Another Tomlin loss to a 1-5 type team

[SteelMayhem72]

Come on, nothing is ever the fault of the coaches.

I don't get the rookie LT excuse. Didn't the Patriots start 3 rookie O-linemen vs the Steelers?

I don't put this loss on Landry. Some of the playcalling was suspect. Sure, Landry's inexperience didn't help, but I would hardly claim he is the main reason for the loss.

It didnt seem like Harrison played much. Was he hurt? It's a coaching decision to start Jarvis Jones based strictly on draft status.

I agree with you. It's a combo of coaching and players that resulted in the loss. IMO, I lean more toward coaching for the loss.

I agree

[zoneblitzerII]

I'm sick of people saying it was just Landry Jones. It's an upgrade from what they had and he's proving he's not the worst back up QB out there...he still threw for over 200 yards...something they haven't seen in how long?? The team still has Martavis Bryant, Heath Miller, Antonio Brown, Le'Veon Bell...and they still manage to put up how many points? That doesn't all fall on Jones no matter how you want to spin it.

Coaching...that's all that really needs to be said...coaching.

Agreed. It's important to remember that even with Ben in the line up the likelihood of a loss against a sub .200 team would've been greater than 90%. That's Tomlin's trademark. That's what his teams do. Even if it were somehow in the Super Bowl and Ben was healthy and they were playing against say the Raiders, Chiefs or Lions you could kiss that ring goodbye. Tomlin coaches to lose against bad teams. Period.

[86WARD]

Come on, nothing is ever the fault of the coaches.

I don't get the rookie LT excuse. Didn't the Patriots start 3 rookie O-linemen vs the Steelers?

I don't put this loss on Landry. Some of the playcalling was suspect. Sure, Landry's inexperience didn't help, but I would hardly claim he is the main reason for the loss.

It didnt seem like Harrison played much. Was he hurt? It's a coaching decision to start Jarvis Jones based strictly on draft status.

I agree with you. It's a combo of coaching and players that resulted in the loss. IMO, I lean more toward coaching for the loss.

And that's how I feel. Look Jones isn't the next "Tom Brady", he's not the next "Aaron Rodgers", he's a back up QB that is better then what Tomlin was fielding 2 weeks ago. A player that probably should've been playing all along. But he's not the goat here...and I like to bash Jones with the best of them, but he's getting better as time goes on.

[86WARD]

Never did I ever think there would be a time where I was defending Landry Jones...lol...ewww.

[Mojouw]

Deangelo Williams drops a pass on about the goal line.

Jones misses Bryant on 2 sure touchdown throws.

Blake and Shazier blew coverages all afternoon.

So the DB rotation and playing time is on the coaching staff. So is Harrison's playing time. Although at 37 his playing time seems to be in line with what almost every other team does with aging pass rushers. But I'm sure it is a mistake.

Shitty play by not talented players does not always equal a massive coaching problem. It might just mean that the Steelers roster is paper thin and after about the top 15 guys or so there isn't a great deal of talent on the roster.

To me, the most glaring and readily available criticism of the coaching staff is their inability to deal with TEs.

The Steelers lost because they got below average play from the QB, C, LT, CB, and pass rush on Sunday. In the NFL now, that comprises all of the critical positions.

[Steel Peon]

Welcome, brother. With your arrival, the board just got a lot better.

Wow, you mean to tell me this board is THAT bad? I had no idea you could throw your fellow Steelers fans under the bus so quickly. Not sure if I should be embarrassed by the praise, or alarmed at how easily you treat your fellow poasters like.....well, peons.

[teegre]

Wow, you mean to tell me this board is THAT bad? I had no idea you could throw your fellow Steelers fans under the bus so quickly. Not sure if I should be embarrassed by the praise, or alarmed at how easily you treat your fellow poasters like.....well, peons.

We're a caste system here.

There's my tier... and everyone else.

( )

[86WARD]

To me, the most glaring and readily available criticism of the coaching staff is their inability to deal with TEs.

How's the saying go? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is a problem week in and week out for the last few years...

[Craic]

Look, I don't think many here are saying Landry's the goat. In fact, I was very surprised that I didn't see Landry's name at all in the Gameball/Goat thread. And, I agree, he isn't the goat. What most of us are saying is that you simply do not put a young, 3rd string (because that is his place on the depth chart) QB in a situation where you expect him to make passes and plays like your first string, All-Pro veteran. Yet, it reads as though many here are expecting Tomlin and Co to do just that. Yet, if they did, and we lost due to INTs or not moving the ball, many of the same would blame Tomlin and Co for calling plays that shouldn't be called for a 3rd string QB.

The fact of the matter is, in today's NFL with parity being built in at every level (drafting position, salary cap, limited rosters, poaching developing players, etc), the worst team with a first string QB should be able to beat a team with a 3rd string QB starting. If they can't, it's either because the 3rd string QB is actually a top 2nd or bottom 1st stringer (and will end up a starter before long), or other parts of the team are so dominant they can make up for it (a la Steelers defense in 2010, which still was able to dominant games until injuries and age took over that year).

So, with all that said, how do I grade out the game? Landry Jones gets a c-. The minus is for his one INT that was his fault. The C is because he did nothing special to help the team win, but also did very little to help the team lose (int not withstanding). I don't blame him at all. BUT, realize that grade is as much a positive for the coaches, because they put him in positions to succeed. It was his WRs who kept dropping balls that failed him.

That doesn't mean I give the coaches a pass, either. You simply do not go for it on fourth down in the middle of the field with a 3rd string QB. That was the coach's fault (Tomlin). You don't line up in obvious run situations with single-back sets when you have a fullback who can also play TE (in case you want to call out of a play). That's the OC's fault. But, even with those things said, had the receivers caught the passes that hit them in the hands, we'd probably be having a different discussion today.

[hawaiiansteeler]

I had no idea you could throw your fellow Steelers fans under the bus so quickly.

isn't that the whole fun of it?

[tube517]

isn't that the whole fun of it?

[86WARD]

Look, I don't think many here are saying Landry's the goat. In fact, I was very surprised that I didn't see Landry's name at all in the Gameball/Goat thread. And, I agree, he isn't the goat. What most of us are saying is that you simply do not put a young, 3rd string (because that is his place on the depth chart) QB in a situation where you expect him to make passes and plays like your first string, All-Pro veteran. Yet, it reads as though many here are expecting Tomlin and Co to do just that. Yet, if they did, and we lost due to INTs or not moving the ball, many of the same would blame Tomlin and Co for calling plays that shouldn't be called for a 3rd string QB.

The fact of the matter is, in today's NFL with parity being built in at every level (drafting position, salary cap, limited rosters, poaching developing players, etc), the worst team with a first string QB should be able to beat a team with a 3rd string QB starting. If they can't, it's either because the 3rd string QB is actually a top 2nd or bottom 1st stringer (and will end up a starter before long), or other parts of the team are so dominant they can make up for it (a la Steelers defense in 2010, which still was able to dominant games until injuries and age took over that year).

So, with all that said, how do I grade out the game? Landry Jones gets a c-. The minus is for his one INT that was his fault. The C is because he did nothing special to help the team win, but also did very little to help the team lose (int not withstanding). I don't blame him at all. BUT, realize that grade is as much a positive for the coaches, because they put him in positions to succeed. It was his WRs who kept dropping balls that failed him.

That doesn't mean I give the coaches a pass, either. You simply do not go for it on fourth down in the middle of the field with a 3rd string QB. That was the coach's fault (Tomlin). You don't line up in obvious run situations with single-back sets when you have a fullback who can also play TE (in case you want to call out of a play). That's the OC's fault. But, even with those things said, had the receivers caught the passes that hit them in the hands, we'd probably be having a different discussion today.

I'm not saying this at all about giving Landry the full playbook. That's silly. My point is more to the fact that he has and had a better grip on the playbook than Vick...yet the coaching staff opted to go with the more if two evils. It was a dumb decision...take AB for instance. Arguably one of the best if not best players on the team? His involvement is leaps and bounds above what it was with Vick in there. That's going to give them a better chance at winning. It is an example in a long line of mistakes that the coaching staff has made over this season.

[TeeTee]

If anyone needs to look in the mirror it's Todd Haley. I thought his playcalling with Vick was dumb and ill-advised, but with Landry he seemed hell-bent on perfecting Turtleball before Ben gets back. What did we have, like 8 or 9 straight runs at one point? And then in the 2nd half we had like 9 straight passes. How dumb is that? I think the coaches got in Landry's head with their lack of trust and confidence. We all saw what Landry did with no restraints. I didn't expect a repeat of that, and assumed he'd cough up a few turnovers, but why did it take until the late 3rd/4th quarter to open up the offense? Haley's clueless without Ben these days.

