FIRE MIKE TOMLIN!!

Mike Tomlin a gameday liability?


There has been a lot of talk about how bad the Steelers defense is, and rightfully so. Their secondary was an absolute mess and a good portion of that blame has to fall onto the players themselves. Yet, not nearly enough criticism is being leveled at Mike Tomlin and his staff. This is a group that had five preseason games to put together a functioning secondary and they utterly failed. Note that I said 'functional.' That means a defense that knew who was supposed to be on the field when, and at least got their assignments mostly correct. They failed at both of those basic tasks despite a defense stripped down to the barebones.

I firmly believe that last night you could have simply switched the two coaching staffs on the sidelines, and the result would have been nearly reversed. Tomlin had his team so ill-prepared for opening night and made some rookie mistakes that are just inexcusable for one of the highest paid coaches in the league.


read more



http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB...c.php?t=569521

If we're going to talk about firing Tomlin, that discussion should be about overall preparedness and player development in the long term.

There were a few things I didn't like about last night, but I didn't see anything about the game itself that made me scream "Fire the coach!" The offense looked good - we actually handed it to the Patriots pretty thoroughly there - but had 4 or 5 inopportune fuck-ups. The defense looked crappy but no more than expected.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big Tomlin supporter by any means, but I think there is more of a long-term pattern to it than what happened in this individual game. Kind of a moot point anyway; after saving face last season - weak schedule or not - there is no way they'll can him for at least 4 more years, even if we really stink the place out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

If we're going to talk about firing Tomlin, that discussion should be about overall preparedness and player development in the long term.

There were a few things I didn't like about last night, but I didn't see anything about the game itself that made me scream "Fire the coach!" The offense looked good - we actually handed it to the Patriots pretty thoroughly there - but had 4 or 5 inopportune fuck-ups. The defense looked crappy but no more than expected.

---

This.

I swear, the knee-jerk reactions after the first loss of the season. Let's get a little perspective, shall we?

Let's see . . . We went into the stadium of the Super Bowl Champions who are returning most of their starters, without our: (1)starting RB, (2) probably our #2 WR, Center, (3) 2nd round CB who looked to replace our Shutdown CB, (4) a brand new Defensive Coordinator (and if you think there's little difference being a LB coach and an OC during a game, you're vastly mistaking), (5) and young and/or Steeler-experienced DBs. Yet, we lost by 7 points. And don't give me the "Garbage time" argument. Had Scoby hit those field goals, that TD, with a two point conversion, ties the game.

Are there problems? Absolutely. I noticed questionable play-calling, bad communication, etc. But much of what I noticed, on defense, especially, will disappear as our DC gets used to the position and our players settle in and begin working together.

It's a long season, people, and we just lost by one TD to the Superbowl champions. Seriously, let's get a grip.

I wont call for Tomlin's firing. First off what good would it do? But as long as Bellichick is in New England we'll always be at a disadvantage in the coaching department to that rival. If it's even close to even talent wise they're going to win every important game. But hey we're already used to that. So what the hell. In my best Kevin Bacon..."Thank you sir! Give me another".

The original poster (over on football future) must have been watching a different game, because most of his points are simply not true or such armchair GM nonsense.

For instance he condemns Pittsburgh's secondary for their poor performance and rejects inexperience as an explanation. And then cites the Pats secondary as a counter example. Ummm....they got shredded too last night. I don't think anyone is going to be running the film of the Pats DBs last night and looking for tips.

Garvin is their short yardage coverage LB. Always has been. Seemingly always will. Far from the slowest LB - that would have to be Williams.

The whole post has a massive correlation/causation problem. Some of the problems identified are true, but their sources and solutions are not correct.

The Steelers got beat last night because their safeties are terrible. Not much more complicated than that. Without a good safety tandem, Brady and Gronk will eat you alive over the middle and then Edleman and Amendola kill you underneath as you desperately cheat towards the middle.

Mike Mitchell looked he was running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

The original poster (over on football future) must have been watching a different game, because most of his points are simply not true or such armchair GM nonsense.

For instance he condemns Pittsburgh's secondary for their poor performance and rejects inexperience as an explanation. And then cites the Pats secondary as a counter example. Ummm....they got shredded too last night. I don't think anyone is going to be running the film of the Pats DBs last night and looking for tips.

