in not just losing to Jacksonville but also barely beating numerous teams that missed the playoffs throughout the year), but it also emboldens the opposition and makes them want to play harder just to shut everyone up and prove doubters wrong.

- - - Updated - - -


Yup, and when the Steelers lost to the Colts in the regular season in 2005, they said "we will probably be seeing them again". Which the Steelers did see the Colts in the playoffs, on the way to winning SBXL. Just because some members of the team believed they would have to beat the champs to be the champs, it doesn't mean they looked past everybody else they played from week to week.

And when they lost to Cincinnati which dropped them to 7-5 and put them on the brink of playoff elimination, Cowher told his team to wipe the slate clean and that every game from that point on was a one game season. Cowher delivered the same message in 95 when the Steelers were 3-4 and they went on to make the Super Bowl

[Born2Steel]

NFL teams don't overlook other NFL teams. It's not like CFB, the NFL is a job. You prepare the same each week. Some individual players may have been overly confident but the team prepared the same. The Jags simply played better than we did both games and they beat us.

The defense must continue to improve. Same as every season. The offense must continue to produce. Same as every season. We have the personnel and coaches to win a lot of football games this year. But we will lose some. None of the losses will be due to lack of preparation or overlooking a team.

I think our division will play out differently this season. I still believe we will repeat as champs. I think the Browns and Ravens improved, and the Bengals didn't improve this offseason. I'll actually predict(July) the division finishes, Steelers, Ravens, Browns, Bengals.

Butler's seat is not 'hot' because that's not how the Steelers traditionally do things.(FUN FACT: Butler and Fichtner both ex-Memphis Tigers coaches)

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

NFL teams don't overlook other NFL teams. It's not like CFB, the NFL is a job. You prepare the same each week. Some individual players may have been overly confident but the team prepared the same. The Jags simply played better than we did both games and they beat us.



Agreed, thanks for the ….what does Teegre call it?.....Summation?

As you say, the NFL isn't like college, nobody is scheduling Austin Peay for homecoming week. Every week is a difficult opponent and there are no easy wins in the NFL.

[Mojouw]

I feel like we circle around the same issue a few times a year on here. Like others are saying, there are no easy wins in the NFL. Years ago there might have been. But the gap between the best team in the league and the worst is vanishingly small. Perhaps narrower than any other pro sport. The league has spent the last two decades tweaking things to ensure that is a reality.

For me, I'm loathe to call for big changes to an organization that has been able to do what only a handful of others can-be playoff competitive year and year out. I've watched this team for the most of the last 30 years and I can't remember the last time the season started and I thought, "yeah. They have no shot." How many other fanbases can say that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DesertSteel]

What is the difference between OVERLOOKING a team and PLAYING DOWN to a team? While I'd agree for the most part that the latter doesn't happen, there's too many occurrences to believe that the latter doesn't happen.

[Mojouw]

What is the difference between OVERLOOKING a team and PLAYING DOWN to a team? While I'd agree for the most part that the latter doesn't happen, there's too many occurrences to believe that the latter doesn't happen.
I don’t think there is such a thing as playing down to a team. I think it is fan and media driven nonsense.

[GBMelBlount]

I don’t think there is such a thing as playing down to a team. I think it is fan and media driven nonsense.

Terminology aside, there is no question in my mind that individuals, and teams, get more up for some games than others.

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Terminology aside, there is no question in my mind that individuals, and teams, get more up for some games than others.

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

:iagree:

[Mojouw]

Terminology aside, there is no question in my mind that individuals, and teams, get more up for some games than others.

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

Sure and everyone has good and bad days at work. Sometimes you just don't have it. Doesn't mean there is a systemic issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Craic]

So, I keep hearing this team sucks against bad opponents. I wanted to see if that were true based on last year. So, looking at all AFC playoff teams, let's look at their losses.