Also it's not like we got blown out. If DeAngelo catches that pass at the goal line we might be talking about a close win here.

Dead on, Steelman. Haley, left on his own, makes terrible play calls. The two first plays - both passes to Bryant - were an attempt to loosen up the D so they could run. And that's fine, but then they OD'd on the rushing plays. You can't put a QB behind the 8 ball, with not allowing some passes on downs other than 3rd and long. That's moronic. You'd think it was pre-2005 Cowher back in control. With a little more creative play calling, we could have won this game.

[Craic]

I'm not saying this at all about giving Landry the full playbook. That's silly. My point is more to the fact that he has and had a better grip on the playbook than Vick...yet the coaching staff opted to go with the more if two evils. It was a dumb decision...take AB for instance. Arguably one of the best if not best players on the team? His involvement is leaps and bounds above what it was with Vick in there. That's going to give them a better chance at winning. It is an example in a long line of mistakes that the coaching staff has made over this season.

The problem with that, however, is assuming without the benefit of the game last week, based only on what we saw in the preseason, that he would be able to perform in a game better than Vick, which included protecting the football. Despite anything else, Vick did protect the ball, and also with him as QB, we should have won every game (kicker-issues!). No one was calling for Vick to be replaced by Landry before Landry came in, because no one thought Landry could do a better job than Vick.

In hindsight, it seems a simple decision. In foresight, it's a very difficult one. It's what makes Monday Morning Quarterbacking inauthentic compared to true coaching skills.

[86WARD]

The problem with that, however, is assuming without the benefit of the game last week, based only on what we saw in the preseason, that he would be able to perform in a game better than Vick, which included protecting the football. Despite anything else, Vick did protect the ball, and also with him as QB, we should have won every game (kicker-issues!). No one was calling for Vick to be replaced by Landry before Landry came in, because no one thought Landry could do a better job than Vick.

In hindsight, it seems a simple decision. In foresight, it's a very difficult one. It's what makes Monday Morning Quarterbacking inauthentic compared to true coaching skills.

Not true. There were people calling for Landry. Also Jones showed leaps and bounds improvement over previous seasons. He showed he could make some throws that Vick didn't and he showed he had an understanding of the play book. Sure he wasn't perfect and he is a back up QB...but watching the preseason games, a lot of his receivers dropped the balls on him...catchable balls. Looking at his decision making, he was way better than in the past and his statistics were decent. It wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility to go with him out of the gate or after seeing Vick struggle through 6 quarters, pull him in favor of Jones. Seeing that through the preseason Jones had more of a grasp on the playbook than Vick did.

[Steeldude]

The problem with that, however, is assuming without the benefit of the game last week, based only on what we saw in the preseason, that he would be able to perform in a game better than Vick, which included protecting the football. Despite anything else, Vick did protect the ball, and also with him as QB, we should have won every game (kicker-issues!). No one was calling for Vick to be replaced by Landry before Landry came in, because no one thought Landry could do a better job than Vick.

In hindsight, it seems a simple decision. In foresight, it's a very difficult one. It's what makes Monday Morning Quarterbacking inauthentic compared to true coaching skills.

I wanted anything over Vick. Vick sucked as a passer for 15 years in the NFL. Vick's inability to pass was to be expected. Why Tomlin didn't see this simple fact is beyond me. Why Tomlin insisted on keeping him in after it was painfully obvious Vick could only handle about 5 plays is baffling too. Hopefully they cut Vick.

[st33lersguy]

The loss to the Chiefs is looking better than it did 4 weeks ago as the Chiefs haven't lost since. I said this team's ceiling was 4 wins and I was wrong. Impressive that they have been able to do it without Jamaal Charles. With their schedule they could do some damage the rest of the regular season

[polamalubeast]

The loss to the Chiefs is looking better than it did 4 weeks ago as the Chiefs haven't lost since. I said this team's ceiling was 4 wins and I was wrong. Impressive that they have been able to do it without Jamaal Charles. With their schedule they could do some damage the rest of the regular season

Look at the first 5 lost for the Chiefs.......8-2 Broncos,7-3 Packers,8-2 Bengals,4-6 Bears(Bad lost) and 7-3 Vikings.


It was obvious that the chiefs were better that their record at this time and it was with Landry Jones as QB too.

