How hot is Keith Butler’s seat?

[Mojouw]

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

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

[GBMelBlount]

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

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

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

[hawaiiansteeler]

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

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

[Mojouw]

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

Professional, collegiate and even down to grade school.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Craic]

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

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

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

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

[Mojouw]

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

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teegre]

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

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

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

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

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

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

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

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

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

[DesertSteel]

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

So, I keep hearing this team sucks against bad opponents. I wanted to see if that were true based on last year.

I think you have to look beyond just last year when they only lost 3 games all year.

[Mojouw]

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

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

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

[DesertSteel]

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

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

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

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

[FrancoLambert]

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

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

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

[Mojouw]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mojouw]

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

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

[DesertSteel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hawaiiansteeler]

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

[Six Rings]

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

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

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

[Mojouw]

What connection are you drawing here?

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojouw]

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

Not sure what's going on with Hundley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwinsgames]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

[teegre]

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

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

#misleadingstats

[Mojouw]

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

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

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

[Craic]

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

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

#misleadingstats

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

[Craic]

I think you have to look beyond just last year when they only lost 3 games all year.

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

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

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

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

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

[DesertSteel]

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

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

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

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

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

Nice work!

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

[Craic]

Nice work!

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

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

[teegre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously.