New playbook seems to be in working order

The most scrutinized aspect of the Steelers in the preseason was not their running game, not their aging defense, not their offensive line and not Mike Wallace's holdout.

The topic that drew more attention than any was how quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and new offensive coordinator Todd Haley would get along, how Roethlisberger would accept his new offense with all its new terminology in a new playbook, its new emphasis on improving the ground game and the high-percentage passes.

On Sunday, Roethlisberger made it all work again with one of the better games of his career, certainly among his best in a defeat. He did so by dipping back into the old playbook, presumably the one that former offensive coordinator Bruce Arians ran. Incredibly, Roethlisberger said he called plays from that old offense and his teammates helped pull them off.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/steelers/new-playbook-seems-to-be-in-working-order-654776/#ixzz27T13xcj2

Quote :

Ben: "We no-huddled the whole second half, I felt we moved the ball down the field. There are plays out there I called that aren't in our playbook. I know that sounds crazy, things we had from years past, guys were on the same page and it worked."

I thought that last drive looked familiar ... Steelers had the lead and the ball and failed to run out the clock or score more points, giving the ball back to the Raiders with a chance to win the game on their final drive. I'm only half joking. Ben had a fabulous game, but it's not all about statistics. They managed to score 0 points in the fourth quarter. Is that what Ben means when he says "it worked"?

Don't get me wrong, in no way am I blaming the offense for the loss. Whenever the offense puts up 31 points, the Steelers should win. But how many games did the defense have to bail out the offense over the years? Oftentimes needing to hold opposing offenses to 10 or fewer points for us to win. Well, now we need the offense to bail out the defense. One score in the fourth quarter would have tied or won the game. So no, Ben, I don't agree that going back to the Arians playbook worked when the offense failed to score any points in the fourth quarter.

I'm not blaming AB but the Steelers were driving to put the game away until his fumble. but the defense didn't have his back.

Wallace108 wrote:

Quote :

Ben: "We no-huddled the whole second half, I felt we moved the ball down the field. There are plays out there I called that aren't in our playbook. I know that sounds crazy, things we had from years past, guys were on the same page and it worked."

Can somebody please rivet a steel plate over Ben's mouth for chrissakes?

Great, Ben, we only lost by 3 points to a shitty Raiders team led by Carson Palmer. It's surely comforting to know you'll buck the current OC's game plan and re-hydrate some of Bruce Arians' old dried up turds whenever you feel the need to try to make a point during a game. That ought to help me sleep better on Sunday nights.

I don't blame the offense for the loss either, but shut up already with the sniping, bitter comments. Bruce is gone... get over it. He's too busy ruining Andrew Luck's career and won't be back.

As I said earlier, the whole "how many games has the defense bailed the offense out of?" argument is completely irrelevant.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Quote :

Ben: "We no-huddled the whole second half, I felt we moved the ball down the field. There are plays out there I called that aren't in our playbook. I know that sounds crazy, things we had from years past, guys were on the same page and it worked."

Can somebody please rivet a steel plate over Ben's mouth for chrissakes?

Great, Ben, we only lost by 3 points to a shitty Raiders team led by Carson Palmer. It's surely comforting to know you'll buck the current OC's game plan and re-hydrate some of Bruce Arians' old dried up turds whenever you feel the need to try to make a point during a game. That ought to help me sleep better on Sunday nights.

I don't blame the offense for the loss either, but shut up already with the sniping, bitter comments. Bruce is gone... get over it. He's too busy ruining Andrew Luck's career and won't be back.

Yeah, I completely agree.