[st33lersguy]

Look at the first 5 lost for the Chiefs.......8-2 Broncos,7-3 Packers,8-2 Bengals,4-6 Bears(Bad lost) and 7-3 Vikings.


It was obvious that the chiefs were better that their record at this time and it was with Landry Jones as QB too.

Looking back on it now, yes. However losing Jamaal Charles was the big reason I thought they were going nowhere. Also the Texans (who they beat), Bears, and Vikings all look better now than they did then. Also didn't help that I was pretty pissed off back then

[hawaiiansteeler]

The Chiefs suck ass. They will not win more than 4 games this year. Good job Dumblin

John Harbaugh: Chiefs are 'hottest team in football'

By Jeremy Bergman NFL.com
Published: Dec. 18, 2015

What do the 2015 Baltimore Ravens and Kansas City Chiefs have in common? They both started 1-5 ... and that's it.

Since both clubs' paltry six-game starts, the Chiefs, sans Jamaal Charles, have turned it around, rattling off seven straight to pull into playoff contention. Going into this weekend's matchup with Kansas City, Ravens coach John Harbaugh didn't act like he hasn't noticed.

"We're playing the hottest team in football coming in here," Harbaugh said. "They're doing what we hoped to do after a slow start. But you know what? We have to find a way to win this football game."

to read rest of article:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...am-in-football

[st33lersguy]

John Harbaugh: Chiefs are 'hottest team in football'

By Jeremy Bergman NFL.com
Published: Dec. 18, 2015

What do the 2015 Baltimore Ravens and Kansas City Chiefs have in common? They both started 1-5 ... and that's it.

Since both clubs' paltry six-game starts, the Chiefs, sans Jamaal Charles, have turned it around, rattling off seven straight to pull into playoff contention. Going into this weekend's matchup with Kansas City, Ravens coach John Harbaugh didn't act like he hasn't noticed.

"We're playing the hottest team in football coming in here," Harbaugh said. "They're doing what we hoped to do after a slow start. But you know what? We have to find a way to win this football game."

to read rest of article:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...am-in-football

Oops (lol)

In all seriousness though, I thought they were screwed without Jamaal Charles. Didn't realize how cake easy their schedule was.

[ALLD]

I want the rats to win just this week only.

[NCSteeler]

Oops (lol)

In all seriousness though, I thought they were screwed without Jamaal Charles. Didn't realize how cake easy their schedule was.

They have had a pansie easy schedule down the stretch. I think they are way beatable.

SD twice Oak, Buf, Det. Seriously Denver is the only real game they played since beating us, where it was all about Manning collapsing -35 yards on 5-of-20 passing, zero touchdowns, four interceptions, two sacks

[polamalubeast]

The Chiefs have won against teams that are supposed to win and lost against teams that are supposed to lose.


The loss against the bears and the win against the Broncos are the only exception.

[tube517]

[cubanstogie]

The Chiefs have won against teams that are supposed to win and lost against teams that are supposed to lose.


The loss against the bears and the win against the Broncos are the only exception.

True, with their conservative style that's what you'd expect. That's why I am not expecting them to lose 1 of their last 3 games. Possibly lose to Raiders but game is in Arrowhead so not likely. It would be huge to get that 5th seed. Playing Colts or Texans would be much easier game then going to Mile high thin air, or Cincy. Then again beggars can't be choosers, I just want playoffs.

[hawaiiansteeler]

LOST CAUSE

Tomlin's record against sub-.500 teams at the time they played them over the past two years (4-7) has come under scrutiny.

Tomlin said that's something he would look at during the offseason.

“Really, I'm in the midst of this 2015 season,” Tomlin said. “Painting with a broad brush and looking over the course of an extended period of time and things of that nature, that's stuff you do in the offseason. So we'll do it at that time.”

http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/...#ixzz3vpIiAJoR

[st33lersguy]

Tomlin said that's something he would look at during the offseason.

He has been doing this crap his entire career and just now he will "look into it" during the offseason? You know Mike, you would make a great politician

[teegre]

They're counting the Chiefs as a sub .500 team.

FACT: After week one, 50% of the teams in the NFL were sub .500.

Stats are funny that way.




(The Steelers are 6-2 against "actual" sub .500 teams this season.)

[hawaiiansteeler]

Mark Kaboly ✔@MarkKaboly_Trib

Steelers have lost 7 of last 11 games against sub-.500 teams

27 Dec 2015