| Was it Arians or #7 that changed? | |
|
|
Author | Message |
---|
supytalpeht
Posts : 1123 Join date : 2011-08-24
| Subject: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:51 am | |
| The Arians boo birds would have you believe that he changed his game plan, but I don't think that's the case at all. If you listen to Ben's post game he mentions "taking what the defense gives him, the underneath stuff" etc. Couple that with the following and maybe more of the problem lies on Ben then most are willing to acknowledge. - Quote :
- I asked Arians if he had adjusted his playcalling in any way to compensate for the foot injury, and Arians swore that "not one thing" was changed. Earlier in the week, Arians went over play after play with his quarterback to check if he could run it, and Roethlisberger nodded with each. Before the game yesterday, recognizing a brick wall when he saw one, Arians told Roethlisberger: "Play football the way you know how. Don't change who you are just because people think you'll get sacked.
Read more: Kovacevic: Big Ben embodies team resolve - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_761077.html?source=rss_teams_Pittsburgh_Steelers#ixzz1aO2JeWKC | |
|
| |
stlrtruck
Posts : 11707 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : Dunedin, FL
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:34 am | |
| So Arians still eeds to go! _________________ 60 MIN 53 MEN 1 NATION STEELERS NATION I am the MAN that created the MYTH that started the LEGEND Don't choose good when greatness is available! | |
|
| |
vasteeler
Posts : 4193 Join date : 2011-04-06 Location : richmond va
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:19 am | |
| thats a great question. hopefully a little of both _________________ "Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead." - Butch | |
|
| |
Buddha Bus
Posts : 13488 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : The last bar stool on the left
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:09 pm | |
| I think some of the blame does go to Ben,but that doesn't absolve Bruce. He is still responsible for reigning in Ben which he has said on several occasions he is afraid or unwilling to do. As the offensive coordinator he should be the one to guide and discipline Ben to do the things this team needs him to do, not what he wants to do. There is plenty of blame to be handed out in this case to both guys, but ultimately, Bruce is the one who is responsible for the offensive product on the field and who's job is at stake if they don't perform to the level expected. If Ben is making boneheaded or greedy decisions that hurt the team, it is Bruce's job to get on Ben and try to curb the nonsense.
It's not like we're getting multiple stories of Ben being a rogue QB who isn't listening to his OC and improvising his own game plan during the games. If that were the case, we would have heard some rumblings about friction between the two by now. That isn't the case. Everything we've heard is how much they love each other which shows that Bruce is allowing or encouraging Ben to do the things that he's doing that are detrimental to the team at times.
I personally think they planned and played a great, smart game yesterday that I would like to continue to see on a weekly basis. A strong commitment to the running game and short, quick passes that open up the big plays later in the game. It's what we've all been calling for for years and it usually works when they decide to use it. Unfortunately, they have this stubborn tendency to fall back into the usual bad habits of slow developing and greedy plays that cause turnovers and Ben to get hammered. _________________ -"I stand corrected... But I absolutely and wholeheartedly fart in the general direction of almost every other thing you have posted to this point."- | |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:52 pm | |
| The majority of the blame very well could lie with Ben instead of Bruce, but I'm not sure we can take what either of them say as evidence for it. We need to consider the sources. We know Ben loves Bruce, and I'm quite certain he knows the scrutiny Bruce has been under. Ben has a reputation for not throwing his teammates or coaches under the bus. He shoulders responsibility when things go badly, even if he's not responsible. Just look at how he's talked about the O-line over the years ... he's never criticized them even though everyone else rips them apart. If anything, I've heard Ben shoulder the responsibility rather than blaming his O-line. So I'm not saying it's the case, I'm just saying it's quite possible ... Ben would take the bullet for Bruce. As far as Bruce saying that nothing was changed ... LOL. I don't think I've seen him make one honest comment when talking about his game plans. Whatever he says, I usually believe the opposite. Still waiting on that no-huddle he promised. And Bruce is the exact opposite of Ben ... he never shoulders any responsibility. Here's what he said regarding Cleveland's playoff loss to Pittsburgh when he was the OC of the Browns: - Quote :
- “I thought our head coach lost the game.”
“He (Butch Davis) called off the dogs on defense,” Arians said. “You just don’t let Tommy Maddox sit there and play against a prevent defense. And he basically fired Foge at halftime.
“Foge was blitzing, and we had them beat.” So rather than shouldering any responsibility for the loss, he blamed the head coach. Calling off the dogs on defense, if that's really what happened, wouldn't have been an issue if his offense had controlled the ball and chewed up the clock. The other team's offense can't score if they don't have the ball. Instead, the Browns offense kept giving the Steelers the ball to mount a comeback. But Bruce doesn't feel that any part of that loss is his fault. So to summarize ... it could be quite possible that Ben changed, and not Bruce. But I won't believe it just because they say it. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
SteelersYak
Posts : 6476 Join date : 2011-04-04
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:07 pm | |
| I think it all comes down to the person actually throwing the ball. You can COACH all you want, but it's up to the players to EXECUTE and that's what is judged- the result of the execution.