If the offense had been struggling, and Ben went rogue and started running old plays and suddenly the offense started scoring ... then fine. But that's not what happened. The offense was clicking just fine. Sure, the running game was struggling. But even if you have a poor running game, you have to continue to use it to keep the defense honest. Our offense was moving the ball AND scoring points. Then Ben conjured up plays from the Arians playbook, and they put up 0 points in the fourth. Yeah, they were moving the ball down the field ... but they could move the ball with Arians' offense. The problem is that they couldn't score, especially in the red zone. Kinda like in the fourth quarter of the Raiders game. Now compare that to the fourth quarter of the Jets game when they ran 10 minutes off the clock and scored to put the game away. So really, I need Ben to explain how his rogue playcalling "worked."

bayz101 wrote:

As I said earlier, the whole "how many games has the defense bailed the offense out of?" argument is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

In fairness, Mark Kaboly reports that Ben has "clarified" his comments (as usual):

Quote :

"I probably didn't speak clearly enough. It wasn't necessarily that I called plays as much as I used hand signals. I really didn't think it would get blown up as much as it did, and I know some people are saying that I've been resistant to Todd (Haley). But it's one of those things that we went to Todd, and it's in the playbook now. It was simply a signal that I used with our receivers on two different occasions. One was on the fourth-and-one, (where) we got the ball to Mike (Wallace). The other one was later on third down to Emmanuel (Sanders). So, we converted on both plays. It worked out. The point of me saying that ... where everybody is on the same page (with) me using signals that we've had for a long time that weren't necessarily in the offense, but they are now. So, it's just good that we're on the same page."

http://sulia.com/channel/pittsburgh-steelers/f/72147d85-03e6-4346-8ec2-e3609ccc7fa2/?source=twitter

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

Good news: Harrison practiced.

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

How many times of Ben saying something boneheaded does it take before it's a potential problem? The snide remarks are not being fabricated. Maybe more is being read into his comment than is there, but after numerous comments over a substantial amount of time that Ben feels the need to "clarify", there is something there to be concerned about.

The last thing this team needs right now with the struggles they've been having is somebody on the team, especially one who's supposed to be a leader, getting cute with their snippy comments and causing even more problems for them to deal with.

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

As I said earlier, the whole "how many games has the defense bailed the offense out of?" argument is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

Because, what happened two, three years ago doesn't help us now. Especially when you factor in a new offensive coordinator. I guess ANYTHING is discussion irrelevant, though.

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

Good news: Harrison practiced.

I can tell you that when a QB says that he strayed from the playbook and called his own plays, that's a story. Any sports reporter who doesn't report that wouldn't be a sports reporter for very long.

But Ben's clarification (which Buddha posted) puts the comment in new light. I'm still not sure about it though. I can't tell if he was clarifying his comment or trying to cover his butt. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But here's what concerns me ... as long as we're winning, things will be fine. But what happens if we lose 3 or 4 more in a short span? That's when a team needs a leader, not a distraction (kinda like what Buddha said in the above post). And we can't blame the media for reporting what Ben says.

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

How many times of Ben saying something boneheaded does it take before it's a potential problem? The snide remarks are not being fabricated. Maybe more is being read into his comment than is there, but after numerous comments over a substantial amount of time that Ben feels the need to "clarify", there is something there to be concerned about.

The last thing this team needs right now with the struggles they've been having is somebody on the team, especially one who's supposed to be a leader, getting cute with their snippy comments and causing even more problems for them to deal with.

He just doesn't give a fuck what people think, and I LIKE it.

bayz101 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

How many times of Ben saying something boneheaded does it take before it's a potential problem? The snide remarks are not being fabricated. Maybe more is being read into his comment than is there, but after numerous comments over a substantial amount of time that Ben feels the need to "clarify", there is something there to be concerned about.

The last thing this team needs right now with the struggles they've been having is somebody on the team, especially one who's supposed to be a leader, getting cute with their snippy comments and causing even more problems for them to deal with.

He just doesn't give a fuck what people think, and I LIKE it.

There will come a time when he teammates won't if it continues. Will you like it then?

bayz101 wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

As I said earlier, the whole "how many games has the defense bailed the offense out of?" argument is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

Because, what happened two, three years ago doesn't help us now. Especially when you factor in a new offensive coordinator. I guess ANYTHING is discussion irrelevant, though.

