Mike Tomlin extension to be announced soon

[topseed]

What about all those other teams that aren't doing the zone D that the *''s also mw down year after year.

They understand the "simple" concept but still lose regularly. There are occasionalso defeats of the *'s, but no one does it consistently.

You might say, the exact Cassell issue you describe suggest that something else is going on. Cassell' 's record outside of the *'s, billicheck's outside of the *'s. My God, what could be the difference.

I'm talking about the Steelers adjusting the defensive gameplan versus Brady. The guy threw for 384 yards and 3 touchdowns...almost effortlessly. The Texans picked him off twice and held him to a sub-70 QB rating just the week before. Didn't Tomlin see any of that tape back in the lab?

I might say, you love to use the cheating excuse EVERY SINGLE TIME. Tell me, what happened last year when the Patriots weren't cheating, and went 17-2 while crushing the Steelers yet again on their way to another SB win?

 

[topseed]

In general, my point is, this losing to the *'s, and even bad losses, has been going on for a long time. It didn't start happening in 2007 and doesn't appear to have happened any more routinely under Tomlin than it did Cowher. That is not intending to compare Tomlin to Cowher, just to point out how long it has been going on.

Just as importantly, all of these "simple" solutions that seem obvious to us are, indeed, being tried by other teams, with about the same level of success.

Spend more on FA DB's? Texans have a pretty expensive DB group (the cheap one just got a big contract elsewhere, I think). They held Brady to a low QB rating, even got an interception or two. End result? Allowed 2 less points than we did.

Play less zone/cover-2, more man, whatever? We played more zone than anyone else? Looking at points allowed, it seems to have worked with everyone else and it seems simple that it won't work against Brady. Look at how many points the *'s scored during the regular season against teams that played less zone than us. Basically, same results.

A couple years ago, Gronk scored 3 or 4 TD's. Everyone here bitched about it. Rex Ryan says in an interview that he knows better than to allow that to happen. Folks here cheer and say "That's the way a coach should be". Result? Gronk doesn't score 3 or 4 TD's. *'s still score 12 more points than they did against us AND, in fact, the *'s score more than 30 points per game for the next 6 games following our game (most were ****** teams...). Didn't their coaches know how simple it is to stop them? What about the other coaches for the rest of the season when they only lost 4 games and only the last two involved the *'s scoring less than 21 points?

The suggestion tht the solution is "simple" and Tomlin is too stupid that he is the only one that doesn't see the "simple" solution is ludicrous.

I never said that the solution itself was simple. Of course Brady is still going to put up points. My simple suggestion was that since it has been made quite clear that he eats the Steelers' zone defense alive time after time after time, in a particularly unchallenged fashion, perhaps changing up the approach and surprising him with a lot of man coverage might yield a somewhat better end result, especially in a game as important as the AFC Championship.

I mean, in seven career games against the Steelers in Tomlin era, Brady has 22 touchdowns and 0 interceptions. Yes, he's AVERAGING more than three touchdowns per game without throwing a single INT along the way. Are those "basically, same results" as everyone else? C'mon, man.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I'm talking about the Steelers adjusting the defensive gameplan versus Brady. The guy threw for 384 yards and 3 touchdowns...almost effortlessly. The Texans picked him off twice and held him to a sub-70 QB rating just the week before. Didn't Tomlin see any of that tape back in the lab?

I might say, you love to use the cheating excuse EVERY SINGLE TIME. Tell me, what happened last year when the Patriots weren't cheating, and went 17-2 while crushing the Steelers yet again on their way to another SB win?

Simple, they were still cheating somehow. Belicheat is a cheating addict, he can't quit. I think that's been proven repeatedly.
As far as kicking the Steelers' ***, besides cheating (I still think they steal our signals), partly it's a matter that what Br*dy does best is what our defense defends worst.
We did switch to man coverage against them in the playoffs, sometimes but not every play, and he still ate us up because we don't really have the right talent to play man and it's simply a defense they're not used to playing.

 

[ark steel]

I never said that the solution itself was simple. Of course Brady is still going to put up points. My simple suggestion was that since it has been made quite clear that he eats the Steelers' zone defense alive time after time after time, in a particularly unchallenged fashion, perhaps changing up the approach and surprising him with a lot of man coverage might yield a somewhat better end result, especially in a game as important as the AFC Championship.

I mean, in seven career games against the Steelers in Tomlin era, Brady has 22 touchdowns and 0 interceptions. Yes, he's AVERAGING more than three touchdowns per game without throwing a single INT along the way. Are those "basically, same results" as everyone else? C'mon, man.