Garvin is their short yardage coverage LB. Always has been. Seemingly always will. Far from the slowest LB - that would have to be Williams.

The whole post has a massive correlation/causation problem. Some of the problems identified are true, but their sources and solutions are not correct.

The Steelers got beat last night because their safeties are terrible. Not much more complicated than that. Without a good safety tandem, Brady and Gronk will eat you alive over the middle and then Edleman and Amendola kill you underneath as you desperately cheat towards the middle.

---

They can't match Garvin up with Gronkowski. It's a mismatch that Garvin will lose every time and the Patriots knew that and they knew it, most likely, from the Chandler TD earlier in the game. Basically the Pats split those guys out, knew exactly what the coverage would be and exploited it...perfect set up and execution by New England's coaching staff. Moral is...you can't stick Garvin out on an island and expect him to cover.

Put 5'9" Senquez Golson on Gronk and pray he can jump.

The biggest problem with Tomlin vs pats was the clock management at the end of the first half.....It was just awful.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 86WARD

They can't match Garvin up with Gronkowski. It's a mismatch that Garvin will lose every time and the Patriots knew that and they knew it, most likely, from the Chandler TD earlier in the game. Basically the Pats split those guys out, knew exactly what the coverage would be and exploited it...perfect set up and execution by New England's coaching staff. Moral is...you can't stick Garvin out on an island and expect him to cover.

---

Never said it was a good idea. Was simply pointing out that Garvin coming in sub packages as a coverage LB is not a new thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Never said it was a good idea. Was simply pointing out that Garvin coming in sub packages as a coverage LB is not a new thing.

---

I'm not trying to say you did say that. I'm just saying from a coaching perspective, they have to realize that it's not a good idea. They have to be prepared for something like that. Move some one who can play run and coverage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craic

Let's get a little perspective, shall we?

Let's see . . . We went into the stadium of the Super Bowl Champions who are returning most of their starters, without our: (1)starting RB, (2) probably our #2 WR, Center, (3) 2nd round CB who looked to replace our Shutdown CB, (4) a brand new Defensive Coordinator (and if you think there's little difference being a LB coach and an OC during a game, you're vastly mistaking), (5) and young and/or Steeler-experienced DBs.

---

Patriots had new starting corners, 3 rookie offensive linemen, were missing their starting center and starting RB, benched their starting LT during the game and actually shuffled their line around during the game as well. So this isn't exactly a great argument to make about perspective.

A little more on the direct topic of Tomlin:

I have never thought he was that good of a coach. He is a mediocre that came into a great situation and because of the success of the situation a lot is forgiven. That being said, it isn't as if this league is full of great coaches so there is no point in calling for his head too loudly. Last night was a great example of why he is not that great of a coach. The team seemed completely unprepared on defense, there were bad personnel choices, terrible clock management and basically more of the same we have seen on a consistent basis with Tomlin at the helm.

Let's not even talk about how Landry Jones and Dri Archer continuing sticking with this team despite being 2 of the most useless guys in the NFL. Or how he is a former DB coach who doesn't seem to know the first think about DB's and judging their talent.

Steelers organization has a tried and true method so it is only fair to give Tomlin time. The same thing that gave him an edge as a coach (coming into a great roster and situation) is also a thing that may have hampered him as a coach. Having those great players too long kept him from developing guys he may have wanted to develop sooner.

Actually, I think our biggest problem with Gronk last night was our lack of experienced and trustworthy depth at Linebacker. I'd have loved to see an experienced Dupree (6'4, 269, 4.56 40 with a 42 inch vertical), say, with 3-4 years under his belt, be assigned to Gronk all night. Get up in his face, hit him off the line, bump him down the routes, etc.

But right now, we just don't have that. The only one I'd half way trust is Timmons, and that'd absolutely kill us at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyphon25

Patriots had new starting corners, 3 rookie offensive linemen, were missing their starting center and starting RB, benched their starting LT during the game and actually shuffled their line around during the game as well. So this isn't exactly a great argument to make about perspective.

---

Um, it's exactly the argument to make, or do you forget that outside of two missed fieldgoals, the teams put up almost the exact same points. Think about that. Moreover, the fieldgoal problem was identified in the game and corrected (new holder came in, no more missed field goals).

Moreover, I could care less about what the Pats* had. My point was the with everything different on this team, they were still within 7 points of tying/beating the SB champions. Considering your post, that means they came in facing similar issues, and again, were almost equal except for those two missed fieldgoals.