New England. Loss to Miami (a 6-7 team when they played them. Miami went on to lose their last three games). Pats* final record 13-3 = 33 percent loss to sub .500 teams.
Jax. Loss to the Jets, who were 5-11 (1-2 when they played). Loss to 49ers, who were 6-10 (4-10 when they played). Loss to the Cards, 8-8 final (but were 5-7 before the game). Jax Final record, 10-6 =50 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
KC. Loss to the Raiders who were 6-10 (2-4 headed into the game). Loss to the Giants final record 3-13 (1-8 before that game). Loss to the Jets (4-7 going into the game) KC Final record, 10-6=50 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
Titans. Loss to Raiders (first game). Loss to Texans who were 4-12 (1-2 when they played). Loss to Miami (1-2 when they played). Loss to SF 49ers (3-10 when they played). Final record 9-7 = 57 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
Bills, loss to Jets (3-5 headed into game). Final record, 9-7. This one is the outlier. .14 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.


STEELERS
Loss to the Bears 5-11, 0-2 when they played. That's it. Jags were at 500 when they played and went on from there to rattle off wins after a loss to the Rams (who were another top team). That = 33 percent loss ration to sub .500 teams.

tl;dr Steelers were tied for second place among AFC playoff teams for best record against sub .500 teams.

[Mojouw]

So, I keep hearing this team sucks against bad opponents. I wanted to see if that were true based on last year. So, looking at all AFC playoff teams, let's look at their losses.



New England. Loss to Miami (a 6-7 team when they played them. Miami went on to lose their last three games). Pats* final record 13-3 = 33 percent loss to sub .500 teams.
Jax. Loss to the Jets, who were 5-11 (1-2 when they played). Loss to 49ers, who were 6-10 (4-10 when they played). Loss to the Cards, 8-8 final (but were 5-7 before the game). Jax Final record, 10-6 =50 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
KC. Loss to the Raiders who were 6-10 (2-4 headed into the game). Loss to the Giants final record 3-13 (1-8 before that game). Loss to the Jets (4-7 going into the game) KC Final record, 10-6=50 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
Titans. Loss to Raiders (first game). Loss to Texans who were 4-12 (1-2 when they played). Loss to Miami (1-2 when they played). Loss to SF 49ers (3-10 when they played). Final record 9-7 = 57 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.
Bills, loss to Jets (3-5 headed into game). Final record, 9-7. This one is the outlier. .14 percent loss ratio to sub .500 teams.


STEELERS
Loss to the Bears 5-11, 0-2 when they played. That's it. Jags were at 500 when they played and went on from there to rattle off wins after a loss to the Rams (who were another top team). That = 33 percent loss ration to sub .500 teams.

tl;dr Steelers were tied for second place among AFC playoff teams for best record against sub .500 teams.

I do love me some context. Great stuff. Perhaps I take it to extremes when I say it doesn't happen but a league wide look at it says pfffffttt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teegre]

So many good points... I’ll just add this:

When Belichick ekes our a victory over the hapless Jets, people throw accolades at Belichick for “showing moxie”.

When Tomlin ekes our a victory over a hapless team, people say that Tomlin “looked past” that team and/or “played down” to the competition.

SUMMATION:
If Tomlin cheated more, people would like him more. :huh:

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

When Belichick ekes our a victory over the hapless Jets, people throw accolades at Belichick for “showing moxie”.

When Tomlin ekes our a victory over a hapless team, people say that Tomlin “looked past” that team and/or “played down” to the competition.

SUMMATION:
If Tomlin cheated more, people would like him more. :huh:

:applaudit: Great comparison and point. Plus, I always loves me a good summation!!

[DesertSteel]

I don’t think there is such a thing as playing down to a team. I think it is fan and media driven nonsense.
Results are what they are. When you beat good teams and lose to bad teams in the form of a pattern, it becomes your label. I couldn't care less about how much they win by - this isn't college. An eked out win is good enough for me, but not losses to 2-6 and 3-9 teams.

- - - Updated - - -


So, I keep hearing this team sucks against bad opponents. I wanted to see if that were true based on last year.
I think you have to look beyond just last year when they only lost 3 games all year.

