PDA

View Full Version : Are you happy with the offense?



Steeldude
12-12-2010, 08:08 PM
i am certainly not happy with it. the steelers are 28th(44%) in the NFL in the red zone. they are dead last(35%) on the road.

0 offensive TDs today.

for those who say the reason is because of the absence of holmes, i have news for you. the steelers were 48% in 2009.

Psycho Ward 86
12-12-2010, 08:11 PM
Shitty 3rd down conversion and red zone efficiency is a product of the Bruce Arians offense. With and/or without an O-line.

Devilsdancefloor
12-12-2010, 08:13 PM
no i am not happy with the redzone O at all, but i would think if you ask any of the guys on the O they dont like it either

fansince'76
12-12-2010, 08:17 PM
No, but I'm happy with being 10-3. All I can do is hope we get out of neutral on offense.

Wallace108
12-12-2010, 08:32 PM
Last season, I was one of the guys screaming that we need to get back to Steelers football (running). But at this point, I'd like to see us go no-huddle more often and even use more 4-receiver sets. We've got the best collection of receivers we've had since Thigpen, Hastings, Mills, et al. Let's use them.

EDIT: Oh, to answer the question ... no, I'm not happy with the offense.

DaRealGage
12-12-2010, 08:37 PM
I am far from happy, we can not keep winning without the O! I hope they got something for the Playoffs...

BuddhaBus
12-12-2010, 08:39 PM
No. The O-line is the shits and situational play-calling is downright horrific at times. As brilliant as the offense can look at times, they always seem to do one or two things each drive to kill it, whether it's a stupid penalty, dropped pass, turnover or bone-head play-call. It is getting to the point of being intolerable to watch at times. JUST PUT THE DAMN BALL IN THE ENDZONE, GUYS!!!!!

And does anyone else notice how most of the time, when we do score a touchdown, it's by a nose hair? We barely break the plane or land on the goal line. I'd like to see more power and decisive scoring so I don't have to hear how "lucky we are" or "that wasn't even a touchdown". Sorry, I live close to Ratbird land. :frusty: :chuckle:

salamander
12-12-2010, 08:41 PM
No offensive TDs is certainly a cause for some concern but I'll gladly take 10-3 at this point.

HometownGal
12-12-2010, 08:42 PM
I'm happy with winning which is what really matters at the end of the day (and season). I bet my life on the redzone inefficiency being as a result of a shoddy OL that has plagued us for the last couple of seasons and which was made even worse this year by injuries to key players. I had few complaints last season with regard to BA's offense and schemes and I have even fewer complaints this season. The OL is the O's achilles heel and you'd have to be blind not to see it.

tube517
12-12-2010, 09:31 PM
Of course i'd like to see more points. Red zone efficiency is horrible. But when they have very long drives, it not only keeps the ball out of the other team's offense, but that gives the defense rest and they play better when they have rest. The defense cannot handle too many 3 and outs by the offense.

stlrtruck
12-12-2010, 09:34 PM
It seems that our offense is great between the 30's but once they get inside the 30, they don't know how to operate, block, or produce more than 3 points. It's definitely time for the offense to take some pressure off the defense. Our defense can not withstand the pressures of winning games or holding playoff opponents to just 7 points. Our offense has to produce loads of points and allow the defense to relax and play football. I think it makes a huge difference when they can play that way.

Today our defense made their own plays so they could come out and relax. The offense needs to produce 7's and multitudes of them.

BlastFurnace
12-12-2010, 10:15 PM
The Red Zone offense is atrocious. It must get better if they want to do anything in the playoffs.

Godfather
12-12-2010, 10:21 PM
Well, it's hard to run because the OL is banged up and we couldn't pass with Heath out.

But with all the talent at the skill positions we should be putting up a lot more points. Arians needs to go. Any chance we can bribe Pitt to take him off our hands?

SteelerFanInStl
12-12-2010, 10:37 PM
I doubt if you're going to find anyone that's happy with the red zone offense. IMO it's a combination of poor blocking, stupid penalties, poor execution and some questionable play calling. I'm happy with our 10-3 record but I can't help but think that it's gonna bite us in the ass in the playoffs.

Delraich
12-12-2010, 10:42 PM
We can't score inside the red zone, convert 3rd downs or play situational offense....other than that we look fine.

Wallace108
12-12-2010, 10:44 PM
We can't score inside the red zone, convert 3rd downs or play situational offense....other than that we look fine.

But we've got a guy who can kick field goals ... so it's all good. :heh:

Wheelz
12-12-2010, 10:56 PM
When opposing teams can rush 3 or 4 and consistently get pressure on Ben, our offense is facing a huge uphill battle. I hate to say it, but the outlook is bleak this year, realistically-speaking.

The offensive line is absolutely horrible, and everything begins with them.

Edman
12-13-2010, 12:06 AM
It's a product of the Bruce Arians Offense, Our O-Line, and lack of execution on part of Ben.

Since Arians was here, we've always had issues in the Red Zone. The Bruce Arians Offense is
moving the ball a lot, but not scoring a lot of points.

Our O-Line, what can I say? It sucks.

Ben had a near INT yesterday to boot. Underthrowing and constantly misfiring dudes in the Red Zone, and a good portion of his sacks are his fault.

NCSteeler
12-13-2010, 12:25 AM
http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/4679-Face-it-we-just-aren-t-that-good.

THIS ^^^

Moose
12-13-2010, 01:27 AM
Am I happy with the offense ? NO ! Plain and simple. You have to score TD's when in the red zone to win the games. You can have all the drives you want to suck up the clock, but if all you get is a FG it will end up biting you in the butt come play-off games. Do the math, 3 points or 6 points plus extra point. I'd rather drive down the field and score a TD and have my defense stop the opponents drive, than eat 5 minutes off of the clock and come out with NO POINTS or 3 points. Our "O" not scoring TD's is a big problem and our coaches better find out how to correct it, or the play-offs will be short lived. But I'm sure that this is already being investigated in the coach's meeting room. We aren't the only ones seeing this...the score board is visible to them also. We just have to have faith that the coaches and FO will come up with something.

Dino 6 Rings
12-13-2010, 08:43 AM
One of the things that may be contributing to our Red Zone offensive failures is the defense sending the house once they have a short field to work with. I mean, on our own 20, or 30, the defense has to keep their safeties back to watch the long ball to Wallace. Once we are in that red zone, the "deep threat" to Wallace isn't there since he won't get that much separation on a deep route, so the defense can send more pressure, put a safety up to the line or send the extra linebacker, causing our oline to crap itself and let up the pressure.

What we have to stop doing, which happened yesterday is taking sacks when we are in FG already. I think it was 3rd and 11, from the 25 yard line, and we go with 3 wide and Moore in the backfield and we get killed and sacked and have to punt. I think, if I remember right, it was a 6 point lead at the time and a FG there makes it a two score game. I was frustrated watching but said, "Just run a draw and kick the FG and don't fck this up" Instead...we run a pass play and get killed. We punted.

Then of coarse that punt pinned em back and lead to the Woodley TD, so it worked out, but we should have gotten 3 there, and not punted. Situational Football Play Calling.