Yes, it's called perspective. Especially for the first game of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craic

Um, it's exactly the argument to make, or do you forget that outside of two missed fieldgoals, the teams put up almost the exact same points. Think about that. Moreover, the fieldgoal problem was identified in the game and corrected (new holder came in, no more missed field goals).

Moreover, I could care less about what the Pats* had. My point was the with everything different on this team, they were still within 7 points of tying/beating the SB champions. Considering your post, that means they came in facing similar issues, and again, were almost equal except for those two missed fieldgoals.

Yes, it's called perspective. Especially for the first game of the season.

---

The bold is your problem. With proper perspective you realize they aren't really the SB champs. Obviously from a literal standpoint they are, but taking it in perspective you see that they had almost the same disadvantages we did. And when you look at it like that you realize our all-stars like Harrison, Timmons and Heyward couldn't take advantage of 3 rookie offensive linemen to have any impact on the game. Our defense was getting gashed by a 2nd or 3rd string RB on top of looking completely lost out there.

Sure, we still could have won the game despite everything, but it would have been beating a mediocre team starting a bunch of rookies and new players. It goes back to the same old story under Tomlin. We can never get up and play good ball to beat the teams we should be beating. Abysmal coaching, untimely turnovers, terrible clock management and personnel decisions killed us in a game we could have won.

Are all y'all high?

They just signed Mikey to a new contract - he's got the Rooney's in his hip pocket and ain't goin' nowhere.


Mike Tomlin, Steelers agree on contract extension

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported the new deal will place Tomlin among the three-to-five highest paid coaches in the NFL and also all of sports, meaning more than $7 million per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyphon25

The bold is your problem. With proper perspective you realize they aren't really the SB champs. Obviously from a literal standpoint they are, but taking it in perspective you see that they had almost the same disadvantages we did. And when you look at it like that you realize our all-stars like Harrison, Timmons and Heyward couldn't take advantage of 3 rookie offensive linemen to have any impact on the game. Our defense was getting gashed by a 2nd or 3rd string RB on top of looking completely lost out there.

Sure, we still could have won the game despite everything, but it would have been beating a mediocre team starting a bunch of rookies and new players. It goes back to the same old story under Tomlin. We can never get up and play good ball to beat the teams we should be beating. Abysmal coaching, untimely turnovers, terrible clock management and personnel decisions killed us in a game we could have won.

---

And so, with that last paragraph, you completely discount all the players the Steelers lost. Look, this is the first game of the season. You can choose to go negative and complain all season long. I, personally, would rather enjoy the season. Glass half empty, half full. I prefer to see it half full.

Don't think because we only lost by 7 points that the defense is good. The last TD was in garbage time and the Pats stopped passing with almost 10 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Delusion about the quality of our coaches and our defense can be detrimental to our playoff hopes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALLD

Don't think because we only lost by 7 points that the defense is good. The last TD was in garbage time and the Pats stopped passing with almost 10 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Delusion about the quality of our coaches and our defense can be detrimental to our playoff hopes.

---

I don't think anyone is under any delusion that the defense is any good. I also think it's fair to say that the bolded part above was at least partly a function of their defense not really stopping our offense all night either. And since when does fan opinion, good or bad, directly affect the fortunes of a team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polamalubeast

Yet, not nearly enough criticism is being leveled at Mike Tomlin and his staff. This is a group that had five preseason games to put together a functioning secondary and they utterly failed. Note that I said 'functional.' That means a defense that knew who was supposed to be on the field when, and at least got their assignments mostly correct. They failed at both of those basic tasks despite a defense stripped down to the barebones.

---

I questioned several times as to why the starters did not get more playing time during the pre-season.

All I heard, was..."It's just the Pre-season. Don't worry about it. Stop over-reacting. blah, blah, blah....

Thursday's debacle clearly demonstrates that this Defense needs much more time playing together to become a cohesive, coordinated unit. They way the looked out there makes me think it will not happen for a very, very long time.

So yea, if I'm the head coach with a bunch of inexperienced new starters, they're playing a hell of a lot during pre-season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katmandu

I questioned several times as to why the starters did not get more playing time during the pre-season.

All I heard, was..."It's just the Pre-season. Don't worry about it. Stop over-reacting. blah, blah, blah....