[Mojouw]

Results are what they are. When you beat good teams and lose to bad teams in the form of a pattern, it becomes your label. I couldn't care less about how much they win by - this isn't college. An eked out win is good enough for me, but not losses to 2-6 and 3-9 teams.

But that is my exact point. The difference between a 3-6 team and a 6-3 team in the NFL is minuscule. Often it is one stop or turnover in a given game that is the difference between winning and losing. So that means a 3 win difference is maybe 3-6 plays. Studies have proven that fumbles and turnovers are largely often random "luck" and not predictable year to year.

A dozen "bounces" per year. Bad team? Unlucky team? Unfocused team? I'm gonna go with just coming up a few plays short.

[DesertSteel]

But that is my exact point. The difference between a 3-6 team and a 6-3 team in the NFL is minuscule. Often it is one stop or turnover in a given game that is the difference between winning and losing. So that means a 3 win difference is maybe 3-6 plays. Studies have proven that fumbles and turnovers are largely often random "luck" and not predictable year to year.

A dozen "bounces" per year. Bad team? Unlucky team? Unfocused team? I'm gonna go with just coming up a few plays short.
I think you're just looking at statistics and measurables when you say "minuscule." Losing teams must learn HOW TO WIN and some do not have that DNA. It's been proven over and again in sports. To be even more specific, it also comes down to playing terrible QBs. Making guys look like All-Pros behind center when they're backup journeymen happens too much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on a soap box. I didn't start the conversation, but I'm not going into denial either.

[FrancoLambert]

But that is my exact point. The difference between a 3-6 team and a 6-3 team in the NFL is minuscule. Often it is one stop or turnover in a given game that is the difference between winning and losing. So that means a 3 win difference is maybe 3-6 plays. Studies have proven that fumbles and turnovers are largely often random "luck" and not predictable year to year.

A dozen "bounces" per year. Bad team? Unlucky team? Unfocused team? I'm gonna go with just coming up a few plays short.


All due respect, I think the difference between 6-3 and 3-6 teams is more than minuscule.
I know I'd feel crappy if the Steelers were 3-6 after 9 games. But at 6-3 I'm thinking we're in it.
I know I'm talking about fan emotions here, but I also think it reflects what kind of team you really have.
:drink:

[Mojouw]

I think you're just looking at statistics and measurables when you say "minuscule." Losing teams must learn HOW TO WIN and some do not have that DNA. It's been proven over and again in sports. To be even more specific, it also comes down to playing terrible QBs. Making guys look like All-Pros behind center when they're backup journeymen happens too much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on a soap box. I didn't start the conversation, but I'm not going into denial either.
Fair enough. There are good points on either side of the issue. I can only speak for myself. I see a team that consistently wins in late game situations and fights through all 16 games and I have only rarely seen “give up” on a game in many many years.

I kinda think that any season over 9-7 is a “bonus” and looking at teams like the Rams and Eagles who can go from pretty lost record wise to a formidable win/loss record in a season or less, it really makes me believe that there are only a few (if any) truly bad teams in the NFL.

Plus, other posters on here and articles on Steelers focused sites have laid out how many of the “bad” teams the Steelers have lost to were a losing team when they played, but a fringe playoff team or better by the end of a given season. So is that a bad lose or an okay one at the end of the day?

If we assume that teams do have to learn to win, perhaps we often see teams learning to win against high end conmpetition like the Steelers? If you are a young team trying to come together or an improving team, what better way to gauge your progress than going flat out against a perennial playoff team and borderline yearly SB contender? At the same time, the Steelers are almost annually folding young players and 2nd contract vets into their roster while exhibiting little overall drop off in performance. Despite the lapses and breakdowns we can readily identify, the Steelers seem to flatten the learning curve more than every other team except a small handful of organizations with comparable success.

As to terrible QBs, it is just so hard to gauge. We just saw a season and off season cycle where Cousins got paid, Alex Smith looked like a world beater at times, Keenum almost played in a super bowl, and Foles hoisted the Lombardi. Meanwhile Eli Manning looked at times like he had a fork in his back, Flacco was horrible all year, many of the touted next generation of QBs seemingly peaked short of expectations, and Goff looked great until it mattered most. The line between bad-good-great is just so much thinner than it has ever been that I can remember.

