Game balls 'n goats at Denver

[Shoes]

Boz hit AV for a TD... (so, it technically was a wash).

He still dropped it. Can't count your kicker and LT to put up TD's

[Craic]

Coaching sucked. I'm tired of it. The game plan was good . But the preparation was just lousy. From the get go these players were not coached up. This is the difference between great teams great coaches and perennial also rans. Steelers will have a hard time until the get coached up.


Tell me I'm wrong, tell me thier grown men, blah blah whatever. Great coaches in history prepared the players beyond the competition. Tomlin doesn't do that at all. This team is sloppy undisciplined

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Huh?
Again, I don't get how this can be a coaching issue. Unless you expect the coaches to go out there and literally throw and catch the balls. The coaches put this team in the position to win. The pass plays and routes were getting WRs open. Ben was simply missing open players and when he did hit them, they were dropping balls. The one trick play with AB was perfectly executed with a wide open player and nothing but daylight, but AB put just a little too much on the pass. The defense played against one of the top run teams in the NFL and barely allowed 100 yards for the lead back, and the Broncos needed several turnovers to get that for their guy. And, after everything else. The fumbles, the INTs, they were still in a position to tie the game at the end. At some point, it stops being coaching and starts being the players fault. After all, the players do ​have to execute.

[teegre]

He still dropped it. Can't count your kicker and LT to put up TD's

Oh, it was an awful drop. Don’t get me wrong. I was livid.

But, in the end, it didn’t technically cost us any points.

[NCSteeler]

Huh?
Again, I don't get how this can be a coaching issue. Unless you expect the coaches to go out there and literally throw and catch the balls. The coaches put this team in the position to win. The pass plays and routes were getting WRs open. Ben was simply missing open players and when he did hit them, they were dropping balls. The one trick play with AB was perfectly executed with a wide open player and nothing but daylight, but AB put just a little too much on the pass. The defense played against one of the top run teams in the NFL and barely allowed 100 yards for the lead back, and the Broncos needed several turnovers to get that for their guy. And, after everything else. The fumbles, the INTs, they were still in a position to tie the game at the end. At some point, it stops being coaching and starts being the players fault. After all, the players do ​have to execute.

So what your saying if the coordinator can draw up a good plan , the great coaches can just stay home on Sunday. BS coaches prepare thier players to make those plays in extreme circumstances

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[lipps83]

A ball going out of bounds in “their” end zone does not always mean the same thing. If they are on offense and fumble out of “their” end zone it’s a safety.

Different circumstances produce different outcomes based on common sense.

Think of it as an attacking (offense) unit and a defending (defense) unit. This is a game, so you have to use game logic. Common sense does not always apply to game logic. Their defense is on the field, and if the attacking unit (our offense) gives up control (they cannot get the ball back from enemy territory) in the defensive zone, it is a 'win' for the defense. It is a successful defense of the zone.

If the attacking unit fumbles out of their own defensive zone, it is a failure. They are penalized with a safety. That is the reality of it, but by your logic they should get the ball back at least to the one yard line.

These are not just balls going out of bounds. They are going out of bounds within designated, unshared zones.

And it is not actually “their” end zone than it is “their” one yard line or “their” side of the field. Those are just not literal terms of description. If we fumble on “their” one yard line, they don’t get possession unless they recover it inbounds. If a team fumbles it out of bounds, no change of possession happens. For that to suddenly be a different rule based on which side of the cone it bounces out of bounds DOES seem arbitrary.

It is their end zone they are defending, not the entire field. It is like knights defending a castle from invaders. It is certainly "theirs". Their side of the field is 'their' land, but the castle is the prize. The land/field between both castles is shared by both territories. The castles are unshared and alone held by only one side.

It isn't just a field they are on throwing a ball around that has lines all over it. It is a game built on the same fundamentals of all games, that of attack/defend, that has been around since the dawn of time. Almost all sports utilize this as the grounds for development of the game.

The team who possessed it never lost possession of it to the other team. Possession is just handed to the other team under this weird circumstance.

I already covered that. It is a win for the defense. They successfully defended their zone. You can't just walk into the enemy castle to get your catapult back so you can try again.

When you kick off or punt you are changing possession already so the TB rule makes sense in those cases. Or how on an interception or fumble recovery results in a TB because a change of possession ALREADY happened. But it is weird that a change of possession is EVER awarded because the offense fumbled it out of bounds anywhere on the field.