For example, BA could make a game plan to throw 30 deep balls to Wallace a game, but it's up to Ben to execute that. He is essentially the man that pulls the trigger, BA just tells him where he should point the gun.
I think this injury has crippled our Superman a bit, and he is going to try and get rid of the ball a bit sooner because he doesn't want to get hit. This can be very good (as we saw yesterday) but it can also lead to more snap decisions and errant throws. You have to realize that the sooner you want him to get the ball out, the quicker he has to decide and the greater chance for an incorrect read or an errant throw.
I love how BR7 played yesterday, and he's showing a lot of heart and guts by playing through this instead of packing it up for a few weeks (especially given the track record of our O-line). I'm excited to see what next week brings. _________________ Twitter: @SteelersYak
| |
|
| |
Buddha Bus
Posts : 13488 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : The last bar stool on the left
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:14 pm | |
| - BGSU A Dub wrote:
- For example, BA could make a game plan to throw 30 deep balls to Wallace a game, but it's up to Ben to execute that.
And you would find this to be a sound and viable game plan? _________________ -"I stand corrected... But I absolutely and wholeheartedly fart in the general direction of almost every other thing you have posted to this point."- | |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:15 pm | |
| - BGSU A Dub wrote:
- BA just tells him where he should point the gun.
Up until yesterday, we've been pointing it at our own foot. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
SteelersYak
Posts : 6476 Join date : 2011-04-04
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:34 pm | |
| - Buddha Bus wrote:
- BGSU A Dub wrote:
- For example, BA could make a game plan to throw 30 deep balls to Wallace a game, but it's up to Ben to execute that.
And you would find this to be a sound and viable game plan? Just an example Buddha, not a suggestion. _________________ Twitter: @SteelersYak
| |
|
| |
Buddha Bus
Posts : 13488 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : The last bar stool on the left
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:10 pm | |
| - BGSU A Dub wrote:
- Buddha Bus wrote:
- BGSU A Dub wrote:
- For example, BA could make a game plan to throw 30 deep balls to Wallace a game, but it's up to Ben to execute that.
And you would find this to be a sound and viable game plan?
Just an example Buddha, not a suggestion. I didn't say you suggested it, but what you're essentially saying is if Arians tells Ben to tie one arm behind his back and play blindfolded and he plans on getting him to throw backwards over his shoulder Ben needs to execute because that's what Arians drew up as a game plan. I know that sounds like an extreme example, and it is, but I don't subscribe to the belief that no matter what the OC draws up the players have to execute it. Arians' job is to put these guys in a position to best utilize their skills and abilities weighed against the expectation of what the defense will throw at them, not dictate what goes against common sense and intelligent football game planning. _________________ -"I stand corrected... But I absolutely and wholeheartedly fart in the general direction of almost every other thing you have posted to this point."- | |
|
| |
SteelersYak
Posts : 6476 Join date : 2011-04-04
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:42 pm | |
| I guess I don't really get what you are trying to say, because your post is less about a game plan and more about playing football in a silly fashion.
The OC makes a game plan and installs plays to utilize the talent in the best possible manner. This involves calling runs, passes, and identifying areas of the defense to attack. BA, as the OC, should give Ben a blue print of how he had dissected the defense and where the defense is vulnerable. Yes, Ben should be in the film room and doing some of this himself, but it is mainly the OC's job. The QB prepares themselves to execute in the best possible manner by praticing timing and audibles. Again, the OC tells the QB where to point the gun, the QB is the one that pulls the trigger (IMO). _________________ Twitter: @SteelersYak
| |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:06 pm | |
| Courtesy of Ben, we got our answer as to who changed. And I'm really surprised that he said this. - Quote :
- "Sometimes we don't have a choice. The play is called for everyone to go deep and we aren't left with any underneath stuff."
http://www.timesonline.com/sports/big-ben-wins-big-by-throwing-short/article_c8e2db9e-c2c3-5974-9892-d048ed9b8d0f.html So, just in a few weeks, we've had Mendy criticizing Bruce for not running the same plays they practiced, and now we have Ben saying plays are called for "everyone to go deep." Couple that with Bruce admitting that they don't prepare for 4-3 defenses and that he doesn't change his strategy based on his personnel, and I think we can figure out who's to blame when our offense struggles. I'm not sure even Johnnie Cochran (if he was still alive) could get Bruce acquitted at this point. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
supytalpeht
Posts : 1123 Join date : 2011-08-24
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:40 am | |
| - Wallace108 wrote:
- Courtesy of Ben, we got our answer as to who changed. And I'm really surprised that he said this.