[Mojouw]

All due respect, I think the difference between 6-3 and 3-6 teams is more than minuscule.
I know I'd feel crappy if the Steelers were 3-6 after 9 games. But at 6-3 I'm thinking we're in it.
I know I'm talking about fan emotions here, but I also think it reflects what kind of team you really have.
:drink:

OF course the difference in how fans and the team would feel about things is more than minuscule, but the on-field and roster construction things that lead to a 3-6 or 6-3 record are vanishingly small. If Andrew Luck’s shoulder hadn’t disintegrated, what is the Colts record last year? If the Bengals had made different moves in the offseason and fielded and actual competent offensive line, how many more games do they win? What about the Chiefs if ERic Berry doesn’t get hurt? What if Ben only throws 3 picks instead of 5 in the first Jags game?

[DesertSteel]

Fair enough. There are good points on either side of the issue. I can only speak for myself. I see a team that consistently wins in late game situations and fights through all 16 games and I have only rarely seen “give up” on a game in many many years.

I kinda think that any season over 9-7 is a “bonus” and looking at teams like the Rams and Eagles who can go from pretty lost record wise to a formidable win/loss record in a season or less, it really makes me believe that there are only a few (if any) truly bad teams in the NFL.

Plus, other posters on here and articles on Steelers focused sites have laid out how many of the “bad” teams the Steelers have lost to were a losing team when they played, but a fringe playoff team or better by the end of a given season. So is that a bad lose or an okay one at the end of the day?

If we assume that teams do have to learn to win, perhaps we often see teams learning to win against high end conmpetition like the Steelers? If you are a young team trying to come together or an improving team, what better way to gauge your progress than going flat out against a perennial playoff team and borderline yearly SB contender? At the same time, the Steelers are almost annually folding young players and 2nd contract vets into their roster while exhibiting little overall drop off in performance. Despite the lapses and breakdowns we can readily identify, the Steelers seem to flatten the learning curve more than every other team except a small handful of organizations with comparable success.

I'm happy with Tomlin and the overall product. It's not as easy as people want it to be. The areas I'd like Tomlin to improve are controlling the drama, preparedness against inferior opponents and clock management. I realize these can all be shot down by people taking different views. I like Tomlin, but hey he's not perfect.



As to terrible QBs, it is just so hard to gauge. We just saw a season and off season cycle where Cousins got paid, Alex Smith looked like a world beater at times, Keenum almost played in a super bowl, and Foles hoisted the Lombardi. Meanwhile Eli Manning looked at times like he had a fork in his back, Flacco was horrible all year, many of the touted next generation of QBs seemingly peaked short of expectations, and Goff looked great until it mattered most. The line between bad-good-great is just so much thinner than it has ever been that I can remember.
Forget Cousins, let's talk about Brett Hundley and Mike Glennon!

[hawaiiansteeler]

Forget Cousins, let's talk about Brett Hundley and Mike Glennon!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICthSsy8kDU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciCto3ll2Ys

[Six Rings]

I don’t think there is such a thing as playing down to a team. I think it is fan and media driven nonsense.

When Shazier went down, so did the defense. NT, and ILB remain an issue vs the run. Without Shazier we lose pass coverage ability.

Yet three of our first four draft picks went to the offense?

[Mojouw]

What connection are you drawing here?

You seem to be arguing for talent deficiencies on the defensive roster. That is completely different than playing down to a team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojouw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICthSsy8kDU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciCto3ll2Ys

Ok. So Glennon makes one play on 2nd down. Looks like someone lost Murphy in coverage. The endzone throw is a far bigger guy bodying up Willie Gay. That's complete every time by anyone on an NFL roster. So that whole thing hinges on one play/one coverage that allowed the big gainer on second down.