Why do you think you punt after a safety and you don't kick-off? You are changing possession because the offense 'failed'. The offense failed completely in invading the other zone and gave up their own zone. Only a successful invasion produces a 'free' kick where the attacking unit is given another chance to invade again. It is a free kick because nobody had control of the ball after one side succeeded and the other failed. Both teams have a chance to attack from the free kick.

You don't have that on a punt. You are 'forced' to give up on your attack because you failed.

Hopefully this helps to clarify a bit.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

That wasn't the issue at all. Steelers walked up and down the field on the defense. It was a brilliant gameplan that dominated the defense. The problem was the players simply couldn't hang on to the ball and Ben had problems throwing the ball to the wrong jersey.

Really? I have issue with red zone playcalling. 1st down and you throw a fade to JuJu, who really isn't a big WR that is gonna high point the football?? Then 2nd down run from shotgun and 3rd down a fake give to Conner and a pass play with only one read, which Bradley Roby had covered if Ben didn't shot put it to a D lineman? Terrible series.

Best red zone series of calls was from Danny Smith today and not Randy Fichtner.

Still, the Ben clutch factor didn't look like much today as he threw almost as many INT than last week.

[teegre]

Game ball: Chukks Okorafor

Seriously.

(AV gets one, too... but, I wanted to highlight the rookie.)

[lipps83]

Ahh, that does change the discussion. Okay.

In the end, we live or die on Ben's arm. I think the axiom is "put the ball in the hands of your best player" in those situations, and that's what we did. I agree with you, however, that we should have ran it up the gut at least once. Preferably on first down. Then, line up the same way on second down in a play-action with Ben throwing it away if nothing was there.

Then again, I believe in the two-minute offense, the reigns are turned over to Ben because he's is our playmaker and I'd rather have him calling plays in those situations than spending time with them coming from the sidelines.

And I understand that. High risk, high reward. Ben is the guy, so yeah.

Me, I am old school in those kinds of situations. 2 all pros, a good back, a lot of time not too mention a timeout. I am running it 3 times straight ahead. Play action on another, maybe 2nd or 3rd, but never 1st or 4th.

To me, in those situations, you have a 50% chance that the guy is even going to catch the pass (he does or doesn't). Maybe a 5% chance of a fumble on a run.

I would also never call a fancy shmancy play like they did today. Not in that situation. Too much has to go right for that to work, and today it done got blowed up.

[86WARD]

Huh?
Again, I don't get how this can be a coaching issue. Unless you expect the coaches to go out there and literally throw and catch the balls. The coaches put this team in the position to win. The pass plays and routes were getting WRs open. Ben was simply missing open players and when he did hit them, they were dropping balls. The one trick play with AB was perfectly executed with a wide open player and nothing but daylight, but AB put just a little too much on the pass. The defense played against one of the top run teams in the NFL and barely allowed 100 yards for the lead back, and the Broncos needed several turnovers to get that for their guy. And, after everything else. The fumbles, the INTs, they were still in a position to tie the game at the end. At some point, it stops being coaching and starts being the players fault. After all, the players do ​have to execute.

Steelers defensive game plan has been awful. Major holes in it and not having Tuitt has nothing to do with it. Speed receivers, TEs down the seam, Anytging coming out of the backfield. All issues that have been repeatedly occurring week to week. This team has no answer for a RB or TE that sits down at the second level of the defense between the numbers and the hash marks. Every single one of those goes for a score or a big gain, McCaffrey, Fournette. Two TEs today. It’s a major issue that can be exploited by good teams. Not to mention the run stop game hasn’t been great...Tuitt alone isn’t going to totally fix that.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Game ball: Chukks Okorafor

Seriously.

(AV gets one, too... but, I wanted to highlight the rookie.)

Yes, I agree.

I mentioned in another thread that his 6'6" size, long arms and agile feet would be a good match for pass rushers like Miller and he got some help for sure. My main concern was his balance and technique on handling an inside counter move and he got beat on one, but it was a designed screen pass, so the kid I thought did very well.

On the goat side, Ben has to wear it for the INT's, and the defense got gashed in the run game I thought, so still missing Tuitt big time. But to get in the red zone a few times and needing your kicker to throw a TD to your OT, really isn't solid Red Zone play and I think Fichtner has to take a look at what his play selection was a bit closer.