Dino 6 Rings
12-13-2010, 08:51 AM
in fact, here is the series...after a Cincy punt, toward the end of the 3rd

1st and 10 at PIT 18 R.Mendenhall left guard to PIT 23 for 5 yards (D.Peko; R.Williams).
2nd and 5 at PIT 23 R.Mendenhall up the middle to PIT 27 for 4 yards (M.Johnson).
3rd and 1 at PIT 27 B.Roethlisberger pass short right to H.Ward to PIT 34 for 7 yards (J.Wade).
1st and 10 at PIT 34 #79 Essex reports as eligible receiver. R.Mendenhall up the middle to PIT 37 for 3 yards (R.Nelson).
2nd and 7 at PIT 37 B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short right to M.Wallace.
3rd and 7 at PIT 37 (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass short right to M.Wallace to PIT 45 for 8 yards (C.Dunlap).
1st and 10 at PIT 45 B.Roethlisberger pass short left to I.Redman to PIT 49 for 4 yards (D.Jones). PENALTY on PIT-J.Scott, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at PIT 45 - No Play.
1st and 20 at PIT 35 M.Moore right guard to PIT 42 for 7 yards (M.Johnson; R.Williams). PENALTY on PIT-M.Spaeth, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at PIT 35 - No Play.
1st and 30 at PIT 25 (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short right to M.Wallace (C.Dunlap).
2nd and 30 at PIT 25 B.Roethlisberger pass deep left to H.Ward to CIN 46 for 29 yards (R.Nelson).
Timeout #2 by PIT at 01:35.
3rd and 1 at CIN 46 I.Redman up the middle to CIN 42 for 4 yards (R.Williams, R.Maualuga).
1st and 10 at CIN 42 R.Mendenhall right end pushed ob at CIN 34 for 8 yards (R.Nelson). PENALTY on PIT-F.Adams, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at CIN 42 - No Play.
1st and 20 at PIT 48 (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short right to R.Mendenhall. COVERAGE BY #59 JOHNSON
2nd and 20 at PIT 48 B.Roethlisberger pass short left to M.Wallace to CIN 30 for 22 yards (R.Williams).
1st and 10 at CIN 30 Direct snap to #82 Randle El before pitch to #17 Wallace. (Shotgun) M.Wallace right end to CIN 18 for 12 yards (R.Williams).
1st and 10 at CIN 18 R.Mendenhall right tackle to CIN 15 for 3 yards (R.Geathers, D.Jones).
2nd and 7 at CIN 15 B.Roethlisberger sacked at CIN 23 for -8 yards (P.Sims).
3rd and 15 at CIN 23 (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger sacked at CIN 32 for -9 yards (D.Jones).
4th and 24 at CIN 32 (Punt formation) J.Kapinos punts 22 yards to CIN 10, Center-G.Warren, fair catch by Q.Cosby.

The score was 13-7 at this point, you CAN NOT allow a sack and must not even allow the situation where you are taken out of FG Range at this point in the game. Its ridiculous to have a drive like that, have the ball at the Cincy 18 with a 1st down and come away with Zero Points. That's Pathetic.

venom
12-13-2010, 09:14 AM
When you have teams like the Lions and the Broncos ahead of you in total offense , you must make adjustments heading towards the playoffs

Raleigh Steel
12-13-2010, 09:39 AM
well what are and have been the arguments of this offense since arians took over:
1) poor red zone efficiency
2) poor 3rd down conversion percentage
3) lack of adjustments
4) poor play calling
5) poor o-line play
6) not running enough/passing too much
7) ben holds the ball too long
8 ) receivers drop balls
9) penalties
10) lack of execution
have i missed anything? i'm sure i have. 1-4 are all arians. 5 falls on him a little because when our o-line was healthy it wasn't dominating. besides, arians himself said that he doesn't change what he does regardless of who is in. 6, to me it was never about running or passing more, it was about quality. the running scheme itself is poor which puts too much pressure on the passing game. 7, ben holds the ball too long because receivers aren't open...PERIOD! most of the time they aren't even out of their breaks yet. 8, other teams drop passes too, and it's not like it's an epidemic with our team, but it does happen. 9, again, other teams get penalties too. 10, its hard to execute something that is piss poor to begin with.

bottom line is that there is no "offense" in arians "system". it's basically ben making something from nothing...along with other players helping ben turn something into something. just look at the "flea flicker" yesterday as a perfect example.

since arians took over, it's been one frustrating game after another watching it. about once ever 4 or 5 weeks the offense will work, then it's time for the defense to win the games again. i've counted 7 games in arians tenure where the offense actually looked the way it should.

zulater
12-13-2010, 09:40 AM
It's a product of the Bruce Arians Offense, Our O-Line, and lack of execution on part of Ben.

Since Arians was here, we've always had issues in the Red Zone. The Bruce Arians Offense is
moving the ball a lot, but not scoring a lot of points.

Our O-Line, what can I say? It sucks.

Ben had a near INT yesterday to boot. Underthrowing and constantly misfiring dudes in the Red Zone, and a good portion of his sacks are his fault.

One sack was Ben's fault yesterday, and he probably ran himself out of 3.

And Ben was clearly bothered by the visor, how could he not be in that sort of weather? Try driving on a misty wet day without your defroster working and see where you might end up. I knew he'd come out in the 3rd quarter without it, and I don't think he threw a dangerous pass in the second half.

Looking at Ben as part of the offensive problem is absurd imo.

zulater
12-13-2010, 09:44 AM
I don't know who's to blame, but someone on that staff has got to figure out Trai Essex is our best option at left tackle soon. :frusty:

Akagi
12-13-2010, 09:49 AM
I'm happy with winning which is what really matters at the end of the day (and season). I bet my life on the redzone inefficiency being as a result of a shoddy OL that has plagued us for the last couple of seasons and which was made even worse this year by injuries to key players. I had few complaints last season with regard to BA's offense and schemes and I have even fewer complaints this season. The OL is the O's achilles heel and you'd have to be blind not to see it.

This. But, this being said, I'm about as happy with the offense as I think the Steelers are. Which means, not very.

stlrtruck
12-13-2010, 10:05 AM
Let's face the elephant in the room is the offensive line, and as long as we keep winning, no one (being the FO) is going to talk about it or do much about it. They see it as a capable unit, but that's only because the W's are piling up. The O-line needs to be addressed and not so much with the 10 year veteran's running out of contracts looking for 1-2 more years of glory, but with younger talent, talent that can bring it together in a short period of time and adjust to what the defenses bring at them. Pouncey is a great start, but the Steelers can't stop there.

We've all either said it and/or thought it - What the hell could Ben do if he had any time back in the pocket? Since 2005, Ben has been a punching back more times than marsha's had a flag thrown for him getting touched.

The FO needs to address this and they need to make it happen before they end up getting Ben killed!

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-13-2010, 10:13 AM
IDK.....the offense accounted for 9 points yesterday against a 2 win team. Kind of reminds me of 2008, so lets gear up for the Super Bowl.

Dino 6 Rings
12-13-2010, 10:17 AM
LOL "Hey O-Line...who's laughing now!"

I'd take it.

But I'd still like more points in the redzone. and even if its FGs, you can't get to the 18, and come away with Zero points because of a sack and have to punt it away. That's not gonna fly.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-13-2010, 10:27 AM
LOL "Hey O-Line...who's laughing now!"

I'd take it.

But I'd still like more points in the redzone. and even if its FGs, you can't get to the 18, and come away with Zero points because of a sack and have to punt it away. That's not gonna fly.

I agree, but I know since 2007 the Steelers have devalued the running game and that means putting little emphasis on the O line in the draft or free agency. Its the root of many of the problems on offense as the Steelers O line no longer can impose its will on defenses and hold onto a lead like they used to.

Drafting Pouncey was a start, but there needs to be more talent up front in order to improve the offense and its production. Smith, Faneca, Hartings, Simmons were all 1st and 2nd round talents. Now we have Pouncey and a bunch of average or below guys up front.

vasteeler
12-13-2010, 10:28 AM
One sack was Ben's fault yesterday, and he probably ran himself out of 3.

And Ben was clearly bothered by the visor, how could he not be in that sort of weather? Try driving on a misty wet day without your defroster working and see where you might end up. I knew he'd come out in the 3rd quarter without it, and I don't think he threw a dangerous pass in the second half.

Looking at Ben as part of the offensive problem is absurd imo.

completely agree

LLT
12-13-2010, 10:54 AM
Well ...we have a top ten running game and a top ten passing game (if you only count those games in which we have had Ben....something like 258 yards a game)

The redzone offense is a concern but there are several mitigating factors there that have nothing to do with the offensive coordinator. (and I am NOT saying that he is completely exonerated.)

1) Three of the top four WR's on the depth chart have under two years of experience. I am impressed with all three and we have the makings of a good WR corp in the future, but you can bet the house that Ben is doing some "on the field coaching".
WR's in todays NFL read coverage and usually have option routes based on what coverage they see. It takes a while for WR's to learn to read coverage and we cant expect any of our young studs to magically develop 5 years of experience.

2) Our front line IS making mistakes...when Mendy is running and its obvious as to which hole he is "supposed" to take...look at the helmet of the defenders near the hole. Too often our Tackles have let the defenders get inside the blocking assignement. Simply put...our blockers helmet should be between the runner and the defenders helmet. If you EVER....EVER ...see the defenders helmet on the wrong side...then that defender is going to close the hole, get the tackle, OR he is going to get held.
Scott, Essex, Foster, and Adams are all heavy footed and can be slow off the snap... just being "engaged" is not good enough. Mendy bouncing around in the backfield is often because he is "looking at helmets" and has diagnosed the fact that the hole is collapsing.

