official FIRE ARIANS thread

I don't see any reason to delete the posts. It wasn't like there was name calling or anything like that. Although it went off topic a bit, it still shows that we can remain civil without calling names, etc.

So now back to the Arians bashing

Seriously, after reading the article about Jonathan Scott and the change in pass plays between Ben and Wallace, it is Bruce's job to hold Ben accountable. And No I don't expect anyone on the Steelers to take things public (i.e. like other teams have done), but I expect him to coordinate the offense and it's direction and not allow the QB or any other player to have that type of control that it circumvents the objective of the offense - SCORE POINTS!

Ben's own greed (i.e. the long ball) could cost him his career, or an offensive linemen's career because he didn't know what the play was and gets bowled over.

I'm sure there is a happy medium, but even now I still hold Arians responsible for the offense overall. His title is Offensive Coordinator...well, I hope he starts coordinating some more dominating performances.

I like the direction Arians has taken the Steelers offense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

JonM229 wrote:

I like the direction Arians has taken the Steelers offense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Do the Arians haters need anymore proof than this putz's approval?

The prosecution rests, your Honor.

Buddha Bus wrote:

JonM229 wrote:

I like the direction Arians has taken the Steelers offense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Do the Arians haters need anymore proof than this putz's approval?

The prosecution rests, your Honor.

I'm a putz and I approve this message

JonM229 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

JonM229 wrote:

I like the direction Arians has taken the Steelers offense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Do the Arians haters need anymore proof than this putz's approval?

The prosecution rests, your Honor.

I'm a putz and I approve this message

JonM229 wrote:

I like the direction Arians has taken the Steelers offense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

You must be a glutton for punishment since that offense has been knocking the ravens out of the playoffs for a few years now.

Yeah I know ya'll won a game this year heck you might even win two. Why don't you come back and see us when you've knocked us out of the playoffs a few times.

supytalpeht wrote:

You must be a glutton for punishment since that offense has been knocking the ravens out of the playoffs for a few years now.

Actually, we beat ourselves those games.

JonM229 wrote:

supytalpeht wrote:

You must be a glutton for punishment since that offense has been knocking the ravens out of the playoffs for a few years now.

Actually, we beat ourselves those games.

If it helps you to sleep better at night believing that the Steelers didn't have anything to do with those victories then by all means enjoy. However, don't take it too hard when ya'll are on the outside looking in yet once again.

JonM229 wrote:

supytalpeht wrote:

You must be a glutton for punishment since that offense has been knocking the ravens out of the playoffs for a few years now.

Actually, we beat ourselves those games.

Oh, Jonny! You make me so ashamed of you!

BGSU A Dub wrote:

If I was an OC, I would say I'm not changing my game plan based on who we're playing either.

I have to disagree here, Dubs.
An OC should design a game plan to take advantage of a team's weakness (and avoid it's strengths). For instance, over the past number of seasons, the Steelers have been dominant against the run. It didn't make sense for a team to come out and try to run the ball against us. Take the Patriots ... they avoid our strength (run defense) and attack our weakness (secondary). The Patriots pass more against the Steelers than they do any other team. They design their game plan based on the team they're playing.

Now let's look at what Arians did against the Colts last week:

Quote :

Mendenhall: We played to our weakness

Throughout practices last week, the Steelers worked on a power-based rushing attack. Yet in the first half Sunday against Indianapolis, many of the runs called were long-developing stretch and counter plays. The result was Mendenhall having 10 carries for 10 yards at halftime against the undersized but speedy Colts defense.

"We had some matchups that we liked, with them having (six defenders) in the box," said Mendenhall, who added he wasn't sure why the game plan changed.

"We've got to play to our guys' strengths. We've got some big guys who can move you out of the way. That's a small, slanting-style of defense, so you try to run outside on the edge against them? We played to their strength and our weakness. That's a hard thing to do."

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/sports11/09-29-2011-Steelers-Mendenhall-frustrated

So rather than attacking the Colts' weakness, we played to their strength. And we saw the result ... very few rushing yards and only one TD, and that was on an audible from Ben.

BGSU A Dub wrote:

But I'm sure that the OC of the Patriots doesn't say "We're going to pass more against the Steelers since they are so good against the run"

I think it's a combination of us having a strong run defense and a weak secondary. Why else would they pass more against us than against any other team if not by design? And not just in one game, but every time they play us?

BGSU A Dub wrote:

You took that the wrong way, I'm saying the OC doesn't say in a press conference what they are going to do to change their game plan, so why would BA say that they are changing the way they do things in a press conference.

It'd be like sitting at a poker table and saying "I only bet when I have a pair"

But then why say anything at all?

So who would make a great OC for the Steelers?

effyou515 wrote:

So who would make a great OC for the Steelers?