You seem to care a lot about what Brady himself is doing rather than the team. "Basically the same results " to anyone sane or without an agenda is that the *''s still put up a lot of points and win the game. Maybe Brady doesnt throw 3 TDs, but they throw a couple and run a couple more. They still score a shirt ton of points and do it against teams who try the solutions you people think will work.

Which is WHY I pointed out the Ryan debacle and how every one was riding his **** and Houston who handed Brady a pretty poor passer rating (I think it was houston) and STILL gave up 34 points. Would you have felt better if Tommy had 0 TD and Blount ran for 4?

 

[ark steel]

Simple, they were still cheating somehow. Belicheat is a cheating addict, he can't quit. I think that's been proven repeatedly.
As far as kicking the Steelers' ***, besides cheating (I still think they steal our signals), partly it's a matter that what Br*dy does best is what our defense defends worst.
We did switch to man coverage against them in the playoffs, sometimes but not every play, and he still ate us up because we don't really have the right talent to play man and it's simply a defense they're not used to playing.

Think about how many play's in a game you, REALLY, have to ccheat. Probably, relatively, few.

3rd and 5 where a conversion will have you in FG range or a safe k takes you out of it? Accidentally, tune into the QB helmet.... maybe it is your own team. You know the defense exactly. Your QB knows the exact call to make. Either your opponent doesn't quite make their's or you can easily make yours. That one play could turn the whole game.

 

[ark steel]

Simple, they were still cheating somehow. Belicheat is a cheating addict, he can't quit. I think that's been proven repeatedly.
As far as kicking the Steelers' ***, besides cheating (I still think they steal our signals), partly it's a matter that what Br*dy does best is what our defense defends worst.
We did switch to man coverage against them in the playoffs, sometimes but not every play, and he still ate us up because we don't really have the right talent to play man and it's simply a defense they're not used to playing.

Blount ran for 18 Tds last year. There are no consecutive 3 season where he had 18 Tds when added together. More yards from scrimmage in his career. At 29. We are being told that Bell will be useless by then.

299+touches last year. 2 fumbles.

 

[topseed]

Simple, they were still cheating somehow. Belicheat is a cheating addict, he can't quit. I think that's been proven repeatedly.
As far as kicking the Steelers' ***, besides cheating (I still think they steal our signals), partly it's a matter that what Br*dy does best is what our defense defends worst.
We did switch to man coverage against them in the playoffs, sometimes but not every play, and he still ate us up because we don't really have the right talent to play man and it's simply a defense they're not used to playing.

Yes, of course, the Patriots are still cheating. With all the scrutiny in the world, all eyes upon them, Belichick is somehow still able to pull it off...and use it clandestinely to defeat our beloved Steelers. *sigh*

When did the Steelers switch to man? Which plays? I just re-watched the game the other week, and I didn't see much at all what you're talking about.

 

[topseed]

You seem to care a lot about what Brady himself is doing rather than the team. "Basically the same results " to anyone sane or without an agenda is that the *''s still put up a lot of points and win the game. Maybe Brady doesnt throw 3 TDs, but they throw a couple and run a couple more. They still score a shirt ton of points and do it against teams who try the solutions you people think will work.

Which is WHY I pointed out the Ryan debacle and how every one was riding his **** and Houston who handed Brady a pretty poor passer rating (I think it was houston) and STILL gave up 34 points. Would you have felt better if Tommy had 0 TD and Blount ran for 4?

"Basically the same results" is a blanket statement made by someone like yourself who reads final scores without bothering to look at any detail.

You keep mentioning the Houston game. Gee, just a little more research, and you could have discovered that 7 of those points came on a kickoff return, and another 7 came on a 6-yard drive set up by an interception. The Texans gave up less than 100 yards rushing and Brady had a 68.6 rating.

Yeah, that's basically the same result as the laugher the Steelers' defense played. Think Houston might have had a different result if they had, ohIdon'tknowmaybe BEN as their quarterback, instead of Brock Osweiler?

 

[ark steel]

"Basically the same results" is a blanket statement made by someone like yourself who reads final scores without bothering to look at any detail.

You keep mentioning the Houston game. Gee, just a little more research, and you could have discovered that 7 of those points came on a kickoff return, and another 7 came on a 6-yard drive set up by an interception. The Texans gave up less than 100 yards rushing and Brady had a 68.6 rating.

Yeah, that's basically the same result as the laugher the Steelers' defense played. Think Houston might have had a different result if they had, ohIdon'tknowmaybe BEN as their quarterback, instead of Brock Osweiler?

Maybe their O would have scored 17 points?

 

[ark steel]

"Basically the same results" is a blanket statement made by someone like yourself who reads final scores without bothering to look at any detail.