3) Take a look at Ben before the play...How many times have you seen him looking at the sideline? A common misconception is that he is looking for the play. Actually, since the play is called into his helmet mike, what Ben is acually doing is looking at personnel. He is looking to see who is being sent in.
Due to all our injuries, Ben is having to change the "route tree" or at least simplify the offense a little to compensate for the loss of players like Miller, and his checks on the line are going to be limited.

Texasteel
12-13-2010, 05:33 PM
IDK.....the offense accounted for 9 points yesterday against a 2 win team. Kind of reminds me of 2008, so lets gear up for the Super Bowl.

As I recall the OL didn't play very well that year either, but when they got into the playoff seemed to kick it in gear. That shows you the value of a good OL. If this line can somehow do the same thing I kinda, like our chances.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-13-2010, 06:07 PM
As I recall the OL didn't play very well that year either, but when they got into the playoff seemed to kick it in gear. That shows you the value of a good OL. If this line can somehow do the same thing I kinda, like our chances.

I remember them beating up on SD and Homes returning a punt for TD...then getting stuffed against the Ravens, with Troy running back a pick 6, then Harrison in the SB with his run and one final drive by Ben and Bongtonio.

Same thing, mediocre line play with no physical play and the defense scoring for them.

steelerdude15
12-13-2010, 07:00 PM
I think I'm more upset with the line than I am anything else. The red zone efficiency needs to come alive big time. I hate seeing them march all the way down there and they kick a field goal, like the rest of you. That needs to change.

Stlrs4Life
12-13-2010, 07:47 PM
i am certainly not happy with it. the steelers are 28th(44%) in the NFL in the red zone. they are dead last(35%) on the road.

0 offensive TDs today.

for those who say the reason is because of the absence of holmes, i have news for you. the steelers were 48% in 2009.


Who says it is because of the loss of Homes? I don't miss Holmes at all. Wallace s doing just fine.

NCSteeler
12-13-2010, 09:20 PM
WISHES.....people would quit referring to 2005 and 2008 just because we were playing crappy and got on a run. Every year is different and every team is different. This O line will NOT suddenly come together and play a great game let alone 2-3 great games in a row. DO we have a chance in the playoffs, of course as long as Ben is under center and Troy is roving around, but don't expect a sudden resurgence of the O line . We will have to settle for 13-6 win the rest of the way. If we play NE again we better hope Big Man Smith is back and warmed up by then.

LLT
12-14-2010, 08:14 AM
Last season, I was one of the guys screaming that we need to get back to Steelers football (running). But at this point, I'd like to see us go no-huddle more often and even use more 4-receiver sets. We've got the best collection of receivers we've had since Thigpen, Hastings, Mills, et al. Let's use them.

EDIT: Oh, to answer the question ... no, I'm not happy with the offense.

The name you are looking for is ....Kordell Stewart.

BigNastyDefense
12-14-2010, 08:25 AM
Am I happy with it? No, of course not. I do not think anyone could or would be.

However, I think the offense's problem is that fact that our offensive line is even worse than we expected due to injuries.

Max Starks isn't a stud left tackle, but I appreciate him more now because he's better than a lot of people give him credit for. Jonathan Scott isn't anything more than a third string LT on his best day.

I have been pleased with Flozell Adam's play at RT, I didn't expect him to be as good as he has been.

I feel that if we had what would have been our initial starting offensive line (Starks at LT), our offense would look much better than it currently does. But it seems every time we make a big play on offense, Scott gets called for holding.

While I would love for us to take a corner with our first round pick, I think that it would be best to upgrade the offensive line if a player of value falls to us, and go corner in the second round.

Texasteel
12-14-2010, 08:33 AM
Last season, I was one of the guys screaming that we need to get back to Steelers football (running). But at this point, I'd like to see us go no-huddle more often and even use more 4-receiver sets. We've got the best collection of receivers we've had since Thigpen, Hastings, Mills, et al. Let's use them.

EDIT: Oh, to answer the question ... no, I'm not happy with the offense.


The way is stands now, I think the OL look confused a lot of the times, and the young WR still look like they are not sure where they need to go. I Beleive I've seen Sanders miss adustement he should, and later will, make on at least 5 plays. I'm not sure who a no huddle offense would hurt the most right now, us or them.

LLT
12-14-2010, 08:52 AM
The way is stands now, I think the OL look confused a lot of the times, and the young WR still look like they are not sure where they need to go. I Beleive I've seen Sanders miss adustement he should, and later will, make on at least 5 plays. I'm not sure who a no huddle offense would hurt the most right now, us or them.

Great point....without choreographing a no huddle series ahead of time...we almost have to go with a three WR set of Ward, Wallace, Randle el on all no huddle series. Sacrificing youth and talent for experience, and eliminate the ability and speed of Sanders and Brown.

BlastFurnace
12-14-2010, 09:15 AM
We all know that the hope of this team rides on our defense and Ben. I'd like to see some more creativity on first and second down instead of line plunges by Mendenhall, but...what I can say is that when this team needs a drive to win a game, they are doing that. This season reminds me of 2008 in many ways...other than that we are not as healthy.

Wallace108
12-14-2010, 10:51 AM
The way is stands now, I think the OL look confused a lot of the times, and the young WR still look like they are not sure where they need to go. I Beleive I've seen Sanders miss adustement he should, and later will, make on at least 5 plays. I'm not sure who a no huddle offense would hurt the most right now, us or them.

Good point, Tex. But I remember how much we used Kordell in the offense his rookie year. And he wasn't even an experienced wide receiver. I was just suggesting that we need to take advantage of the weapons we have. But your point could very well be accurate.

LLT
12-14-2010, 01:15 PM
Good point, Tex. But I remember how much we used Kordell in the offense his rookie year. And he wasn't even an experienced wide receiver. I was just suggesting that we need to take advantage of the weapons we have. But your point could very well be accurate.

Except that using rookie talent is a two edged sword.

Brown and Sanders bring a great deal of ability and talent to the the recieving corp...but they are still a year or two away from giving Ben the ability to use the fulll route tree and to not have to simplify the offense for them due to coverage awareness. Even Wallace, who has less than two years experience, is a work in progress.

Is the coverage "soft'...which means that the CB will be dropping back into zone coverage? Is it a typical "inside" coverage...which means that they will drop back into man coverage?......Is it a "press" coverage where they will stay with the reciever in a classic man-to-man coverage?

Recievers learn to read the coverage and adjust their routes accordingly...the QB sees the coverage from his vantage point and should be able to be confident that the reciever sees what he sees and makes the correct adjustment.

Using rookies means you have to either simplify things are run the risk of the reciever running a route that can be jumped. When Ben looks "pissed" after a pass play...you can bet on the fact that the rook read the wrong coverage. All year long Ben (and the coaching staff) has had to deal with working around the inexperience of Brown...Sanders...Wallace...and now Johnson.

It drives me absolutely CRAZY to hear commentators on the televison and radio scoff at a coach who called in a "3rd and 5" yard pass on a 3rd down play that needed 8 yards. Football is so much more complicated than that. Odds are that the call was never for a 3rd and 5 route. Did the reciever make the wrong coverage call and therefore made the wrong route correction? Did a veteran reciever see that everyone was covered and worked his way back to the QB to keep his teammate from taking the sack?

The point is...our depth chart shows that our most talented recievers are not our most experienced recievers. Other than Ward, we are going to have to deal with WR's who will not always make the correct pre-snap read. Also keep in mind that with our system...the newbies are asked to learn the X and Z positions which are two completley different roles. Unlike most teams, our X reciever isnt the typical tall speedster and our Z isnt the typical short and physical WR. Ward, Wallace, and Randle el often switch up...and our rookies are asked to do the same. That means that Brown and Sanders are not only asked to know the plays on one side of the field in which they will have to use their speed....but they also have to be prepared to play Z and on the side where most of the running plays go....and take on the strong safety.

I say all this just to emphasize that fact that.....the next time we get frustrated at a bad pass play, we can probably be assured that the problem falls on "growing pains" before we can blame the play calling.