[st33lersguy]

Really? I have issue with red zone playcalling. 1st down and you throw a fade to JuJu, who really isn't a big WR that is gonna high point the football?? Then 2nd down run from shotgun and 3rd down a fake give to Conner and a pass play with only one read, which Bradley Roby had covered if Ben didn't shot put it to a D lineman? Terrible series.

Best red zone series of calls was from Danny Smith today and not Randy Fichtner.

Still, the Ben clutch factor didn't look like much today as he threw almost as many INT than last week.

Agreed, run the ball, and stop throwing inside from inside the 5, that's breeding grounds for INTs

[Steeldude]

If I can give a game ball for a loss, mine goes to Ryan Switzer. He played his guts out.

If he would only learn how to catch with his hands.

[j-d-s]

Agreed, run the ball, and stop throwing inside from inside the 5, that's breeding grounds for INTs

We currently suffer from the "Tony Romo problem". The Cowboys for years relied heavily on Romo because he was such a great passer, but in the process abandoned the run, becoming one dimensional causing critical turnovers.

I really don't get why we passed so much @DEN, there is absolutely no reason, especially because their run defense is much worse than their pass defense, and we weren't behind much neither.

[Steeldude]

Where was Dupree? I guess he needs another 5 years to develop. I hope they give him a 5 year $45 million contract. You can't find that kind of production today. He just takes over games.

[HollywoodSteel]

Think of it as an attacking (offense) unit and a defending (defense) unit. This is a game, so you have to use game logic. Common sense does not always apply to game logic. Their defense is on the field, and if the attacking unit (our offense) gives up control (they cannot get the ball back from enemy territory) in the defensive zone, it is a 'win' for the defense. It is a successful defense of the zone.

If the attacking unit fumbles out of their own defensive zone, it is a failure. They are penalized with a safety. That is the reality of it, but by your logic they should get the ball back at least to the one yard line.

These are not just balls going out of bounds. They are going out of bounds within designated, unshared zones.



It is their end zone they are defending, not the entire field. It is like knights defending a castle from invaders. It is certainly "theirs". Their side of the field is 'their' land, but the castle is the prize. The land/field between both castles is shared by both territories. The castles are unshared and alone held by only one side.

It isn't just a field they are on throwing a ball around that has lines all over it. It is a game built on the same fundamentals of all games, that of attack/defend, that has been around since the dawn of time. Almost all sports utilize this as the grounds for development of the game.



I already covered that. It is a win for the defense. They successfully defended their zone. You can't just walk into the enemy castle to get your catapult back so you can try again.



Why do you think you punt after a safety and you don't kick-off? You are changing possession because the offense 'failed'. The offense failed completely in invading the other zone and gave up their own zone. Only a successful invasion produces a 'free' kick where the attacking unit is given another chance to invade again. It is a free kick because nobody had control of the ball after one side succeeded and the other failed. Both teams have a chance to attack from the free kick.

You don't have that on a punt. You are 'forced' to give up on your attack because you failed.

Hopefully this helps to clarify a bit.

I understand the rule as is, and don’t feel strongly about changing it. I’m just saying that it is somewhat arbitrary, and not based on consistent absolute principles.

The idea that fumbling out of bounds is an “offensive failure” is not a guiding principle of football. “Their” end zone is not a soccer net. It’s the place you want to get to. It’s just arbitrary to have a rule that possession changes when it bounces out of bounds in “their” end zone, rather than “their” one yard line.

They should only be awarded a TB in cases where possession was already theirs, like on a punt, kickoff, or ACTUAL turnover where they recover it in their end zone.

It’s just odd that they are gifted possession when the offense never gave up possession.

On a punt or kick off, if it bounces out of bounds at the one, it’s theirs. Bounces out in the end zone, it’s theirs. Bounces out on the five, it’s theirs. The already have implied possession before the ball hits the ground, so a bounce out of bounds anywhere on the field still has them retain possession, because possession is already theirs BEFORE the ball goes out of bounds.

All these terms about “ enemy territory” and such are you trying to retrofit a weird rule into a greater football principle that just doesn’t exist in the game.

An offense never loses possession because the ball bounces out of bounds. That is the overriding rule... that is being broken suddenly for some weird reason in the end zone.

There is probably a good, common sense, football reason for the rule. But if so, no one has yet articulated it into a smart football reason for possession to change hands in this particular circumstance.

[teegre]

On the goat side, Ben has to wear it for the INT's, and the defense got gashed in the run game I thought, so still missing Tuitt big time. But to get in the red zone a few times and needing your kicker to throw a TD to your OT, really isn't solid Red Zone play and I think Fichtner has to take a look at what his play selection was a bit closer.