You keep mentioning the Houston game. Gee, just a little more research, and you could have discovered that 7 of those points came on a kickoff return, and another 7 came on a 6-yard drive set up by an interception. The Texans gave up less than 100 yards rushing and Brady had a 68.6 rating.

Yeah, that's basically the same result as the laugher the Steelers' defense played. Think Houston might have had a different result if they had, ohIdon'tknowmaybe BEN as their quarterback, instead of Brock Osweiler?

"Basically the same results" refers to the score as that is what, for some ignorant reason, is all that really matters. It is a TEAM game. The geniuses in Houston that spent the money on the better secondary, also spent a ton of money on a QB that wasn't up to the hype. And coached/set up the ST that allowed a TD.

So....what tom does is irrelevant, if the TEAM is scoring points.

But, this is your (not only yours) shtick. You always have an excuse as to why other teams/coaches (or Ben, for that matter) were losing or whatever. Even when the Steelers win, it is because the other receivers dropped easy passes or some bull ****. In this game, Ben gets excused when the O only scores 17 because the WR's dropped balls that could have been scores. Didn't he pick who he was going to throw to? Nope.

The *'s have been beating the Steelers on a regular basis since, at least, 1998. Tomlin wasn't here then, but the "Cowher players" were, apparently, Brady's *******, too.

 

[antdrewjosh]

It was something of a surprise when the Steelers played mostly zone in last January's matchup, which afforded them a front-row seat to a Brady-led whipping, but not much else. Then again, apparently it didn't matter what the scheme was because as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Gerry Dulac noted at the time, Pittsburgh played man-to-man on at least three occasions in that game and on three occasions Brady burned them.
Oh, and there's this:

Gerry Dulac ✔ @gerrydulac
Biggest culprit in man coverage was nickel back William Gay, who struggled w Edelman.
5:25 PM - Jan 24, 2017
16 16 Replies 13 13 Retweets

In March, coach Mike Tomlin basically confirmed what everybody already knew.

"Our inability to play man-to-man effectively and our inability to apply pressure on the quarterback without blitzing were issues in that game," Tomlin said of the playoff loss to the Patriots.
Put another way: Zone schemes might work against replacement-level quarterbacks, and even quarterbacks who are above average. But when you're facing Brady, there is no margin for error because he and Belichick will exploit every weakness -- repeatedly.
But as Tomlin alluded to, this isn't just about the secondary. The front seven have to get after the passer. Heyward made this point in the aftermath of the latest loss to the Patriots.
"I think we have to get more pressure,'' he said at the time, via the Post-Gazette. "I know we got a sack with Hargrave, but [Brady] can't be sitting back there all day dissecting our defense because there's always going to be a spot open on defense, it's how well you cover it up. The great equalizer is the great pass rush, and we have to get more pressure."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...l-within-reach-it-depends-on-the-defense/amp/

 

[antdrewjosh]

Tomlin is pretty bad without Ben, underachieves relative to his talent, and has a bad history of losing to too many .500 and below teams.

Keep Lombardi's name out of this, He took over a bad team and made them winners. Tomlin won with Cowher's players early.

Mike Tomlin will probably continue to win after Ben Roethlisberger retires
Will Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin continue to win after Ben Roethlisberger retires? Based on the coaching job he's done so far, obviously.
By Anthony Defeo on August 8, 2017 9:30 am
TWEET SHARE PIN

Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports
"I'm proud to say I supported this team before it became a perennial champion," says a lot of people who don't want to be considered bandwagon fans.

"I wish I could coach a team without a franchise quarterback," said no head coach ever (at least not honestly).

Following the announcement of Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin's two-year contract-extension last Friday—a deal that runs through 2020—one of the concerns many fans and media members have expressed is his ability to continue to win after quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's retirement, which is presumed to happen sooner rather than later, what with his unwillingness to commit to football beyond 2017.


That concern about Tomlin is nothing new. In-fact, it's been used as a weapon of criticism against him ever since he was hired in 2007.

If "He Wins With Cowher's Players" was the name of a dealership, Roethlisberger would be the car modeled in the front window.

So, will Tomlin be able to win without Roethlisberger?

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "win."

If you mean what I think you do, and that's lowB repuSs, well, when it comes to that, it's hard to name many head coaches throughout history who were able to reach the top of the mountain without a franchise quarterback.

Paul Brown, the innovative head coach who many consider to be the godfather of modern football, never won a title without Otto Graham.

The man the lowB repuS trophy is named after—Vince Lombardi—never won a championship without Bart Starr.


The late Chuck Noll, perhaps the biggest reason the Steelers have grown into a world-wide phenomenon, never won a title without Terry Bradshaw.