I try and dissect these plays as they are going on....and its very rare that I lay the blame on the coaching staff. The good news is that we have three VERY talented but young WR's on our team, who are going to be here awhile and will only get better.

SteelMember
12-14-2010, 01:36 PM
Just like last year, this team can move the ball effectively between the 20's... when they're not taking penalties. And just like last year, the redzone becomes a difficulty. It's pathetic at times. I can't count how many times we have been in 1st and goal situations and came away with only 3.

LLT
12-14-2010, 01:42 PM
Just like last year, this team can move the ball effectively between the 20's... when they're not taking penalties. And just like last year, the redzone becomes a difficulty. It's pathetic at times. I can't count how many times we have been in 1st and goal situations and came away with only 3.

It is very frustrating...but there is no instant fix for a patchwork O-line and an inexperienced recieving corp. Time is the great physician....it heals the linemen and gives the WR's repetitions.

SteelMember
12-14-2010, 01:50 PM
It is very frustrating...but there is no instant fix for a patchwork O-line and an inexperienced recieving corp. Time is the great physician....it heals the linemen and gives the WR's repetitions.

I totally understand that, but we had most of our starters on the o-line last year, and had Holmes. We were just as bad. It dosen't seem that anything has changed except some personnel.

They changed the o-line coach. If problems continue, what is the next logical step in your opinion.

LLT
12-14-2010, 02:10 PM
I totally understand that, but we had most of our starters on the o-line last year, and had Holmes. We were just as bad. It dosen't seem that anything has changed except some personnel.

They changed the o-line coach. If problems continue, what is the next logical step in your opinion.

First and foremost we have to draft at least three O-linemen. We have neglected the position so long that our starters are average and our backups are...well....bad. (I also wouldnt be surprised to see us hit the FA market)

LT's are the hardest linemen to find in the draft and and I would attempt to grab one in the first or even trade up in the first round if necesary. I like Carimi in the first....but if he is gone I would still be pleased if we targeted Danny Watkins in the 2nd round. Guards are easier to find later in the draft so I would use a 3rd or 4th round pick on a player like John Moffit from Wisconsin or Will Rackly out of Lehigh. I would then hope we look for a project lineman in the 6th or 7th rounds. Pat Illig is from Woffard College, a small school sleeper that might need an NFL weight program to make him serviceable in a year or two...or Ricky Henry of Nebraska might be worth a late round pick.

As far as the 2nd problem....this time next year our WR woes should pretty much work themselves out as Wallace becomes a 3rd year vet and Sanders and Brown get some reps under their belt.

Psycho Ward 86
12-14-2010, 06:29 PM
Draft 3 O-linemen? I think at this point, we have too many needs to go after quite that many, especially when chances are, we'll be reaching for one or two of those.

This is the year where we finally need to gun out of our shell and pick up some established veterans off the free agency market. It's near impossible to draft perfectly every year, we need some free agents with talent to fill some areas. Every couple of years we reload not only through the draft, but with a couple of pretty good vets (like we did with Farrior a decade ago). We need that now.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-14-2010, 06:47 PM
First and foremost we have to draft at least three O-linemen. We have neglected the position so long that our starters are average and our backups are...well....bad. (I also wouldnt be surprised to see us hit the FA market)

LT's are the hardest linemen to find in the draft and and I would attempt to grab one in the first or even trade up in the first round if necesary. I like Carimi in the first....but if he is gone I would still be pleased if we targeted Danny Watkins in the 2nd round. Guards are easier to find later in the draft so I would use a 3rd or 4th round pick on a player like John Moffit from Wisconsin or Will Rackly out of Lehigh. I would then hope we look for a project lineman in the 6th or 7th rounds. Pat Illig is from Woffard College, a small school sleeper that might need an NFL weight program to make him serviceable in a year or two...or Ricky Henry of Nebraska might be worth a late round pick.

As far as the 2nd problem....this time next year our WR woes should pretty much work themselves out as Wallace becomes a 3rd year vet and Sanders and Brown get some reps under their belt.

I'm with Psycho....3 is a lot.

I really think we need a LT to groom for when Starks is gone, so that is one. I will respectfully say that I dont want Carimi because he looks like a RT only to me. Barksdale and Potter are who I would like. I think Pouncey, Kemo, Chris Scott will be a solid foundation and the addition of a solid LT prospect, plus another OG in a later round like you suggest will do enough for this O line.

Gotta look at the fact that Starks, Adams and maybe Colon will not be Steelers in the next year or 2.

steeldawg
12-14-2010, 06:53 PM
I think you guys are right on the money the O line has been killing us this year.

Count Steeler
12-14-2010, 07:00 PM
I think you guys are right on the money the O line has been killing us this year.

More like getting Ben killed. I don't know how he does it. The refs are against him, he gets no protection and still he makes big plays.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-14-2010, 08:21 PM
I think you guys are right on the money the O line has been killing us this year.

Lets face it. They are dealing with new starters at LT, RT, RG and C..........but only Pouncey is an upgrade at this point. Injuries hurt an O line big time and there are no "starters in waiting" backing up.

Chidi29
12-14-2010, 09:33 PM
Except that using rookie talent is a two edged sword.

Brown and Sanders bring a great deal of ability and talent to the the recieving corp...but they are still a year or two away from giving Ben the ability to use the fulll route tree and to not have to simplify the offense for them due to coverage awareness. Even Wallace, who has less than two years experience, is a work in progress.

Is the coverage "soft'...which means that the CB will be dropping back into zone coverage? Is it a typical "inside" coverage...which means that they will drop back into man coverage?......Is it a "press" coverage where they will stay with the reciever in a classic man-to-man coverage?

Recievers learn to read the coverage and adjust their routes accordingly...the QB sees the coverage from his vantage point and should be able to be confident that the reciever sees what he sees and makes the correct adjustment.

Using rookies means you have to either simplify things are run the risk of the reciever running a route that can be jumped. When Ben looks "pissed" after a pass play...you can bet on the fact that the rook read the wrong coverage. All year long Ben (and the coaching staff) has had to deal with working around the inexperience of Brown...Sanders...Wallace...and now Johnson.

It drives me absolutely CRAZY to hear commentators on the televison and radio scoff at a coach who called in a "3rd and 5" yard pass on a 3rd down play that needed 8 yards. Football is so much more complicated than that. Odds are that the call was never for a 3rd and 5 route. Did the reciever make the wrong coverage call and therefore made the wrong route correction? Did a veteran reciever see that everyone was covered and worked his way back to the QB to keep his teammate from taking the sack?

The point is...our depth chart shows that our most talented recievers are not our most experienced recievers. Other than Ward, we are going to have to deal with WR's who will not always make the correct pre-snap read. Also keep in mind that with our system...the newbies are asked to learn the X and Z positions which are two completley different roles. Unlike most teams, our X reciever isnt the typical tall speedster and our Z isnt the typical short and physical WR. Ward, Wallace, and Randle el often switch up...and our rookies are asked to do the same. That means that Brown and Sanders are not only asked to know the plays on one side of the field in which they will have to use their speed....but they also have to be prepared to play Z and on the side where most of the running plays go....and take on the strong safety.

I say all this just to emphasize that fact that.....the next time we get frustrated at a bad pass play, we can probably be assured that the problem falls on "growing pains" before we can blame the play calling.

I try and dissect these plays as they are going on....and its very rare that I lay the blame on the coaching staff. The good news is that we have three VERY talented but young WR's on our team, who are going to be here awhile and will only get better.

Excellent post LLT.

Not only do they have to learn the ropes, but get the timing down pat (which really comes with reptition and building chemistry, obviously hindered by lack of experience). A perfect example was that incompletion in the end zone against New England where Sanders got his head around late. That wasn't a wrong route issue. It was just a matter of Sanders not getting his head around in time. At least, that's what he said in an interview last week.

stlrtruck
12-14-2010, 11:55 PM
I'm predicting the O-line does a 180 in the playoffs like the colts run defense did during their sb run.

JayC
12-15-2010, 12:46 AM
nope im not happy with the way we have played this year. some games im not happy with the defense but almost every game the offense isnt as good as i hope they play. hopefully they are saving their breakout games for the playoffs

Wallace108
12-15-2010, 01:06 AM
Except that using rookie talent is a two edged sword.