Thursday's debacle clearly demonstrates that this Defense needs much more time playing together to become a cohesive, coordinated unit. They way the looked out there makes me think it will not happen for a very, very long time.

So yea, if I'm the head coach with a bunch of inexperienced new starters, they're playing a hell of a lot during pre-season.

---

I have to wonder if Tomlin's first year as head coach has something to do with it, especially with five games in the preseason. Remember that first year he ran the team into the ground, and they just didn't have anything left in the tank come January. It looks to me like he's adopted the Bill Cowher approach: better 3 and 3 in the first six, than 0-3 in the last three. Remember, Cowher's teams sucked in the first six games of each season, usually. I started rooting for a break-even first third, and knew if we got that, we'd be pretty good in the last two-thirds. I apply the same to Tomlin's teams, so I don't start worrying until game four, at least.

Is no one remembering that the Pats play faster than any team except the Eagles in the entire league? Are we not going to mention that their numerous substitution packages are more than most other teams?

Are we not going to mention that many teams aside from the Steelers turn in to the Keystone Kops when faced with the Patriots amorphous and anomalous offensive system?

Look, plenty of stuff went wrong that can be laid directly at the feet of the coaching staff, but we need to remember that the Pats (cheating and all) are a talented football team that runs a fairly odd system that makes many teams look foolish each season.

All that being said, Fire 'em all.

No one in their right mind is saying Tomlin is terrible. But if you had to rank Tomlin among his peers is he top 10? If not then ask yourself why the Steelers, a team that is considered among the league's best franchises is settling?

Now if you think he is top ten ( personally I teeter right on that line) then you shouldn't see much issue here. But on the bad weeks sometimes I teeter right over to the mediocre side of 10 and drop him down around 15. And when my mind wanders there I ask myself why the hell do the Steelers settle on a mediocre coach?

So I don't necessarily think it's a ridiculous premise when people call for his job after a particularly poorly coached game, such as this last one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulater

I don't necessarily think it's a ridiculous premise when people call for his job after a particularly poorly coached game, such as this last one.

---

you don't think it's a ridiculous premise considering the fact that we just extended Tomlin's contract through the 2018 season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALLD

Mike Mitchell looked he was running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

---

So was his twin, Cortez Allen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawaiiansteeler

you don't think it's a ridiculous premise considering the fact that we just extended Tomlin's contract through the 2018 season?

---

Yes and no.

On the level of it actually being in the realm of possibility, knowing he's won a SB, been to two SB's, never has had a losing season, is loved by the Rooney's, is a perfect example of the "Rooney rule" in action, and finally is part of the legacy of the Steelers stability at the top. You just know the Steelers want Mike to at least get to 2018 so they can say 3 coaches in 50 years. Then hell no.

But on the level of semi- rationale fan wondering is this guy an elite coach, and if not so, then why is this organization settling? Then yes.

If you don't understand the rationale of what I'm saying it could be because you're 6 Sam Adams behind me. :heh:

I would say that Tomlin lands between 10-12 on the ranking of NFL head coaches. There are definitely times where I feel he falls down to the 16-20 stages...times when the team just looks unprepared, confused, lacking discipline, lacking awareness...basic things that a team at the NFL level should have. Sure it's gonna happen every once in a while and I'd be fine with that, but when it happens on a consistent basis, it becomes a problem in my book.

There are 2 things that definitely keep Tomlin surfing higher than he ideally would be ranked.

1. Past success. He came into one helluva a roster and managed them well. However much credit you want to give him for that, he seems much better at dealing with already prepared talent than he does at handling new talent.

2. There just flat out aren't a bunch of great coaches in the league. That is why there is so much turnover. So much of the NFL is matching up the right relationships and the right timing of events. So even if you don't like Tomlin how easy would it be to find better? Hard to say really.

Tomlin, for some reason, has a thing against "admitting mistakes" in personnel. Blake being on Edelman all game was a joke. Not only because Blake was schooled all game, but they put Blake into a position in which he never played and they left Boykin, who they gave up a 5th Round draft pick for, on the bench...the kicker being that this would be a spot in which Boykin would excel...as he has proven so in the past...I'm not sure what Tomlin is thinking there...

I'm not being argumentative; I honestly want to know:

Which 10 coaches would all of you take over Mike Tomlin?