True, it doesn't help us. But look at it this way ... in the past few decades, the defense has carried the offense more times than not. We won a lot of games because we had a stellar defense. If we had an average or even an above average defense, we would have lost a lot of games that we won. Now we have an offense that can be stellar, and a defense that is struggling. Just as our defense carried the offense for many years, the offense must now carry the defense (at least until they get things figured out). No matter how well the offense does, when it shoots itself in the foot, it's going to get some blame. It's no different than last year when our No. 1 defense allowed the Ravens to march 99 yards down the field and win the game. We blamed the defense for the loss.

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

How many times of Ben saying something boneheaded does it take before it's a potential problem? The snide remarks are not being fabricated. Maybe more is being read into his comment than is there, but after numerous comments over a substantial amount of time that Ben feels the need to "clarify", there is something there to be concerned about.

The last thing this team needs right now with the struggles they've been having is somebody on the team, especially one who's supposed to be a leader, getting cute with their snippy comments and causing even more problems for them to deal with.

He just doesn't give a fuck what people think, and I LIKE it.

There will come a time when he teammates won't if it continues. Will you like it then?

His teammates support him. They all ran the plays and read the signals. The offense isn't the problem here, and that was obvious on Sunday. I'm not worried about any of this. I'm fine with losing and drama early on in the year, just as long as we come full circle when it counts, and I think we will. New playbook, new look defense for the most part and even a new look offense to top it off. We're not doing bad considering, and I think we'll win in two weeks.

I certainly think these problems wouldn't stem if Ben DIDN'T bring things up, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't say anything. He does the real talking on the field.

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

As I said earlier, the whole "how many games has the defense bailed the offense out of?" argument is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

Because, what happened two, three years ago doesn't help us now. Especially when you factor in a new offensive coordinator. I guess ANYTHING is discussion irrelevant, though.

True, it doesn't help us. But look at it this way ... in the past few decades, the defense has carried the offense more times than not. We won a lot of games because we had a stellar defense. If we had an average or even an above average defense, we would have lost a lot of games that we won. Now we have an offense that can be stellar, and a defense that is struggling. Just as our defense carried the offense for many years, the offense must now carry the defense (at least until they get things figured out). No matter how well the offense does, when it shoots itself in the foot, it's going to get some blame. It's no different than last year when our No. 1 defense allowed the Ravens to march 99 yards down the field and win the game. We blamed the defense for the loss.

Defense certainly carried us, but our average offense scored when it mattered. Our defense carried us all the way to the Super Bowl in '08, and the offense won it in the end. We need the defense to do that same thing if our offense puts up 30+ points and the opposing team is still a threat. But hey, like I said, it's early. Better to be in this position now than in December, and I honestly think the defense will improve with Harrison and Polamalu in there, no matter their age, which fans seem to LOVE to point out.

Buddha Bus wrote:

There will come a time when he teammates won't if it continues. Will you like it then?

Any sports reporter will tell you that they love players who give great quotes. It's not easy coming up with something new to write about every day. Ben is a gem. Reporters love it. And a lot of fans love how he says what's on his mind. But you're right ... what matters is how his teammates react to what he says. That's where problems can occur. Ben really needs to filter what he says.

bayz101 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

It's a bye week. Media will be reporting on gum under the picnic tables at the practice facility if the team stays quiet.

How many times of Ben saying something boneheaded does it take before it's a potential problem? The snide remarks are not being fabricated. Maybe more is being read into his comment than is there, but after numerous comments over a substantial amount of time that Ben feels the need to "clarify", there is something there to be concerned about.

The last thing this team needs right now with the struggles they've been having is somebody on the team, especially one who's supposed to be a leader, getting cute with their snippy comments and causing even more problems for them to deal with.

He just doesn't give a fuck what people think, and I LIKE it.

There will come a time when he teammates won't if it continues. Will you like it then?

His teammates support him. They all ran the plays and read the signals. The offense isn't the problem here, and that was obvious on Sunday. I'm not worried about any of this. I'm fine with losing and drama early on in the year, just as long as we come full circle when it counts, and I think we will. New playbook, new look defense for the most part and even a new look offense to top it off. We're not doing bad considering, and I think we'll win in two weeks.