Brown and Sanders bring a great deal of ability and talent to the the recieving corp...but they are still a year or two away from giving Ben the ability to use the fulll route tree and to not have to simplify the offense for them due to coverage awareness. Even Wallace, who has less than two years experience, is a work in progress.

Is the coverage "soft'...which means that the CB will be dropping back into zone coverage? Is it a typical "inside" coverage...which means that they will drop back into man coverage?......Is it a "press" coverage where they will stay with the reciever in a classic man-to-man coverage?

Recievers learn to read the coverage and adjust their routes accordingly...the QB sees the coverage from his vantage point and should be able to be confident that the reciever sees what he sees and makes the correct adjustment.

Using rookies means you have to either simplify things are run the risk of the reciever running a route that can be jumped. When Ben looks "pissed" after a pass play...you can bet on the fact that the rook read the wrong coverage. All year long Ben (and the coaching staff) has had to deal with working around the inexperience of Brown...Sanders...Wallace...and now Johnson.

It drives me absolutely CRAZY to hear commentators on the televison and radio scoff at a coach who called in a "3rd and 5" yard pass on a 3rd down play that needed 8 yards. Football is so much more complicated than that. Odds are that the call was never for a 3rd and 5 route. Did the reciever make the wrong coverage call and therefore made the wrong route correction? Did a veteran reciever see that everyone was covered and worked his way back to the QB to keep his teammate from taking the sack?

The point is...our depth chart shows that our most talented recievers are not our most experienced recievers. Other than Ward, we are going to have to deal with WR's who will not always make the correct pre-snap read. Also keep in mind that with our system...the newbies are asked to learn the X and Z positions which are two completley different roles. Unlike most teams, our X reciever isnt the typical tall speedster and our Z isnt the typical short and physical WR. Ward, Wallace, and Randle el often switch up...and our rookies are asked to do the same. That means that Brown and Sanders are not only asked to know the plays on one side of the field in which they will have to use their speed....but they also have to be prepared to play Z and on the side where most of the running plays go....and take on the strong safety.

I say all this just to emphasize that fact that.....the next time we get frustrated at a bad pass play, we can probably be assured that the problem falls on "growing pains" before we can blame the play calling.

I try and dissect these plays as they are going on....and its very rare that I lay the blame on the coaching staff. The good news is that we have three VERY talented but young WR's on our team, who are going to be here awhile and will only get better.

I'll defer to your football knowledge, LLT. I never played organized football, so I'm not much of an X's and O's guy. I'm more of a common-sense guy. When you try something over and over and it isn't working, why not try something else? This is where I blame the coaches (no, this isn't going to be an anti-Arians rant, although I do believe he's part of the problem).

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't agree that the O-line is our biggest problem on offense. I know it, you know it, the coaches know it. I look at how we went to the pistol formation against the Ravens because of Ben's injured foot. That was a great strategy. I don't understand why they're not changing their offensive strategy to compensate for a horrible O-line. Quicker, shorter routes, more play-action to set up the longer routes. That's why I suggested the four-receiver set, to allow for more underneath options.

You mentioned how difficult it is for rookie receivers to learn the system. I won't argue with that. But how long does it take? I wouldn't expect them to know the system in preseason or even early in the regular season. But by the end of the regular season (where we're at now), shouldn't they have a pretty good grasp of it? Sure, they're still going to make rookie mistakes (that's why we have that phrase), but I've seen a lot of rookie receivers step in from Game 1 and be quite effective. And Kordell not only played receiver his rookie season, but he took some snaps, so he had to have a darn good grasp of the system.

steelreserve
12-15-2010, 01:37 AM
Let me put it this way: I'm happier with the offense now than I was with the offense in 2008, and that was enough to get us through. The main thing is that the defense is really starting to pick up a full head of steam -- even without A. Smith, which I would have thought impossible at this time last year. If they keep it up, we're in solid contention regardless. If the offense finds its mojo on top of that, that's just gravy.

As for the guy who said we need to draft three offensive linemen ... yeah, right. Maybe we'll draft one high. Don't forget that we're getting Starks and probably Colon back (his injury makes it all the more likely that we can afford to keep him). Starks is locked up until 2013 with a lot of guaranteed money, so he's not going anywhere. Kemo and Pouncey too. So we've got 3-4 of the five positions at least decently covered if we stay healthy. I do think it would be wise to take a good interior lineman in maybe the 2nd round.

Steeldude
12-15-2010, 02:41 AM
colon and starks aren't exactly elite.

zulater
12-15-2010, 06:10 AM
colon and starks aren't exactly elite.

Starks is maddeningly inconsistent, at times he does look elite, he can go through a series of games shutting down the better NFL edge pass rushers, and then boom! His play falls right off the table and he makes one mediocre DE or OLB after the other look like all pro's. Stark's should be replaced, we need a genuine bona fide, consistent NFL LT. Plus I'm not sure how he'll come back from that injury?


Colon on the other hand has improved to the point that he is near elite, and the way he's rehabbing I don't think there's much concern that he wont be back at full force next year. Also forget the worries about him being a free agent, I can't see any new CBA that will leave him unrestricted, he'll be the Steelers starting RT next year, and be glad of it.

If it turns out that Starks is projected to come back at 100% I'd be ok going into next season with Starks and Colon as our projected starters at tackle.

But we need a new right guard, and we need to find Stark's successor sooner rather than later.

Delraich
12-15-2010, 06:14 AM
colon and starks aren't exactly elite.
They would still be a big upgrade to what we are putting out there this year. I have a feeling Colon would look pretty good with better players around him.

LLT
12-15-2010, 09:26 AM
I don't understand why they're not changing their offensive strategy to compensate for a horrible O-line. Quicker, shorter routes, more play-action to set up the longer routes. That's why I suggested the four-receiver set, to allow for more underneath options.

Well...the obvious answer is that you CAN"T compensate for a poor line. Running plays will often have holes collapse...and pass plays will have blitzers getting by the O-line. Short passes only help occassionaly because the defense is reading the play before it ever starts.

There is a designated payer on defense who is watching our sideline and checking to see what personnel is coming into the game. He is calling out the offensive scheme before they ever get to the huddle. For instance....There are five skill positions on the field on every play (other than the QB). Defenses count the amount of RB's and TE's coming into the game and quess within a high percentage of accuracy if the next play is going to be a run or pass. You will often hear defenses yelling out numbers as offensive players are being substituted. "21" designates the amount of RB's and TE's they see...two RB's and one TE. That means the other two skill positions are WR's. If they yell out "12"...it means they see one RB and two TE's...which leaves two WR's.

In your scenerio of running 4 WR's....the defense is going to see a "10" or a "01" offense (one RB and no TE or an empty backfield and one TE)...and immediately go into a pass defense such as nickel or dime depending on the down. So to make a long story short....before we went into the huddle, the defense would already know that we are going to pass and has adjusted.

Thats why its often better to pass out of formation that is harder to figure out and is less obvious.



You mentioned how difficult it is for rookie receivers to learn the system. I won't argue with that. But how long does it take? I wouldn't expect them to know the system in preseason or even early in the regular season. But by the end of the regular season (where we're at now), shouldn't they have a pretty good grasp of it?

Mike Wallace is a very talented WR and an assest to our team...but he is still limited in what he can do and still makes mistakes due to a lack of experience. Even with two years under his belt, he is still learning the pro-game. That is why Tomlin motivates him by calling him a "one-trick poney". He is a pretty good indicator of what we can expect in regards to the growth of Brown and Sanders. The good news is that this time next year we will see a more "finished" Mike Wallace.


And Kordell not only played receiver his rookie season, but he took some snaps, so he had to have a darn good grasp of the system

Kordell played reciever for his first two years and rarely threw the ball. In Kordells first year he only made 7 pass attempts...mostly on trick plays. His second year he only made 30 attempts and completed 11 of them for a dismal 36% completion rate. Kordells worth was never in his arm...it was in his legs. From his first year starting as a QB in 1997 to 2001...he averaged over 80 run attempts a year.

LLT
12-15-2010, 10:02 AM
Draft 3 O-linemen? I think at this point, we have too many needs to go after quite that many, especially when chances are, we'll be reaching for one or two of those.

This is the year where we finally need to gun out of our shell and pick up some established veterans off the free agency market. It's near impossible to draft perfectly every year, we need some free agents with talent to fill some areas. Every couple of years we reload not only through the draft, but with a couple of pretty good vets (like we did with Farrior a decade ago). We need that now.