Not sure what's going on with Hundley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwinsgames]

Sure and everyone has good and bad days at work. Sometimes you just don't have it. Doesn't mean there is a systemic issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but when it is seemingly a collective effort of " having a bad day" all at the same time ... to much coincidence in that to be believable ( 53 man roster ) and it cycles just about every time we play a scrub team ...

what choice do we have other than say they played down .....

I mean we could say they bet on the opponent , would that make anyone feel any better ?

[teegre]

I’m not trying to bag on Mark Kaloby, but his “losing to sub .500 teams” tweet from a few years ago has mutated into an Internet monster.

As I've posted for years, half of the teams in the NFL are “sub .500” after the first week of he season. So, if the Ravens lose in Week 1, but beat us in Week 2, it’s considered a “loss to a sub .500 team.”

#misleadingstats

[Mojouw]

What is defined as playing down? Kinda jumping off Teegre’s point here. In 2016 everyone complained for weeks about the Dolphins loss. That ended up being a 10-6 Dolphins team. Losing to a winning squad with a hurt QB and a DLine that got mauled all game is kinda understandable. Not perhaps fun or acceptable, but by record - the Phins and Steelers were kinda on the same level...

There is the Bears loss in 2017 and then I have to go to 2014 for the losses to the Jets, Browns, and Bucs were I am seeing a “bad” loss. I kinda stopped there because I barely remember the situations and contexts for the 2017 season let alone several years ago...

Not saying that anyone has to agree but the line between winning and losing is just so damn small in the NFL that I don’t buy that any team cant beat any other team at the drop of a hat. I just don’t see week in and week out season after season dominant teams anymore.

[Craic]

I’m not trying to bag on Mark Kaloby, but his “losing to sub .500 teams” tweet from a few years ago has mutated into an Internet monster.

As I've posted for years, half of the teams in the NFL are “sub .500” after the first week of he season. So, if the Ravens lose in Week 1, but beat us in Week 2, it’s considered a “loss to a sub .500 team.”

#misleadingstats
Yep, that's exactly why when I did mine, I went for the season long .500 or sub .500 teams and then also posted the opponent's record when they played. It makes a very big difference.

[Craic]

I think you have to look beyond just last year when they only lost 3 games all year.
Except, you also said "an eked out win is good enough for me." So, last year's losing only three games shows they do very well against sub .500 teams. However, I did as you asked.



2016 Steelers lost only to one sub .500 team—the Eagles at 7-9, but the Eagles were 3-0 when they played. The loss to Miami does not count as Miami had a winning record, moreover, they had made personnel changes prior to that game that sent them on a six game win streak and 9-2 for the rest of the season. Thus, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2015 Steelers only losses to sub .500 teams were their losses to the Ravens (frankly, I don’t count this game. Steelers-Ravens is always tough because of rivalry, but I’ll count it here). .333 percent of their losses to sub .500 teams (1 team twice—and a rival at that.). So, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2014 Steelers lost to the Bucs, Browns, Jets, and New Orleans. It was a bad season. .800 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2013 Eight loss season. In it, we lost to the Titans 7-9, the Vikings 5-10-1, and the Raiders for sub .500 teams. That’s .333 percent of lost games to sub .500 teams.


In short, what this shows is one season where we struggled to win against sub .500 teams. That's also the season where we had a horrible defense with no CBs and anyone could throw on us all day long. Troy was still playing, kind of. He was out for four games and just wasn't himself anymore. Remove that one bad season as an outlier, and you have 22 losses of which 7 were to sub .500 teams for a .318 percent record. (.423 with the anomalous year of 2014).

Going further,
2012 was .500 of losses against sub .500, we were also 8-8 and suffering a rebuild
2011 we lost no games to sub .500 teams
2010 we lost no games to sub .500 teams.

So, in the 00s, it seems we've done really well outside of 1 year.

[DesertSteel]

Except, you also said "an eked out win is good enough for me." So, last year's losing only three games shows they do very well against sub .500 teams. However, I did as you asked.