I certainly think these problems wouldn't stem if Ben DIDN'T bring things up, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't say anything. He does the real talking on the field.

Exactly what choice do the other players have in a play call once it's been made on the field? Are they to schedule an immediate sit-in on the field in protest? How do you know they support his deviation from the offensive playbook?

I agree the offense isn't to blame for that loss for the most part, but if Ben is in fact reverting to old plays from B.A. in a rogue manner, how do we know if they couldn't have made one more score by using the new playbook? It was a 3-point game.

The defense deserves the lion's share of the blame here, but Ben can't even be insinuating that he's going rogue during a game. That shakes the foundation of the team by calling into question the viability of Haley as an O.C., their trust in Ben, and Tomlin's grip on this team as a whole. It will cause a breakdown in the locker room if it continues is all that I'm saying. Especially if the perception is that it is beginning to cost them games. It's a rocky road to start going down if true.

Never did he say he called Bruce Arians plays, but he did mention signals. Peyton Manning has routinely called his own plays throughout his career, and has admitted to even CREATING plays on the field. Ben's getting a little freedom, and we're scoring points. As long as his freedom is in moderation, we're fine, and he's fine. I don't see anyone complaining about Ben from inside the team.

It's widely accepted that if a player is mad, they'll take to twitter on it. I think the coaches have this far more under control than a lot realize. It's not just a lot of STEELERS fans that love Ben's attitude, it's Willie Parker, Marvel Smith, Jets forum members, Colts forum members, Broncos forum members and a lot of the local Pittsburgh media.

They love his no bullshit attitude, and I guess i'm in that minority as well.

I'm not even going into the "how do you know we couldn't have scored if Ben used something from the playbook" argument. Did we or did we not score 14 points in the Third, and did Ben or did he not say we ran no huddle for the entire second half?

bayz101 wrote:

Never did he say he called Bruce Arians plays, but he did mention signals. Peyton Manning has routinely called his own plays throughout his career, and has admitted to even CREATING plays on the field. Ben's getting a little freedom, and we're scoring points. As long as his freedom is in moderation, we're fine, and he's fine. I don't see anyone complaining about Ben from inside the team.

It's widely accepted that if a player is mad, they'll take to twitter on it. I think the coaches have this far more under control than a lot realize. It's not just a lot of STEELERS fans that love Ben's attitude, it's Willie Parker, Marvel Smith, Jets forum members, Colts forum members, Broncos forum members and a lot of the local Pittsburgh media.

They love his no bullshit attitude, and I guess i'm in that minority as well.

I'm not even going into the "how do you know we couldn't have scored if Ben used something from the playbook" argument. Did we or did we not score 14 points in the Third, and did Ben or did he not say we ran no huddle for the entire second half?

How many points did we score in the 4th? Do you know exactly when he chose to use the deviated plays? I know he said we ran the no-huddle in the second half and that's fine. It's the comment of using "old plays" that concerns me. You can paint it any way you want to, but that sounds to me like a veiled "I used Uncle Brucie's plays" stab to me.

I also like how you reference 2 players that are no longer with the team and haven't been in some time. They were here before all of Ben's big troubles and the changing of O.C.s. And you can say what you want to about fans of other teams loving Ben, but you know that the vast majority hate his guts so let's not pretend that's not true. As far as the media, some of them liked and vociferously defended Bruce Arians as well and were appalled that he was let go because he was a team source and friend to them so they had a dog in that fight. They love when Ben says something controversial in regards to Arians or Haley because it does 2 things for them: 1) it tickles their panties that Ben would bolster their stances about Arians with his comments and 2) it gives them something juicy to write about and gain readers.

Ben isn't talking about "creating plays on the field". The comment sounds like he's defending Arians yet again through defiance. Ben "creates" plays every game when a play breaks down and he does his thing. It's not about winging it and improvising, it's about defying a game plan and coach by ignoring the playbook. I notice Ben said they "moved the ball", but made no mention of scoring as a result of that, which should be more important. This isn't about the use of the no-huddle, it's about being a team player. This will cause problems if it isn't corrected.