Free agents are going to be a hot commodity this next year. Without a CBA, alot of juniors will opt to stay at school and there will be a shortage of talent at each position. Look for teams to try and retain their players...which means fewer Ves on the market.

Wallace108
12-15-2010, 09:43 PM
I love your analysis, LLT. Like I said, you know a lot more than I do, so I'm certainly not foolish enough to think I have the answers. But there are a few things I don't necessarily agree on.


Well...the obvious answer is that you CAN"T compensate for a poor line.
Can you compensate for the loss of a franchise quarterback? I saw the Steelers do it for the first four games this season. Although the defense played a HUGE role in our three wins without Ben, I also saw a change in our offensive game plan to maximize Dixon's and Batch's limited abilities.

I'll give you this ... there's nothing that can be done do make an inferior O-line play great, or even good. But one thing you can do is stop running so many pass plays that take a lot of time to develop and require the line to protect for an extended period of time.


In your scenerio of running 4 WR's....the defense is going to see a "10" or a "01" offense (one RB and no TE or an empty backfield and one TE)...and immediately go into a pass defense such as nickel or dime depending on the down. So to make a long story short....before we went into the huddle, the defense would already know that we are going to pass and has adjusted.

Thats why its often better to pass out of formation that is harder to figure out and is less obvious.

Based on what you're saying, a multiple-receiver set (Steelers '95) or an offense that leans heavily toward the pass (Colts) should never be successful. When we play the Patriots, they pass 70 percent of the time. Again, based on what you're saying, that type of offense should be relatively easy to shut down since we know they're going to be passing.


Kordell played reciever for his first two years and rarely threw the ball. In Kordells first year he only made 7 pass attempts...mostly on trick plays. His second year he only made 30 attempts and completed 11 of them for a dismal 36% completion rate. Kordells worth was never in his arm...it was in his legs. From his first year starting as a QB in 1997 to 2001...he averaged over 80 run attempts a year.

You'll get no argument from me on Kordell. I wasn't talking about his effectiveness as a quarterback. My point was that not only did he know his routes as a receiver, he also knew what the other receivers were doing (or he wouldn't have been throwing at all).

You've shot down my ideas of using more no-huddle or going to a 4-receiver set. And you said there's no way to compensate for a poor O-line. So what's the answer? Do we just keep doing what we've been doing offensively and pray that the defense holds the opposing offense to 10 or fewer points?

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 02:11 AM
Starks is maddeningly inconsistent, at times he does look elite, he can go through a series of games shutting down the better NFL edge pass rushers, and then boom! His play falls right off the table and he makes one mediocre DE or OLB after the other look like all pro's. Stark's should be replaced, we need a genuine bona fide, consistent NFL LT. Plus I'm not sure how he'll come back from that injury?


Colon on the other hand has improved to the point that he is near elite, and the way he's rehabbing I don't think there's much concern that he wont be back at full force next year. Also forget the worries about him being a free agent, I can't see any new CBA that will leave him unrestricted, he'll be the Steelers starting RT next year, and be glad of it.

If it turns out that Starks is projected to come back at 100% I'd be ok going into next season with Starks and Colon as our projected starters at tackle.

But we need a new right guard, and we need to find Stark's successor sooner rather than later.

i hope, if they do draft a RG in the early rounds, they put him in the starting lineup immediately. how bad could he be compared to the others?

i not really fond of kemo. he has the physical tools, but too many mental breakdowns/lapses.

perhaps the steelers can grab a RT early and move colon to RG.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 02:18 AM
he also knew what the other receivers were doing

kordell had no idea what anyone was doing including himself.

you have to remember that kordell was never a full-time WR. he played sparingly, mainly being used on 3rd down or gadget plays.

SteelerFanInStl
12-16-2010, 09:40 AM
Colon on the other hand has improved to the point that he is near elite, and the way he's rehabbing I don't think there's much concern that he wont be back at full force next year. Also forget the worries about him being a free agent, I can't see any new CBA that will leave him unrestricted, he'll be the Steelers starting RT next year, and be glad of it.

If it turns out that Starks is projected to come back at 100% I'd be ok going into next season with Starks and Colon as our projected starters at tackle.

But we need a new right guard, and we need to find Stark's successor sooner rather than later.

I certainly wouldn't call Colon "elite" but it was pretty much common knowledge that he was our best OL before Pouncey was drafted.
I wouldn't be sad to see Starks go. He's way overpaid for his talent and makes far too many mistakes. We have to find his successor first though.

Wallace108
12-16-2010, 09:48 AM
kordell had no idea what anyone was doing including himself.

you have to remember that kordell was never a full-time WR. he played sparingly, mainly being used on 3rd down or gadget plays.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Kordell was anything other than what he was. I was just using him as an example of a receiver who was a nice weapon as a rookie. And lets not forget that he was a quarterback who not only had to learn the system, but also had to learn HOW to be a wide receiver. Brown and Sanders came into the league as wide receivers, so I'd think they'd have a much easier time learning their roles. :noidea:

zulater
12-16-2010, 10:43 AM
The worst thing about this offensive line is that it's so bad that we can't really blame Arians when things go wrong! :frusty:


:wink02:

Seriously, it's hard to blame play calling or game plan when 2 or 3 guys are getting blown up at the point of attack on so many plays. :doh: Or after 2 or 3 holds are called practically in a row. :uhoh:

Ben, Mendenhall, Arians, all pretty much get a pass for the eroding offensive output based on the erratic offensive line play.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-16-2010, 11:34 AM
Don't forget that we're getting Starks and probably Colon back (his injury makes it all the more likely that we can afford to keep him). Starks is locked up until 2013 with a lot of guaranteed money, so he's not going anywhere. Kemo and Pouncey too. So we've got 3-4 of the five positions at least decently covered if we stay healthy. I do think it would be wise to take a good interior lineman in maybe the 2nd round.

If Colon recovers from injury and re signs, I will be happy. Otherwise, I think the Steelers were preparing for life without him by drafting Chris Scott.

Starks deal is thru 2012 and only had $10mil in guaranteed money, so they can cut him any time....but have nobody to replace him. Either way, I'd love to see the Steelers draft an OT high this year, so that he can maybe play some RT for a couple seasons and then move to left when Starks leaves. That may mean that Colon might not be in the plans to return anyways.

I do agree that we could use another OG, as Legursky, Foster and Essex are all mediocre, but good backups. Love to see an OT in the 1st and on OG in the 3rd or 4th round.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 12:57 PM
if i had choose between signing colon or woodley i would choose colon.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 01:00 PM
If Colon recovers from injury and re signs, I will be happy. Otherwise, I think the Steelers were preparing for life without him by drafting Chris Scott.

Starks deal is thru 2012 and only had $10mil in guaranteed money, so they can cut him any time....but have nobody to replace him. Either way, I'd love to see the Steelers draft an OT high this year, so that he can maybe play some RT for a couple seasons and then move to left when Starks leaves. That may mean that Colon might not be in the plans to return anyways.

I do agree that we could use another OG, as Legursky, Foster and Essex are all mediocre, but good backups. Love to see an OT in the 1st and on OG in the 3rd or 4th round.

but you and i know what will probably happen. the steelers will spend the early rounds on WRs...lol. it would be nice to see them spend all of their picks on the O-line, D-line and secondary. i really hope i do not see a WR, TE, RB, QB, P, K or LB taken in the first 4 rounds.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-16-2010, 02:10 PM
if i had choose between signing colon or woodley i would choose colon.

Honestly, I am a big fan of Colon, but I think Woodley is more important to the team. RT's are easier to find than top quality pass rushers. Besides, Chris Scott can probably be just as good as Colon.


but you and i know what will probably happen. the steelers will spend the early rounds on WRs...lol. it would be nice to see them spend all of their picks on the O-line, D-line and secondary. i really hope i do not see a WR, TE, RB, QB, P, K or LB taken in the first 4 rounds.

Yeah, I still dont think they have a decent young FS or SS on the team, but they definately need another DE, OT and OG.

HometownGal
12-16-2010, 03:03 PM
The worst thing about this offensive line is that it's so bad that we can't really blame Arians when things go wrong! :frusty:


:wink02:

Seriously, it's hard to blame play calling or game plan when 2 or 3 guys are getting blown up at the point of attack on so many plays. :doh: Or after 2 or 3 holds are called practically in a row. :uhoh:

Ben, Mendenhall, Arians, all pretty much get a pass for the eroding offensive output based on the erratic offensive line play.