2016 Steelers lost only to one sub .500 team—the Eagles at 7-9, but the Eagles were 3-0 when they played. The loss to Miami does not count as Miami had a winning record, moreover, they had made personnel changes prior to that game that sent them on a six game win streak and 9-2 for the rest of the season. Thus, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2015 Steelers only losses to sub .500 teams were their losses to the Ravens (frankly, I don’t count this game. Steelers-Ravens is always tough because of rivalry, but I’ll count it here). .333 percent of their losses to sub .500 teams (1 team twice—and a rival at that.). So, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2014 Steelers lost to the Bucs, Browns, Jets, and New Orleans. It was a bad season. .800 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2013 Eight loss season. In it, we lost to the Titans 7-9, the Vikings 5-10-1, and the Raiders for sub .500 teams. That’s .333 percent of lost games to sub .500 teams.


In short, what this shows is one season where we struggled to win against sub .500 teams. That's also the season where we had a horrible defense with no CBs and anyone could throw on us all day long. Troy was still playing, kind of. He was out for four games and just wasn't himself anymore. Remove that one bad season as an outlier, and you have 22 losses of which 7 were to sub .500 teams for a .318 percent record. (.423 with the anomalous year of 2014).

Going further,
2012 was .500 of losses against sub .500, we were also 8-8 and suffering a rebuild
2011 we lost no games to sub .500 teams
2010 we lost no games to sub .500 teams.

So, in the 00s, it seems we've done really well outside of 1 year.
Nice work!

I guess it was that 2014 season that still sticks in our crawl. We haven't had playoff success since then either to wash the bad taste out of our mouth. I guess it is more perception that reality. Good post.

[Craic]

Nice work!

I guess it was that 2014 season that still sticks in our crawl. We haven't had playoff success since then either to wash the bad taste out of our mouth. I guess it is more perception that reality. Good post.

Thanks.
To be fair, however, I think this is just one side of the stats. Perhaps a better way is to see how many sub .500 teams the Steelers played in a season, and then figure out how many they lost. Then, compare that stat to other playoffs teams each year. Also, I think the reason we often feel they lose so much to bad teams is that, as teegre said, there were a few times we played teams that had a losing record when we played them and then went on to have a winning record. Moreover, we also played teams that we thought should have a losing record when we played (such as the Jags) only for the team to show they're a really good team throughout the season. Those kinds of things tend to stick with us despite the end-of-season reality. At least, that's my take. Because, honestly, I was as surprised as you.

[teegre]

Except, you also said "an eked out win is good enough for me." So, last year's losing only three games shows they do very well against sub .500 teams. However, I did as you asked.



2016 Steelers lost only to one sub .500 team—the Eagles at 7-9, but the Eagles were 3-0 when they played. The loss to Miami does not count as Miami had a winning record, moreover, they had made personnel changes prior to that game that sent them on a six game win streak and 9-2 for the rest of the season. Thus, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2015 Steelers only losses to sub .500 teams were their losses to the Ravens (frankly, I don’t count this game. Steelers-Ravens is always tough because of rivalry, but I’ll count it here). .333 percent of their losses to sub .500 teams (1 team twice—and a rival at that.). So, .200 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2014 Steelers lost to the Bucs, Browns, Jets, and New Orleans. It was a bad season. .800 percent of losses were to sub .500 teams.
2013 Eight loss season. In it, we lost to the Titans 7-9, the Vikings 5-10-1, and the Raiders for sub .500 teams. That’s .333 percent of lost games to sub .500 teams.


In short, what this shows is one season where we struggled to win against sub .500 teams. That's also the season where we had a horrible defense with no CBs and anyone could throw on us all day long. Troy was still playing, kind of. He was out for four games and just wasn't himself anymore. Remove that one bad season as an outlier, and you have 22 losses of which 7 were to sub .500 teams for a .318 percent record. (.423 with the anomalous year of 2014).

Going further,
2012 was .500 of losses against sub .500, we were also 8-8 and suffering a rebuild
2011 we lost no games to sub .500 teams
2010 we lost no games to sub .500 teams.

So, in the 00s, it seems we've done really well outside of
1 year.

This post needs to be stickied to the top of the forum.

Seriously.