- Quote :
- "Sometimes we don't have a choice. The play is called for everyone to go deep and we aren't left with any underneath stuff."
http://www.timesonline.com/sports/big-ben-wins-big-by-throwing-short/article_c8e2db9e-c2c3-5974-9892-d048ed9b8d0f.html So, just in a few weeks, we've had Mendy criticizing Bruce for not running the same plays they practiced, and now we have Ben saying plays are called for "everyone to go deep." Couple that with Bruce admitting that they don't prepare for 4-3 defenses and that he doesn't change his strategy based on his personnel, and I think we can figure out who's to blame when our offense struggles.
I'm not sure even Johnnie Cochran (if he was still alive) could get Bruce acquitted at this point. Are you really going to turn that into all A are B? | |
|
| |
stlrtruck
Posts : 11707 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : Dunedin, FL
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:04 am | |
| - Wallace108 wrote:
- I'm not sure even Johnnie Cochran (if he was still alive) could get Bruce acquitted at this point.
If the offense doesn't do their sh*t, then you must acquit? _________________ 60 MIN 53 MEN 1 NATION STEELERS NATION I am the MAN that created the MYTH that started the LEGEND Don't choose good when greatness is available! | |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| |
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:33 am | |
| - supytalpeht wrote:
- Are you really going to turn that into all A are B?
I discussed this in more depth here: http://www.steelersxtreme.com/t1060-big-ben-wins-big-by-throwing-short But essentially, Bruce first said that he didn't make any changes. Now he's saying that Ben didn't change the way he played. Well, SOMEBODY changed. Just ask the Titans: - Quote :
- "He was doing a lot of little three-step, dink-and-dunk passes,” defensive end Derrick Morgan said. “I don’t think anybody expected it. We didn’t really know the extent of his injury, and we were expecting him to be scrambling around and extending plays like usual, putting lot of stress on the secondary. But he was just staying in the pocket with those quick three-step and five-step drops. It was frustrating."
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...essee%20Titans So who changed? You started this thread by mentioning some quotes from Ben that would suggest it was Ben who changed. Now I find a quote from Ben that would suggest that Bruce changed. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
Buddha Bus
Posts : 13488 Join date : 2011-04-04 Location : The last bar stool on the left
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:04 pm | |
| - BGSU A Dub wrote:
- I guess I don't really get what you are trying to say, because your post is less about a game plan and more about playing football in a silly fashion.
And I would say that game planning "30 deep balls to Wallace" is paying football in a silly fashion. It's all in the eye of the beholder. You can't say that Bruce can game plan whatever the hell he wants without regard to the team's abilities and strengths and it is up to them to make it happen, even though they have shown time and time again that they can't on a consistent basis. That to me is silly. I agree Ben is probably getting rid of the ball faster because he doesn't want to get hit because he's injured, but it is up to Bruce to make him see that this style works best and is making them more successful if Ben refuses to see it. He's the OC and should be taking control of this offense and the players on it if he wants to continue running it. You can't allow the inmates to run the asylum if you want to stay employed in the NFL... unless you're Marvin Lewis. I look forward to what the future holds for this season now more than the first 4 games too. I know Ben had heart and guts, but I'd like to see more brains going forward with Bruce's help and guidance. _________________ -"I stand corrected... But I absolutely and wholeheartedly fart in the general direction of almost every other thing you have posted to this point."- | |
|
| |
supytalpeht
Posts : 1123 Join date : 2011-08-24
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:49 pm | |
| - Wallace108 wrote:
- supytalpeht wrote:
- Are you really going to turn that into all A are B?
I discussed this in more depth here: http://www.steelersxtreme.com/t1060-big-ben-wins-big-by-throwing-short
But essentially, Bruce first said that he didn't make any changes. Now he's saying that Ben didn't change the way he played. Well, SOMEBODY changed. Just ask the Titans:
- Quote :
- "He was doing a lot of little three-step, dink-and-dunk passes,” defensive end Derrick Morgan said. “I don’t think anybody expected it. We didn’t really know the extent of his injury, and we were expecting him to be scrambling around and extending plays like usual, putting lot of stress on the secondary. But he was just staying in the pocket with those quick three-step and five-step drops. It was frustrating."
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...essee%20Titans So who changed? You started this thread by mentioning some quotes from Ben that would suggest it was Ben who changed. Now I find a quote from Ben that would suggest that Bruce changed.
The quote you posted says "sometimes" and you seem to think it discounts what Ben said about taking what the defense gave him. You're essentially ignoring "sometimes" and saying all A are B, when "sometimes" clearly indicates this is a fallacy. | |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 am | |
| - supytalpeht wrote:
- The quote you posted says "sometimes" and you seem to think it discounts what Ben said about taking what the defense gave him. You're essentially ignoring "sometimes" and saying all A are B, when "sometimes" clearly indicates this is a fallacy.