"There were plays out there that I called that weren’t in our playbook,” Roethlisberger said. “I know it sounds crazy; things we’ve had from years' past that guys were on the same page with and it worked.”

Ben said he DIDN'T use plays from Bruce Arians' playbook, just used old hand signals in no-huddle situations. If that isn't put to rest we're simply calling him a liar at this point.

I simply do NOT have a problem with his attitude, and like i said, i'm in a minority with that. I also happen to believe that past players opinions matter as well, considering what they've done for us. If Brian St. Pierre said something about it'd i'd probably ignore it.

bayz101 wrote:

"There were plays out there that I called that weren’t in our playbook,” Roethlisberger said. “I know it sounds crazy; things we’ve had from years' past that guys were on the same page with and it worked.”

Ben said he DIDN'T use plays from Bruce Arians' playbook, just used old hand signals in no-huddle situations. If that isn't put to rest we're simply calling him a liar at this point.

I simply do NOT have a problem with his attitude, and like i said, i'm in a minority with that. I also happen to believe that past players opinions matter as well, considering what they've done for us. If Brian St. Pierre said something about it'd i'd probably ignore it.

Brian St. Pierre?!? Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Of course he meant Bruce Arians. One question, who else would it have been? He says the guys were on the same page. Who.... Wallace, Sanders, Brown, Redman, Dwyer, and B. Batch only ever played for one other O.C. in the NFL besides Haley and that was.... drum roll please.... BRUCE ARIANS! Pope, Will Johnson, and Rainey never played for any other O.C. with Ben other than Haley now. That only leaves Heath who has played with Ben and Ken Whisenhunt. You aren't going to tell me that Ben was researching old 70s Steelers offensive playbooks with his receivers on Wednesday night study dates are you?

I'm not going so far as to say that he's a liar, but the constant need to have to "clarify" his statements with lame sounding excuses or double talk is getting suspicious. It's a pattern and not a good one.

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

"There were plays out there that I called that weren’t in our playbook,” Roethlisberger said. “I know it sounds crazy; things we’ve had from years' past that guys were on the same page with and it worked.”

Ben said he DIDN'T use plays from Bruce Arians' playbook, just used old hand signals in no-huddle situations. If that isn't put to rest we're simply calling him a liar at this point.

I simply do NOT have a problem with his attitude, and like i said, i'm in a minority with that. I also happen to believe that past players opinions matter as well, considering what they've done for us. If Brian St. Pierre said something about it'd i'd probably ignore it.

Brian St. Pierre?!? Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Of course he meant Bruce Arians. One question, who else would it have been? He says the guys were on the same page. Who.... Wallace, Sanders, Brown, Redman, Dwyer, and B. Batch only ever played for one other O.C. in the NFL besides Haley and that was.... drum roll please.... BRUCE ARIANS! Pope, Will Johnson, and Rainey never played for any other O.C. with Ben other than Haley now. That only leaves Heath who has played with Ben and Ken Whisenhunt. You aren't going to tell me that Ben was researching old 70s Steelers offensive playbooks with his receivers on Wednesday night study dates are you?

I'm not going so far as to say that he's a liar, but the constant need to have to "clarify" his statements with lame sounding excuses or double talk is getting suspicious. It's a pattern and not a good one.

You are right about that, but it isn't plays we're talking about here. It's signals. I played QB. I know my fair share of both.

Between all 32 teams, it's extremely likely that many of them all share the same signals, and it's even not entirely out of the question that a lot of those shared signals mean the very same thing.

Haley's new set "football terminology" (Rosetta Stone LOL) brings new signals, and I've seen them on display. But I don't have a problem with Ben using old signals if he's the one calling the plays, unless of course it's against the Colts.

It's funny, I've always called Ben's "no huddle" offense "audible's on the run" because even when a play is already set in stone, Ben makes so many adjustments at the line the clock hits 00:01 before he gets the snap off.

If there's one thing that pisses me off about Ben it's that. The inability to get the ball snapped unless it's down to the final seconds.