But, bu, bu Arians! ;) :heh:

Hallelujah! :applaudit: Nice to see a few more people around here finally getting it. :thumbsup:

Craic
12-16-2010, 03:12 PM
The worst thing about this offensive line is that it's so bad that we can't really blame Arians when things go wrong! :frusty:


:wink02:

Seriously, it's hard to blame play calling or game plan when 2 or 3 guys are getting blown up at the point of attack on so many plays. :doh: Or after 2 or 3 holds are called practically in a row. :uhoh:

Ben, Mendenhall, Arians, all pretty much get a pass for the eroding offensive output based on the erratic offensive line play.
:buttkick:

:chuckle:

Craic
12-16-2010, 03:19 PM
but you and i know what will probably happen. the steelers will spend the early rounds on WRs...lol. it would be nice to see them spend all of their picks on the O-line, D-line and secondary. i really hope i do not see a WR, TE, RB, QB, P, K or LB taken in the first 4 rounds.

Thing is SD- we spent our picks on WR's and RB's because the OL that we wanted was gone. Remember a couple years ago, we thought we had 2 or 3 centers dropping to us, and everyone of them disappeared of the board, picked by teams that we thought would skip right over the line. Both the Ravens and Browns picked OL that year. When that happens, what are we supposed to do? Trade down to pick up someone in the top of the next round, only to see them disappear just before we get to pick again? Or trade up, giving up a 2nd or 3rd round pick for a higher first round (not too high, since we are always drafting in the bottom half of the round), only to not get a shot at an excellent second round player that fell?

IMO, over time, the drafting strategy of the Rooneys and Colbert has proved solid. Choose your guy, then rate the rest. If your guy falls to you, draft him, if not, get BPA. Only if you have a player that fits your team like a glove, do you move. Troy P. and Ben R. are those two times over the last 12 years or so. Seems like a very good record to me.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 03:58 PM
Honestly, I am a big fan of Colon, but I think Woodley is more important to the team. RT's are easier to find than top quality pass rushers. Besides, Chris Scott can probably be just as good as Colon.



Yeah, I still dont think they have a decent young FS or SS on the team, but they definately need another DE, OT and OG.

IMO, the steelers have never had a problem replacing OLBs in their LB friendly system. as for RTs, i would say teams can find them, but can the steelers? back to woodley, he is too inconsistent for my tastes. he should be far more disruptive. i really don't think there will be much of a drop-off with worilds taking his place. woodley hasn't shown me that he contains plays well. his pass coverage is nothing special in my opinion either.

what about the CBs? mcfadden and gay are not starters. taylor's contract is up and he isn't getting any younger.

don't the steelers have scott slated as OG?

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-16-2010, 04:24 PM
IMO, the steelers have never had a problem replacing OLBs in their LB friendly system. as for RTs, i would say teams can find them, but can the steelers? back to woodley, he is too inconsistent for my tastes. he should be far more disruptive. i really don't think there will be much of a drop-off with worilds taking his place. woodley hasn't shown me that he contains plays well. his pass coverage is nothing special in my opinion either.

what about the CBs? mcfadden and gay are not starters. taylor's contract is up and he isn't getting any younger.

don't the steelers have scott slated as OG?

I think the plan with the LB's will be to let Harrison go after his contract is up, then extend Woodley and by then Worlids will be ready to start. Wood isnt inconsistent, he's just not gonna put up the sack numbers of guys like Harrison, Porter, Gildon....but he's a much better run defender and collapses the pocket.

As for OT, Scott played LT at Tenn. and the Steelers have him listed as an OT. He is gonna play RT if anything and has longer arms than Colon, so should be better equipped to play on the edge.

As for the whole notion that its soley on the offensive line for the lack of production. People need to ask themselves "when was the last time they saw the Steeler O line physically dominate a defense and control the game""? I think its the 2008 season when they force fed the ball to Parker and committed to the run game vs the Browns. Starks, Kemo, Hartwig, Stapleton, Colon were at least allowed to be the hammer and not the nail.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 04:27 PM
Thing is SD- we spent our picks on WR's and RB's because the OL that we wanted was gone. Remember a couple years ago, we thought we had 2 or 3 centers dropping to us, and everyone of them disappeared of the board, picked by teams that we thought would skip right over the line. Both the Ravens and Browns picked OL that year. When that happens, what are we supposed to do? Trade down to pick up someone in the top of the next round, only to see them disappear just before we get to pick again? Or trade up, giving up a 2nd or 3rd round pick for a higher first round (not too high, since we are always drafting in the bottom half of the round), only to not get a shot at an excellent second round player that fell?

IMO, over time, the drafting strategy of the Rooneys and Colbert has proved solid. Choose your guy, then rate the rest. If your guy falls to you, draft him, if not, get BPA. Only if you have a player that fits your team like a glove, do you move. Troy P. and Ben R. are those two times over the last 12 years or so. Seems like a very good record to me.

the steelers have had chances to draft better at the O-line positions since 2002, but have chosen to go elsewhere or just did a poor job of evaluating/guessing. i would have taken mangold(which is who i wanted) over holmes. picking in the 1st round usually produces a worthy player. most 1st rounders are still solid players. now some may not live up to their 1st round status, but i think it's safe to assume that most have been above average players. the margin of error isn't very large in the 1st round. now when the steelers get to the 3rd rounds and later they seem to suffer. i am not saying they are morons or haven't made some good late picks, but they have missed some chances at getting decent O-linemen.

i think the steelers need to spend a little more time grading the O-line in the 2011 draft. they have been getting by on other team's castoffs and lower round picks, but it is now showing it's effects even more. it's going to be scary trying to watch the steelers' O-line against the jets' blitzes.

IMO, if the O-line isn't available in the first then they need to look at DL or DB. i really don't want to see another WR or RB taken in the 1st round. if anything, bundle up some picks and move up a few spots.

Psycho Ward 86
12-16-2010, 04:31 PM
if i had choose between signing colon or woodley i would choose colon.

Wow you know what, I dont think that's nuts at all. Pouncey, Colon, and Kemoeatu are a nice foundation on the O-line to build upon.

Steeldude
12-16-2010, 04:44 PM
I think the plan with the LB's will be to let Harrison go after his contract is up, then extend Woodley and by then Worlids will be ready to start. Wood isnt inconsistent, he's just not gonna put up the sack numbers of guys like Harrison, Porter, Gildon....but he's a much better run defender and collapses the pocket.

As for OT, Scott played LT at Tenn. and the Steelers have him listed as an OT. He is gonna play RT if anything and has longer arms than Colon, so should be better equipped to play on the edge.

As for the whole notion that its soley on the offensive line for the lack of production. People need to ask themselves "when was the last time they saw the Steeler O line physically dominate a defense and control the game""? I think its the 2008 season when they force fed the ball to Parker and committed to the run game vs the Browns. Starks, Kemo, Hartwig, Stapleton, Colon were at least allowed to be the hammer and not the nail.

the problem in 2011 is the steelers have taylor, colon and woodley without contracts(i think that's correct).

you think woodley is a better run defender than harrison?

i was never impressed with gildon. he was a one-move LB who either got a cheesy sack or was never in the picture, but that's just my take on it. i find porter and gildon to be products of the system more than good LBs. i think the steelers can survive better without woodley than without colon. at least the steelers have options if woodley goes down.

it would be nice to see worilds spot harrison and woodley once in awhile.

ok, i thought scott was supposed to be their OG because of quickness issues. i must be thinking of someone else. i know that's why foster was moved to G.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-16-2010, 05:36 PM
the problem in 2011 is the steelers have taylor, colon and woodley without contracts(i think that's correct).

you think woodley is a better run defender than harrison?

i was never impressed with gildon. he was a one-move LB who either got a cheesy sack or was never in the picture, but that's just my take on it. i find porter and gildon to be products of the system more than good LBs. i think the steelers can survive better without woodley than without colon. at least the steelers have options if woodley goes down.

it would be nice to see worilds spot harrison and woodley once in awhile.

ok, i thought scott was supposed to be their OG because of quickness issues. i must be thinking of someone else. i know that's why foster was moved to G.