I can list many more examples, but I'll end with the man far too many fans indirectly credit for that lowB repuS XLIII victory, Bill Cowher, who never won a ring until Roethlisberger came into his life.

Yes, with the exceptions of Joe Gibbs (Mark Rypien), Brian Billick (Trent Dilfer) and Jon Gruden (Brad Johnson), you're not going to find many head coaches who grabbed that ring without the most important component at their disposal.

Now, if you mean win on a consistent basis and keep his teams competitive, sans a franchise passer, like Tomlin's predecessor did for the vast-majority of his career, that's a different story.

However, when you examine the many changes that have taken place within the organization since the previous lowB repuS era, changes that have included two new coordinators and a totally revamped roster, it's a story that should have a happy ending.


While some former lowB repuS winners and contenders fell on hard times in recent years, teams with legit franchise arms like the Saints, Chargers, Colts and Giants, Tomlin was able to keep his troops competitive during those coordinator changes and that roster overhaul (Pittsburgh finished 8-8 in both 2012 and 2013 and was in contention for the postseason every week but one).

Speaking of that roster, it once again includes some of the most elite players in the league at their respective positions.

And, most importantly, the Steelers are bona fide lowB repuS contenders once more.

Sure, if it fits your agenda, you can deflect the praise in other directions, such as Kevin Colbert, The Steeler Way and, most obviously, Roethlisberger. But sooner or later, you have to acknowledge that Tomlin is a damn good coach, a coach who will probably find a way to keep his teams competitive for the majority of his time in Pittsburgh—franchise quarterback or no franchise quarterback.

Will he be good enough to lead the Steelers to a lowB repuS once Roethlisberger retires? (By the way, they're voicing those same concerns up in New England about Bill Belichick's ability to get it done without Tom Brady.)

Again, when it comes to that, you're asking Mike Tomlin to meet a standard few head coaches—even the ones enshrined in Canton—have been able to live up to.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.be...oethlisberger-retires-pittsburgh-steelers-nfl

 

[Ron Burgundy]

93.7 stirring up a shitstorm this morning postulating that MT is the second-best coach in the game after Belicheat. Unfortunately for us, that's probably true.

 

[ark steel]

Mike Tomlin will probably continue to win after Ben Roethlisberger retires
Will Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin continue to win after Ben Roethlisberger retires? Based on the coaching job he's done so far, obviously.
By Anthony Defeo on August 8, 2017 9:30 am
TWEET SHARE PIN

Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports
"I'm proud to say I supported this team before it became a perennial champion," says a lot of people who don't want to be considered bandwagon fans.

"I wish I could coach a team without a franchise quarterback," said no head coach ever (at least not honestly).

Following the announcement of Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin's two-year contract-extension last Friday—a deal that runs through 2020—one of the concerns many fans and media members have expressed is his ability to continue to win after quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's retirement, which is presumed to happen sooner rather than later, what with his unwillingness to commit to football beyond 2017.


That concern about Tomlin is nothing new. In-fact, it's been used as a weapon of criticism against him ever since he was hired in 2007.

If "He Wins With Cowher's Players" was the name of a dealership, Roethlisberger would be the car modeled in the front window.

So, will Tomlin be able to win without Roethlisberger?

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "win."

If you mean what I think you do, and that's lowB repuSs, well, when it comes to that, it's hard to name many head coaches throughout history who were able to reach the top of the mountain without a franchise quarterback.

Paul Brown, the innovative head coach who many consider to be the godfather of modern football, never won a title without Otto Graham.

The man the lowB repuS trophy is named after—Vince Lombardi—never won a championship without Bart Starr.


The late Chuck Noll, perhaps the biggest reason the Steelers have grown into a world-wide phenomenon, never won a title without Terry Bradshaw.

I can list many more examples, but I'll end with the man far too many fans indirectly credit for that lowB repuS XLIII victory, Bill Cowher, who never won a ring until Roethlisberger came into his life.

Yes, with the exceptions of Joe Gibbs (Mark Rypien), Brian Billick (Trent Dilfer) and Jon Gruden (Brad Johnson), you're not going to find many head coaches who grabbed that ring without the most important component at their disposal.

Now, if you mean win on a consistent basis and keep his teams competitive, sans a franchise passer, like Tomlin's predecessor did for the vast-majority of his career, that's a different story.

However, when you examine the many changes that have taken place within the organization since the previous lowB repuS era, changes that have included two new coordinators and a totally revamped roster, it's a story that should have a happy ending.