Also, maybe it's because I've been busy recently, but when has Ben "clarified" comments? I noticed he "clarified" his comments from after the Raiders game, but I never recalled him clarifying anything in the past...

Edit: Actually, the only thing I hate about Ben may be null.

No-huddle isn't about speed. Hurry-up IS.

The No-huddle offense is simply designed to keep the defense from making changes. It usually causes the defense to call a timeout and go over the "No-huddle defense" before sending them back out as well. Effective but ineffective against a defense experienced with stopping it, obviously.

bayz101 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

bayz101 wrote:

"There were plays out there that I called that weren’t in our playbook,” Roethlisberger said. “I know it sounds crazy; things we’ve had from years' past that guys were on the same page with and it worked.”

Ben said he DIDN'T use plays from Bruce Arians' playbook, just used old hand signals in no-huddle situations. If that isn't put to rest we're simply calling him a liar at this point.

I simply do NOT have a problem with his attitude, and like i said, i'm in a minority with that. I also happen to believe that past players opinions matter as well, considering what they've done for us. If Brian St. Pierre said something about it'd i'd probably ignore it.

Brian St. Pierre?!? Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Of course he meant Bruce Arians. One question, who else would it have been? He says the guys were on the same page. Who.... Wallace, Sanders, Brown, Redman, Dwyer, and B. Batch only ever played for one other O.C. in the NFL besides Haley and that was.... drum roll please.... BRUCE ARIANS! Pope, Will Johnson, and Rainey never played for any other O.C. with Ben other than Haley now. That only leaves Heath who has played with Ben and Ken Whisenhunt. You aren't going to tell me that Ben was researching old 70s Steelers offensive playbooks with his receivers on Wednesday night study dates are you?

I'm not going so far as to say that he's a liar, but the constant need to have to "clarify" his statements with lame sounding excuses or double talk is getting suspicious. It's a pattern and not a good one.

You are right about that, but it isn't plays we're talking about here. It's signals. I played QB. I know my fair share of both.

Between all 32 teams, it's extremely likely that many of them all share the same signals, and it's even not entirely out of the question that a lot of those shared signals mean the very same thing.

Haley's new set "football terminology" (Rosetta Stone LOL) brings new signals, and I've seen them on display. But I don't have a problem with Ben using old signals if he's the one calling the plays, unless of course it's against the Colts.

It's funny, I've always called Ben's "no huddle" offense "audible's on the run" because even when a play is already set in stone, Ben makes so many adjustments at the line the clock hits 00:01 before he gets the snap off.

If there's one thing that pisses me off about Ben it's that. The inability to get the ball snapped unless it's down to the final seconds.

Also, maybe it's because I've been busy recently, but when has Ben "clarified" comments? I noticed he "clarified" his comments from after the Raiders game, but I never recalled him clarifying anything in the past...

Edit: Actually, the only thing I hate about Ben may be null.

No-huddle isn't about speed. Hurry-up IS.

The No-huddle offense is simply designed to keep the defense from making changes. It usually causes the defense to call a timeout and go over the "No-huddle defense" before sending them back out as well. Effective but ineffective against a defense experienced with stopping it, obviously.

The quote:
"There are plays out there I called that aren't in our playbook. I know that sounds crazy, things we had from years past, guys were on the same page and it worked."

"Plays", not "signals" in his original quote. It sounds like his clarification of "signals" is more like backpedaling or damage control. He may have even gotten his ass chewed a bit.

I know Ben has had to "clarify" or explain his comments several times, especially in regards to things he said around the time of Arians' firing and Haley's hiring. I don't have exact quotes, but I know he's done it. I think he also did it for his "Rosetta Stone" comments. I don't hate Ben, I just hate his brain-mouth disconnection handicap. He says dumb things that aren't well thought out and possibly divisive when it isn't necessary. He needs a media coach (that preferably doesn't over-utilize the word bubble screen ).

We can agree on one thing. I hate the running the clock to zero thing too. I noticed a few times this week that he snapped the ball with 5 or 6 seconds left, so maybe they're working on it.