I never suggested that every play was designed to go deep and there was never underneath stuff. All I've ever argued is that they run too many plays that take a long time to develop. This would fall under the heading of "sometimes." Correct me if I'm wrong (because I could be), but I recall either you or Dubs (I can't remember who it was) arguing that the underneath stuff is there, but Ben elects to ignore it and looks for the deeper routes. But now we have Ben saying that "sometimes" plays are called where everyone goes deep and there's no underneath stuff. There's no way to quantify "sometimes." Is it 10 percent of the time? 20 percent of the time? 50 percent of the time? I have no clue. All I know is that Ben said "sometimes" plays are called where everyone goes deep and there's nothing underneath. If that's the case, as Ben says it is, then it can't be the case that he's ignoring the underneath stuff if there's no underneath stuff there to ignore. You threw some logic at me, so let me throw some at you ... nothing from nothing leaves nothing. If you're Bruce Arians and you know the O-line sucks, why do you have ANY plays in the playbook that have everyone running routes that take time to develop? That just doesn't make sense to me. It makes about as much sense as going with an empty backfield in short yardage, which Bruce loves to do. If you have a RB, the defense has to gamble on whether you're running or passing. But if you have an empty backfield, you just made the defense's job a little easier because they know you're passing. Now, if our offense can come out Sunday and look like it did against the Titans. And then they continue to use the same style of offense in the weeks ahead, I won't care who was to blame in the past. I'll only care if we resort back to what we were doing in the first four games. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
supytalpeht
Posts : 1123 Join date : 2011-08-24
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:18 am | |
| - Wallace108 wrote:
- supytalpeht wrote:
- The quote you posted says "sometimes" and you seem to think it discounts what Ben said about taking what the defense gave him. You're essentially ignoring "sometimes" and saying all A are B, when "sometimes" clearly indicates this is a fallacy.
I never suggested that every play was designed to go deep and there was never underneath stuff. All I've ever argued is that they run too many plays that take a long time to develop. This would fall under the heading of "sometimes."
Correct me if I'm wrong (because I could be), but I recall either you or Dubs (I can't remember who it was) arguing that the underneath stuff is there, but Ben elects to ignore it and looks for the deeper routes. But now we have Ben saying that "sometimes" plays are called where everyone goes deep and there's no underneath stuff. There's no way to quantify "sometimes." Is it 10 percent of the time? 20 percent of the time? 50 percent of the time? I have no clue. All I know is that Ben said "sometimes" plays are called where everyone goes deep and there's nothing underneath. If that's the case, as Ben says it is, then it can't be the case that he's ignoring the underneath stuff if there's no underneath stuff there to ignore. You threw some logic at me, so let me throw some at you ... nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
If you're Bruce Arians and you know the O-line sucks, why do you have ANY plays in the playbook that have everyone running routes that take time to develop? That just doesn't make sense to me. It makes about as much sense as going with an empty backfield in short yardage, which Bruce loves to do. If you have a RB, the defense has to gamble on whether you're running or passing. But if you have an empty backfield, you just made the defense's job a little easier because they know you're passing.
Now, if our offense can come out Sunday and look like it did against the Titans. And then they continue to use the same style of offense in the weeks ahead, I won't care who was to blame in the past. I'll only care if we resort back to what we were doing in the first four games. You're still assuming that the "long developing plays" are part of the original play call and not Ben being Ben. For all we know Ben's "sometimes" comment could be an attempt at saving a little face. After the first preseason game I mentioned that it looked like Ben was making decisions/ getting rid of the faster(small sample size). That trend continued up until the Baltimore game. it's almost as if he panicked when we fell behind and decided to start going for big chunks instead of what was working. | |
|
| |
Wallace108
Posts : 18265 Join date : 2011-04-03 Location : Y'Town, Ohio
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:52 am | |
| - supytalpeht wrote:
- You're still assuming that the "long developing plays" are part of the original play call and not Ben being Ben. For all we know Ben's "sometimes" comment could be an attempt at saving a little face. After the first preseason game I mentioned that it looked like Ben was making decisions/ getting rid of the faster(small sample size). That trend continued up until the Baltimore game. it's almost as if he panicked when we fell behind and decided to start going for big chunks instead of what was working.
You assume that the main problem is Ben being Ben. I assume that the main problem is the play calling (although I recognize that sometimes it's Ben being Ben). It seems to me we've reached an impasse. We'll probably have to wait for some new evidence to surface. One thing I think we can agree on ... regardless of who's to blame, we want to see more of what we saw against the Titans. _________________ If you're going to be a smart ass, you'd better be smart. Otherwise, you're just an ass. | |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Was it Arians or #7 that changed? | |
| |
|
| |
| Was it Arians or #7 that changed? | |
|