Yeah, I think Woodley is thick at 265 and stands up to OT's better than Harrison. I'd like to see Worlids spell both of them a bit next year too and think he will eventually replace Harrison in a couple seasons.

If there is no CBA, ther will be no cap, but if there is.....I would rather try to sign Taylor and Woodley if we can only get 2. I dont know where we are vs the cap with the release of Hartwig, trade of Holmes, retiring of Townsend from last year, but Essex, Colon, Moore and Farrior may be gone...leaving the door open for rookie OT, OG and the return of Foote.

Scott is not agile enough to play LT, but more agile than Flozell to play RT. I see Starks, Chris Scott, Jon Scott and a rookie at OT, with Kemo, Pouncey, Foster, Legursky and a rookie inside(maybe Mike Pouncey). Adams is the wild card.

stlrtruck
12-16-2010, 05:37 PM
the problem in 2011 is the steelers have taylor, colon and woodley without contracts(i think that's correct).

you think woodley is a better run defender than harrison?

i was never impressed with gildon. he was a one-move LB who either got a cheesy sack or was never in the picture, but that's just my take on it. i find porter and gildon to be products of the system more than good LBs. i think the steelers can survive better without woodley than without colon. at least the steelers have options if woodley goes down.

it would be nice to see worilds spot harrison and woodley once in awhile.

ok, i thought scott was supposed to be their OG because of quickness issues. i must be thinking of someone else. i know that's why foster was moved to G.

I believe the threat of Woodley helps Harrison out when it comes down to whom does the opposing team block. I posted in the Woodley thread that without him, Harrison doesn't get to the QBs like he has been. And while that may bode well for his wallet, it wouldn't bode well for our defense!

The Steelers seem to know who to sign and I trust the FO, but I don't believe the Steelers have anyone to come in and be as formidable as Woodley has been.

Steeldude
12-17-2010, 02:33 AM
I believe the threat of Woodley helps Harrison out when it comes down to whom does the opposing team block. I posted in the Woodley thread that without him, Harrison doesn't get to the QBs like he has been. And while that may bode well for his wallet, it wouldn't bode well for our defense!

The Steelers seem to know who to sign and I trust the FO, but I don't believe the Steelers have anyone to come in and be as formidable as Woodley has been.

i doubt that because i see harrison getting doubled too often, but that's just my opinion :)

Steeldude
12-17-2010, 02:37 AM
and the return of Foote.

ugh...please say it isn't so. foote is absolutely horrible in pass coverage and a bowling pin against the run. it would be great if sylvester could pick up the defense quickly.

LLT
12-17-2010, 08:07 AM
I love your analysis, LLT. Like I said, you know a lot more than I do, so I'm certainly not foolish enough to think I have the answers. But there are a few things I don't necessarily agree on.


Can you compensate for the loss of a franchise quarterback? I saw the Steelers do it for the first four games this season. Although the defense played a HUGE role in our three wins without Ben, I also saw a change in our offensive game plan to maximize Dixon's and Batch's limited abilities.



I think you answered your own question. We still had Starks at that point but the line was still quilty of poor play. They were using Dixons strengths then, just as they are using Bens strength now...but neither plan compensated for the line play. They were a detriment then...and they are a detriment now.


I'll give you this ... there's nothing that can be done do make an inferior O-line play great, or even good. But one thing you can do is stop running so many pass plays that take a lot of time to develop and require the line to protect for an extended period of time.

Except that the reason that the play is taking so long to develope is because the defense is reading the play before the snap and covering the WR's long enough for our line to implode. We are still so limited by this line and the AMOUNT of plays that we can run due to inexperience at WR/TE that the defense has a distinct advantage.


Based on what you're saying, a multiple-receiver set (Steelers '95) or an offense that leans heavily toward the pass (Colts) should never be successful. When we play the Patriots, they pass 70 percent of the time. Again, based on what you're saying, that type of offense should be relatively easy to shut down since we know they're going to be passing.


No....With an average line and with experiences WR's/TE's....you open the game. The plays can be more complex and you can actually "hide" schemes. We are sooooo limited by our line and our inexperience at the skill poisitions that we can "occassionaly" fool the defense but never as well or as often as those teams you mentioned.


You've shot down my ideas of using more no-huddle or going to a 4-receiver set. And you said there's no way to compensate for a poor O-line. So what's the answer? Do we just keep doing what we've been doing offensively and pray that the defense holds the opposing offense to 10 or fewer points.

Actually we can...and DO run both. The no-huddle is our best option in at least keeping the defense from subbing out players and being able to change up from a pass defense to a run defense (and vice-versa)....It helps, but it doesnt compensate for the poor line and it puts us at a disadvantage in subbing as well.

The sad reality is that we will continue to have offensive problems with this line and with our limitations in play calling....its just a matter of working better with what we have...putting the O-line and WR's on a fast learning curve...and putting the weight of games on the back of our defense.

Thats not all bad....and I would say that it could get us deep into the playoffs...and if the ball bounces the right way...another Super Bowl.

I would guess that Sanders, Brown, and Johnson are getting an excellerated course....and if they are getting better week by week (which I believe they are since they have moved both to the active roster) then there us a chance that we open up the playbook.

Taking the handcuffs off the pass game will open the running game....and then the rest of the league may be in trouble. But the clock is ticking...and time is against us.

BuddhaBus
12-17-2010, 09:39 AM
I think you answered your own question. We still had Starks at that point but the line was still quilty of poor play. They were using Dixons strengths then, just as they are using Bens strength now...but neither plan compensated for the line play. They were a detriment then...and they are a detriment now.



Except that the reason that the play is taking so long to develope is because the defense is reading the play before the snap and covering the WR's long enough for our line to implode. We are still so limited by this line and the AMOUNT of plays that we can run due to inexperience at WR/TE that the defense has a distinct advantage.




No....With an average line and with experiences WR's/TE's....you open the game. The plays can be more complex and you can actually "hide" schemes. We are sooooo limited by our line and our inexperience at the skill poisitions that we can "occassionaly" fool the defense but never as well or as often as those teams you mentioned.



Actually we can...and DO run both. The no-huddle is our best option in at least keeping the defense from subbing out players and being able to change up from a pass defense to a run defense (and vice-versa)....It helps, but it doesnt compensate for the poor line and it puts us at a disadvantage in subbing as well.

The sad reality is that we will continue to have offensive problems with this line and with our limitations in play calling....its just a matter of working better with what we have...putting the O-line and WR's on a fast learning curve...and putting the weight of games on the back of our defense.

Thats not all bad....and I would say that it could get us deep into the playoffs...and if the ball bounces the right way...another Super Bowl.

I would guess that Sanders, Brown, and Johnson are getting an excellerated course....and if they are getting better week by week (which I believe they are since they have moved both to the active roster) then there us a chance that we open up the playbook.

Taking the handcuffs off the pass game will open the running game....and then the rest of the league may be in trouble. But the clock is ticking...and time is against us.

Good, respectful debate Wally and LLT. You both make great points and somewhere in between lies the solution to our offensive woes, IMHO. It would be nice to see some of our O-linemen actually give Ben some time AND plays called that don't require time Ben doesn't seem to have at this juncture. Imagine what the offense could do if this were the case. Scary.

El-Gonzo Jackson
12-17-2010, 10:30 AM
Foote aint so bad, but he's not as good as Farrior in his prime. I think Sylvester is a better OLB because he plays too high. Still wish we were able to take Jasper Brinkley a couple seasons ago in the draft.

I just think with some of the expiring contracts and veterans maybe moving on, we can add some talent on the O line and D line. May mean going with younger guys at LB or elsewhere to free up $.

BuddhaBus
12-17-2010, 11:01 AM
Foote aint so bad, but he's not as good as Farrior in his prime. I think Sylvester is a better OLB because he plays too high. Still wish we were able to take Jasper Brinkley a couple seasons ago in the draft.

I just think with some of the expiring contracts and veterans maybe moving on, we can add some talent on the O line and D line. May mean going with younger guys at LB or elsewhere to free up $.

Sylvester does show huge amounts of promise thus far. Hopefully he continues to progress and develop into the player he appears he can be.

Also agree on the O-line and D-line needing some attention in the very near future. The O-line is mediocre at best, horrifying at it's worst and the D-line is getting old and injury prone. Time to inject some youth.