For the first time all season, Fichtner got “cute”... as opposed to what he had done the first ten weeks: line up and play solid football.

#ghostsofToddHaley

[Craic]

So what your saying if the coordinator can draw up a good plan , the great coaches can just stay home on Sunday. BS coaches prepare thier players to make those plays in extreme circumstances

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Um... the coordinators ARE coaches. And no. They also have to call the game, which they did. They have to make adjustments, which they did. It is their job to get the right players in the right positions t make the right plays, which they did. What else do you want? The coaches to go throw wnd catch the ball as well?

- - - Updated - - -

So what your saying if the coordinator can draw up a good plan , the great coaches can just stay home on Sunday. BS coaches prepare thier players to make those plays in extreme circumstances

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Um... the coordinators ARE coaches. And no. They also have to call the game, which they did. They have to make adjustments, which they did. It is their job to get the right players in the right positions t make the right plays, which they did. What else do you want? The coaches to go throw wnd catch the ball as well?

[lipps83]

I understand the rule as is, and don’t feel strongly about changing it. I’m just saying that it is somewhat arbitrary, and not based on consistent absolute principles.

The idea that fumbling out of bounds is an “offensive failure” is not a guiding principle of football. “Their” end zone is not a soccer net. It’s the place you want to get to. It’s just arbitrary to have a rule that possession changes when it bounces out of bounds in “their” end zone, rather than “their” one yard line.

They should only be awarded a TB in cases where possession was already theirs, like on a punt, kickoff, or ACTUAL turnover where they recover it in their end zone.

It’s just odd that they are gifted possession when the offense never gave up possession.

The offense did give up possession by their own ineptitude. The 1 yard line is shared. The end zone is not. If they fumble out of bounds at the 1 and the defense never took control of the ball, the offense gets the ball back. If they fumble out of bounds in the end zone, they can't get the ball back because it is not shared. It is as simple as that. The offensive failure creates a 'win' for the defense.

If you are attacking an enemy country and drop your supplies behind enemy lines, should the enemy ignore your mistake and give you your supplies back so you can keep attacking them?

On a punt or kick off, if it bounces out of bounds at the one, it’s theirs. Bounces out in the end zone, it’s theirs. Bounces out on the five, it’s theirs. The already have implied possession before the ball hits the ground, so a bounce out of bounds anywhere on the field still has them retain possession, because possession is already theirs BEFORE the ball goes out of bounds

All these terms about “ enemy territory” and such are you trying to retrofit a weird rule into a greater football principle that just doesn’t exist in the game.

An offense never loses possession because the ball bounces out of bounds. That is the overriding rule... that is being broken suddenly for some weird reason in the end zone.

There is probably a good, common sense, football reason for the rule. But if so, no one has yet articulated it into a smart football reason for possession to change hands in this particular circumstance.

The offense does lose possession. You can't reward the offense for their own ineptitude (losing control into enemy territory).

The only problem with this rule is that just about every rule is geared to the offense, the ones which reward the defense for good play are so few and far between, that you have this one which is a perfect rule to reward good defensive play, and people are confused 'why can't the offense keep going?'.

I can't put this any more simply than 'field of play is shared' and 'end zone is not field of play and not shared'.

[NCSteeler]

And I understand that. High risk, high reward. Ben is the guy, so yeah.

Me, I am old school in those kinds of situations. 2 all pros, a good back, a lot of time not too mention a timeout. I am running it 3 times straight ahead. Play action on another, maybe 2nd or 3rd, but never 1st or 4th.

To me, in those situations, you have a 50% chance that the guy is even going to catch the pass (he does or doesn't). Maybe a 5% chance of a fumble on a run.

I would also never call a fancy shmancy play like they did today. Not in that situation. Too much has to go right for that to work, and today it done got blowed up.

We used to line up same formation time and again and impose your will, one thing Cowher was pretty good at. If you had bad run defense you were going to get what up all day.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[NCSteeler]

Um... the coordinators ARE coaches. And no. They also have to call the game, which they did. They have to make adjustments, which they did. It is their job to get the right players in the right positions t make the right plays, which they did. What else do you want? The coaches to go throw wnd catch the ball as well?

- - - Updated - - -


Um... the coordinators ARE coaches. And no. They also have to call the game, which they did. They have to make adjustments, which they did. It is their job to get the right players in the right positions t make the right plays, which they did. What else do you want? The coaches to go throw wnd catch the ball as well?

