4 sacks for the packers and one for Matthews@PolamaluBeast Is that one sack by Matthews, or in total? Thanks. I'm on a phone, can't view stats
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...1210070clt.htm
4 sacks for the packers and one for Matthews@PolamaluBeast Is that one sack by Matthews, or in total? Thanks. I'm on a phone, can't view stats
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...1210070clt.htm
Speaking of Luck getting sacked 4 times in the last game, Ben was sacked only once in the last two games. It's the same O-line, so what could possibly be the reason for Ben not getting killed every other play? I know it's early, but Ben's name is already starting to get mentioned in MVP talk. Does anyone remember that ever happening when Arians was here?
Just some observations.
Haley's gameplan is designed around Ben getting rid of the ball at ALL costs. That's why you're seeing a lot of dump off and dink and dunk passes from him. Notice his interception numbers? That's because he isn't forcing the ball down field every play, and his plays don't revolve around him taking 8 seconds for a play to develop. A competent OC can make a lackluster QB look good with the right gameplan, and it helps that Ben is NOT lackluster.
Go Haley. He's doing great so far with this offense.
Honestly I think BA was starting to get Ben to change his game some last year. Or has everyone already forgot the game against the Patriots where Ben was pretty much taking advantage of the underneath routes and getting the ball out in time like he is this year?
Why there was no carry over the next couple weeks I'm not sure?
Could be the Ben - Bruce dynamic was such that Ben was ok with a one week variance, but wasn't going to be put into the mold of "dink and dunk" over the long haul.
And it's for that reason that I think they had to move on without Bruce.
In other words it wasn't from any lack of knowledge on Bruce's part, or BA not knowing what change was wanted. But his and Ben's relationship was such that he couldn't bad cop Ben into the neccessary change over a prolonged period of time.
Or at least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it!
Last thing, Arians was a good coach for the Steelers. He was the right man to repalce Whisenhunt at the time. I think a Haley type following Whisenhunt ( who Ben clearly despised) might have pushed Ben right on out of Pittsburgh.
Good luck to Bruce.
And I'm glad the Steelers hired Haley!
"A man's got to know his limitations."
But, here's the thing. Arians offense is based on complex crossing routes designed to confuse DB's and get WR's open. That's not a great fit for a team that doesn't have a very good offensive line, as those plays tend to take a little longer to develop. Now, of course Arians adjusted, but the salient point is that teams KNOW his offense before they hire him. The Steelers KNEW what he was about because they played against him in Cleveland. They knew what he was about when they promoted him. They knew what he was about when they didn't fire him year after year after year. The Colts, PARTICUARLY Chuck Pagano, KNEW what they had when they hired Arians.
It's also worth noting that Arians came into a Steelers offensive playbook that had been around in one form or another since the 90's. They were working out of the Steelers playbook, not necessarily Arians. Finally, does anyone think Ben is an idiot enough not to recognize that he needed to get the ball out sooner? The onus has to be somewhat on him, as well as Tomlin to some degree. If Arians is as big of retard as some would have you believe, how did he "get away with it" for so long?
The fact is, there are a lot of variables involved here, and just dumping the whole shitstorm into Arians lap is dismissive, intellectually lazy, and shows a fundamental lack of football acumen.
Fire Goodell
Arians said himself that he has his game plan, and he doesn't care what players he has. They just need to execute. That's the stubborness I talked about earlier. I've made arguments in the past that if Arians had a solid O-line and a QB who was better at making quick reads, he'd probably have an unstoppable offense. But he DIDN'T have a solid O-line. The O-line had to improve to be average. And as good as Ben is, his strength isn't making quick reads. But despite not having the right O-line or QB for his system, he wasn't about to adjust it to fit the players he had. He had his system, and he was going to run it.
I don't see how you can make that argument while watching Ben run for his life every play waiting for those complex routes to develop.
Like with anything, there's a bit of a "good ol' boy network" in the NFL. Norv Turner doesn't keep getting head coaching gigs because he's a phenomenal head coach with tons of success.
I agree that some of the problem was with Ben. But ultimately, the buck stopped with Arians. Rather than forcing Ben to change the way he played, Arians believed in allowing Ben to be Ben. By Arians not forcing Ben to change his style or by not changing his own strategy to better fit Ben's style, it's a wonder that Ben is still physically able to play football. But look at what's happening right now ... Ben came into this season kicking and screaming about not wanting to change his style of play. But so far, Ben is getting rid of the ball quicker, he's dumping it off to backs, and he's throwing it away when there's nothing there. In just four games in to his tenure, Haley has gotten Ben to tweak his style of play. Just like Rooney wanted.
I think I know what the problem is. Suit, you need a hug.
All better?
i asummed I crossed the ban line by calling you stupid and ignorant. It's obvious we will never agree on waht I consider fact. That you an dsuit continue to elongate a conversation that you view as not worht having. I could be generalizing, but I don't read evry possible post on these boards.
Last edited by Count Steeler; 10-10-2012 at 04:50 AM.
Merry Christmas
NCSteeler - -
Wanted to clarify: "Remember that? Just incase you need more help with reading comprehension (not that you're capable, but because you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant," was not what I was intending to say. I left out a second "not" there. The sentence should have been: "(not that you're not capable, but because you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant"
I do sincerely apologize for leaving that out, as it was not my intent to demean you by saying that you're incapable of reading comprehension. Hope we're good (at least on that point), if not, again, PM me.
Edit: Looks like my inability to use quote tags even screwed up NCSteeler's post. Now, I have to be brilliant to not only mess up my quotes, but to mess up someone else's as well!
OK...sometimes, on message boards, where a good number of the people are anonymous "Keyboard Kowboys" and "Google experts", I can be mean and insensitive to these kinds of people who are, um.....a little disabled. That leads me to focus right in on the issue at hand, overt or COvert, and maybe I step on some toes in the process. I'm sorry if I sometimes offend the delicate sensibilities of those who feel they, relatively speaking, deserve a trophy simply for showing up.
Fire Goodell