ME ME ME

I promise to bring back the power running game, utilize the FB, the TE, and acknowledge the fact that our O-line is more like swiss cheese. And I'd remind them of that every game day, to see if they can prove me wrong...but not at the expense of my QB!

And I'm definitely all about changing the game plan when it is deemed necessary. The other team has a big Freeney type guy...oh yeah buddy you're getting the FB/RB, TE, and G/T blocking you. And double team is a definite...but don't let my small scat back out of the backfield fool you...he just 'accidentally' whiffed on you, then that little touch pass over your head as you try to kill my QB...oh, btw, that's another 15 yards for that.

stlrtruck wrote:

effyou515 wrote:

So who would make a great OC for the Steelers?

ME ME ME

I promise to bring back the power running game, utilize the FB, the TE, and acknowledge the fact that our O-line is more like swiss cheese. And I'd remind them of that every game day, to see if they can prove me wrong...but not at the expense of my QB!

And I'm definitely all about changing the game plan when it is deemed necessary. The other team has a big Freeney type guy...oh yeah buddy you're getting the FB/RB, TE, and G/T blocking you. And double team is a definite...but don't let my small scat back out of the backfield fool you...he just 'accidentally' whiffed on you, then that little touch pass over your head as you try to kill my QB...oh, btw, that's another 15 yards for that.

YOU'RE HIRED!!!!!!!

Now..... :slave driver:

To the victor goes the spoils. I'm heavy on Arians when we lose, so today to you BA.

You got the boys on the right mindset, you called a great game and you got them to execute...almost flawlessly!

My only question about this past game was what the hell was the pass call on 3rd and 2 with less than 2 minutes to go? Our offensive line was moving the chains all game long. I believe the could have sacked up one more time, gotten the first down and end the game.

Other than that, BA had a great game plan. And I hope it continues this coming Sunday night.




But I still want a new OC come March.

stlrtruck wrote:

My only question about this past game was what the hell was the pass call on 3rd and 2 with less than 2 minutes to go? Our offensive line was moving the chains all game long. I believe the could have sacked up one more time, gotten the first down and end the game.

Other than that, BA had a great game plan. And I hope it continues this coming Sunday night.




But I still want a new OC come March.

I'm glad someone else brought it up.

Let me start off by just saying I loved the game plan and the play calling against the Patriots. It worked well, in spite of Ben making a few bone-headed plays. But that possession you're talking about, truck, was horrible. Not only the 3rd down call, but the second down call as well. We were in field goal range with a chance to go up 9 and put the game away. Why were we passing in that situation? We should have been running the ball and killing the clock. Instead, sacks took us out of field goal range, and we gave the ball back to Brady with a chance to beat us. Luckily, the defense bailed us out. I've said it over, and over, and over ... Arians doesn't know how to play with a lead.

Arians has the capability to call an excellent game, but there's always that "WTF?!?!" play-call moment that allows the opponents a window of opportunity that should never have been there to begin with. And, in a nutshell, that's why I can't stand the guy. The boneheaded ways he tries to out-think himself and his unabashed arrogance.

That being said, B.A. called a terrific game with the exception of the aforementioned series. Kudos Brucie!

BGSU A Dub wrote:

Just a counterpoint, if we would have tried to run and gotten stuffed, I'm sure the argument would have been "everyone knew we were going to run, we should have been more aggressive and tried to get in field goal range?" Agree or disagree?

Oh, you know us ... we'll find something to bitch about.

I'll have to go back and look, but weren't they already in field goal range? So even if they ran it twice and got stuffed, they could have kicked a field goal. Regardless of what happens throughout the course of a game, I just can't ignore Bruce's history of allowing teams to get back in the game and have a chance to win after we've dominated them for three quarters. And as we're all heaping praise on Arians for his play calling, let's remember that they managed only two touchdowns against a defense that ranks near the bottom of the league. What they did well is ball control, even if they didn't score points.

BGSU A Dub wrote:

We had a 1st and 10 at the 27 which adding the 15 yards would make it a 42 yard field goal.

I guess we weren't in Suisham's range after all.

BGSU A Dub wrote:

But you can't tell me that BA and Ben didn't wanna go after the throat a little bit after the last few games against the *pats.

I guess it's just a different philosophy on what it means to go for the throat. I get what you're saying, and I get Bruce and Ben's mentality. But I'd also consider it going for the throat if they ran more time off the clock and went up by 9, making the Patriots need two scores. Yeah, I know passing is a lot sexier than running, but think of Cowher's record when leading by at least 10 points going into the fourth quarter ... 102-1-1. If Cowher's teams had a lead in the fourth, they went for the throat and didn't give teams an opportunity to come back.