So the coaches take no responsibility for the players mental state ? Showing up prepared for situations and playing well. I thought all these years that was kind of the head coaches job to prepare his team for competition. Guess we can get all those coaches out of the HOF, turns out he just had players that played better.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[Craic]

So the coaches take no responsibility for the players mental state ? Showing up prepared for situations and playing well. I thought all these years that was kind of the head coaches job to prepare his team for competition. Guess we can get all those coaches out of the HOF, turns out he just had players that played better.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Seems to me the coaches in the HOF are there more for X's and O's and the influence they had on the game. And, once again, the coaches do not control the players. This is more of a "you can lead the horse to water" situation. Do you really think Grimble's fumble is Tomlin's fault? What did Tomlin do or not do that caused him to fumble? What did Tomlin do or not do that caused Ben to throw two picks, the last one in the endzone at the end of the game? What did Tomlin do or not do that caused Conner to fumble the ball?

Honestly, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for the third one. So I don't completely exonerate the coaches. However, on the large scale, I put the blame around 90 percent on the players here.

[DesertSteel]

McDonald laughing that he dropped a TD pass cost us the game also.

Yeah that ticked me off at the time.

[steelerdude15]

Dumbass.

I personally would bench him for the rest of the year because of this statement.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I personally would bench him for the rest of the year because of this statement.

Really...Why?

I like to see an offensive player with an aggressive mentality. I bet Steelers coaches and admin does too. Secure the football, run the defender over and score...like Jerome Bettis, Hines Ward, Franco Harris, Marc Breuner, Heath Miller, etc.

[steelerdude15]

Really...Why?

I like to see an offensive player with an aggressive mentality. I bet Steelers coaches and admin does too. Secure the football, run the defender over and score...like Jerome Bettis, Hines Ward, Franco Harris, Marc Breuner, Heath Miller, etc.

I understand that and I like to see offensive players play aggressive at times as well, but only when its warranted. He could have easily juked to the right and would have been in for a touchdown. Sometimes, its better to play smart than play aggressive.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Yeah that ticked me off at the time.

He could either dwell on it or laugh it off and move on. I wasn't bothered by the laughing it off in disbelief. I just saw another case where Vance McDonald dropped a pass and got injured during the game. I'm impressed that he lasted this long in the season to revert back to what he has done his entire career.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand that and I like to see offensive players play aggressive at times as well, but only when its warranted. He could have easily juked to the right and would have been in for a touchdown. Sometimes, its better to play smart than play aggressive.

Still, you said you would bench a football player for being too aggressive?? That makes no sense to me at all.

Grimble is not a small man, he isn't a 190 lb WR that needs to or should dance around contact. I have no problem with what he did, other than he didn't secure the football well enough.

[steelerdude15]

He could either dwell on it or laugh it off and move on. I wasn't bothered by the laughing it off in disbelief. I just saw another case where Vance McDonald dropped a pass and got injured during the game. I'm impressed that he lasted this long in the season to revert back to what he has done his entire career.

- - - Updated - - -


Still, you said you would bench a football player for being too aggressive?? That makes no sense to me at all.

Grimble is not a small man, he isn't a 190 lb WR that needs to or should dance around contact. I have no problem with what he did, other than he didn't secure the football well enough.

I would bench him because he didn't think and it hurt the team in the end. That's why.

[EzraTank]

Damn i wish we rann one more time.

They should have spread the field and pitched to Conner.

[Fire Goodell]

Grimble, that fumble into the end zone really set the tone for this game. We had no business losing this game but couldn't stop shooting ourselves in the foot. I can't say I'm surprised about the loss, this happens EVERY time the media starts talking about the Steelers as a SB contender. We only seem to do well as the underdogs

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I would bench him because he didn't think and it hurt the team in the end. That's why.

OK, thanks for clarification.

I'm still good with a 6'4" 260 lb guy trying to power his way into the endzone, rather than dance and cutback. I don't recall if he was trying to run over a safety or corner that he likely outweighed by 40+ lbs. He didn't secure the football well enough and that is the mistake IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

They should have spread the field and pitched to Conner.

I like spreading the field, but I never like a powerful RB like Conner on a pitch or toss on the goal line. The O line from DeCastro to AV consists of 75% Pro Bowl caliber players and Ramon Foster......run from under center behind them, not slow developing shotgun read option type plays.