While some former lowB repuS winners and contenders fell on hard times in recent years, teams with legit franchise arms like the Saints, Chargers, Colts and Giants, Tomlin was able to keep his troops competitive during those coordinator changes and that roster overhaul (Pittsburgh finished 8-8 in both 2012 and 2013 and was in contention for the postseason every week but one).

Speaking of that roster, it once again includes some of the most elite players in the league at their respective positions.

And, most importantly, the Steelers are bona fide lowB repuS contenders once more.

Sure, if it fits your agenda, you can deflect the praise in other directions, such as Kevin Colbert, The Steeler Way and, most obviously, Roethlisberger. But sooner or later, you have to acknowledge that Tomlin is a damn good coach, a coach who will probably find a way to keep his teams competitive for the majority of his time in Pittsburgh—franchise quarterback or no franchise quarterback.

Will he be good enough to lead the Steelers to a lowB repuS once Roethlisberger retires? (By the way, they're voicing those same concerns up in New England about Bill Belichick's ability to get it done without Tom Brady.)

Again, when it comes to that, you're asking Mike Tomlin to meet a standard few head coaches—even the ones enshrined in Canton—have been able to live up to.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.be...oethlisberger-retires-pittsburgh-steelers-nfl

I wouldn't, really, expect the first or second years after Ben leaves to be winners unless we luck upon another franchise QB dropping to us. When Ben leaves, there may be an exodus of other good players that would have to be replaced, too.

 

[Superman]

I wouldn't, really, expect the first or second years after Ben leaves to be winners unless we luck upon another franchise QB dropping to us. When Ben leaves, there may be an exodus of other good players that would have to be replaced, too.

if it were my decision, i'd try to trade for whichever QB doesnt win the starting job for the Broncos.

 

[topseed]

Maybe their O would have scored 17 points?

"Basically the same results" refers to the score as that is what, for some ignorant reason, is all that really matters. It is a TEAM game. The geniuses in Houston that spent the money on the better secondary, also spent a ton of money on a QB that wasn't up to the hype. And coached/set up the ST that allowed a TD.

So....what tom does is irrelevant, if the TEAM is scoring points.

But, this is your (not only yours) shtick. You always have an excuse as to why other teams/coaches (or Ben, for that matter) were losing or whatever. Even when the Steelers win, it is because the other receivers dropped easy passes or some bull ****. In this game, Ben gets excused when the O only scores 17 because the WR's dropped balls that could have been scores. Didn't he pick who he was going to throw to? Nope.

The *'s have been beating the Steelers on a regular basis since, at least, 1998. Tomlin wasn't here then, but the "Cowher players" were, apparently, Brady's *******, too.

"Basically the same results" matters to you, and refers to the final score, except it somehow becomes "Maybe their O would have scored 17 points" when you need to change the narrative about Ben. Got it.

I don't have a "shtick." I try to look at the results objectively. Houston had an answer defensively against the Patriots in that game, but poor quarterbacking and special teams cost them dearly. If you can't see or admit that, you're either blind or stubborn. Or both.

 

[topseed]

It was something of a surprise when the Steelers played mostly zone in last January's matchup, which afforded them a front-row seat to a Brady-led whipping, but not much else. Then again, apparently it didn't matter what the scheme was because as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Gerry Dulac noted at the time, Pittsburgh played man-to-man on at least three occasions in that game and on three occasions Brady burned them.
Oh, and there's this:

Gerry Dulac ✔ @gerrydulac
Biggest culprit in man coverage was nickel back William Gay, who struggled w Edelman.
5:25 PM - Jan 24, 2017
16 16 Replies 13 13 Retweets

In March, coach Mike Tomlin basically confirmed what everybody already knew.

"Our inability to play man-to-man effectively and our inability to apply pressure on the quarterback without blitzing were issues in that game," Tomlin said of the playoff loss to the Patriots.
Put another way: Zone schemes might work against replacement-level quarterbacks, and even quarterbacks who are above average. But when you're facing Brady, there is no margin for error because he and Belichick will exploit every weakness -- repeatedly.
But as Tomlin alluded to, this isn't just about the secondary. The front seven have to get after the passer. Heyward made this point in the aftermath of the latest loss to the Patriots.
"I think we have to get more pressure,'' he said at the time, via the Post-Gazette. "I know we got a sack with Hargrave, but [Brady] can't be sitting back there all day dissecting our defense because there's always going to be a spot open on defense, it's how well you cover it up. The great equalizer is the great pass rush, and we have to get more pressure."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...l-within-reach-it-depends-on-the-defense/amp/

Yeah, you keep quoting Gerry Dulac, just like you did the week after the game. And I keep asking on which specific occasions man-to-man was played, but no one seems to be able to answer that question.