Pittsburgh NOT the only team to loose to BAD teams

[Punxsutawney]

he's saying it's a trend that happens to every coach. it happened last nite to Andy Reid. It happend to John Fox when they lost to the Rams. It happened to Harbaugh when he lost to the Rams AND Chicago.

It happens to other coaches, but it's nowhere near the trend that Tomlin has established in that regard.

This false narrative that, over the past several years, other coaches struggle like Tomlin teams do when firmly expected/favored to win isn't even close to being based in reality.

 

[Idioteque]

What argument? When did I mention Bill Cowher? I've got no interest in defending Cowher's coaching here; he was also a very flawed coach who deserved a lot of criticism.

I'm asking what his record has to do with Tomlin's. If Cowher were 100-0 or 0-100 against awful teams, would that make Tomlin a better or worse coach?

Typical cheerleader ****. No defense of Tomlin whatsoever beyond "But Cowher did it too!" You pom-pom girls seem to think they're the only two coaches on God's earth.

 

[Steelz]

Harsh words from the boy wonder who posted this:



We lose to so many **** teams because we get tired, that's all. Tired from playing GOOD teams and giving it our all.

Oh my God. you have a blog or a newsletter or anything? I would truly and honestly send you a check every month to get access to that.

Lol don't take it soo personal, Idiots in your screen name isn't it?
And have you ever played football? If so you'd know that theres a reason there's no 16-17 win teams in the NFL. Once you start winning every team including bad teams are going to play you their best. You just cant win every week like that as you've seen around the league already.

 

[Superman]

It happens to other coaches, but it's nowhere near the trend that Tomlin has established in that regard.

This false narrative that, over the past several years, other coaches struggle like Tomlin teams do when firmly expected/favored to win isn't even close to being based in reality.

I completely agree. I agree it seemingly happens to Tomlin more than it does other coaches, but since I'm not emotionally invested in other teams, I don't really pay close attention to how they're doing or how their fans feel going in to games. I, too, hate going into games with teams like the Jets and knowing before kickoff that this will be a nail-biter.

but to focus solely on Tomlin and blindingly state that this doesnt happen to other coaches is a bit ignorant.

 

[Punxsutawney]

Riiiiight...you only wanna focus on Mike Tomlin.........Ill leave Bill outta this so that your argument has the appearance to have some merit. My bad.

There's no merit to bringing up Cowher because his rate of failure against inferior teams was nowhere near as high as Tomlin's.

Keep harping on those Jaguar and Texans games that were ******* seven years apart to your heart's content. Hell, I'll even give you the meltdown against the Bengals late in the 2001 season.

They happen. They're almost to be expected under Tomlin. There's a difference

 

[Steelz]

What argument? When did I mention Bill Cowher? I've got no interest in defending Cowher's coaching here; he was also a very flawed coach who deserved a lot of criticism.

I'm asking what his record has to do with Tomlin's. If Cowher were 100-0 or 0-100 against awful teams, would that make Tomlin a better or worse coach?

Typical cheerleader ****. No defense of Tomlin whatsoever beyond "But Cowher did it too!" You pom-pom girls seem to think they're the only two coaches on God's earth.

Soo why all the bitching if every team/coach goes thru this?? Not sure if you noticed but, Tomlin is the head coach of the Steelers right now. Not Cowher, so people's going to defend our head coach of our team. You're not saying anything more than what a typical troll would say on a message board. That's why you keep getting smacked back down.

 

[Idioteque]

Did a little digging, though.

In Cowher's 15 seasons, he lost exactly 12 games to teams who won 5 or fewer games on the season. That's 0.8 times per year.

And Tomlin has lost 9 such games in 7.5 years. By the end of this season - assuming the Jets and Bucs finish 5-11 or worse - that'll be 11. Or 1.4 times per year.

In other words, Tomlin will have lost one fewer game to an awful team than Cowher - in half the number of games. Which is why we all shudder when we see Oakland, Tennessee, or other suck bottom-feeders on our schedule.

 

[Idioteque]

Soo why all the bitching if every team/coach goes thru this?? Not sure if you noticed but, Tomlin is the head coach of the Steelers right now. Not Cowher, so people's going to defend our head coach of our team. You're not saying anything more than what a typical troll would say on a message board. That's why you keep getting smacked back down.

How do you define "smacked down"?

By a cheerleader steering the discussion to Cowher, then being proven wrong about it?

aight

 

[Steelz]

So why stop at Tomlin? Wasn't Ben a part of those loses? Troy too? How many of those games did we lose with Lebeau as DC? Please explain how you pin point all these loses to Tomlin so we can finally understand what all the Tomlin hate bitching is about.

 

[blitzburghv5]

There's no merit to bringing up Cowher because his rate of failure against inferior teams was nowhere near as high as Tomlin's.

Keep harping on those Jaguar and Texans games that were ******* seven years apart to your heart's content. Hell, I'll even give you the meltdown against the Bengals late in the 2001 season.

They happen. They're almost to be expected under Tomlin. There's a difference

Who gives a **** how far apart they occured. Veteran teams with veteran head coaches losing to 1st year expansion teams is the worst of agonizing losses. Youre talkin about units with new head coaches, staff, and a mixture of young and veteran players with no chemistry. The alibi ill give on the Texans loss at home was it was vs Dom Capers (a former Steeler D Coordinator).

But once things turn around here (and i do believe **** will turn around) and we resume playoff runs and title contention, those subpar performances/inferior opponent debacles will be a thing of the past.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Lose. LOSE!!! For Christ's sake, it's "lose."

 

[Steel G]

It started with Bill Cowher........he lost to expansion teams (Jax AND HOU) as well as suck *** Raider teams.......Houston was a home loss 24-6. Include it ALL ......

True, but the year Cowher lost to Jax, '95, he went to the SB. The year he lost to HOU, '02, the Steelers made the playoffs and won a playoff game. He did lose to a bad Raider team in the SB hangover year of '06, but Cowher finished his tenure as Steeler coach 5-2 against the Raiders, the other Raider loss coming to the '02 Raiders team that made it to the SB. By contrast, Tomlin is 1-3 against the Raiders. All 3 losses coming in years that the Steelers missed the playoffs and the Raiders only managed to win 4 or 5 games.

 

[obxsteeler]

Did a little digging, though.

In Cowher's 15 seasons, he lost exactly 12 games to teams who won 5 or fewer games on the season. That's 0.8 times per year.

And Tomlin has lost 9 such games in 7.5 years. By the end of this season - assuming the Jets and Bucs finish 5-11 or worse - that'll be 11. Or 1.4 times per year.

In other words, Tomlin will have lost one fewer game to an awful team than Cowher - in half the number of games. Which is why we all shudder when we see Oakland, Tennessee, or other suck bottom-feeders on our schedule.

I guess that also means Tomlin won more against good teams.

 

[Idioteque]

A little more digging. I checked out some of the league's better teams and their records since 2012 vs. opponents with a .200 or worse entering the game. (I didn't include anything from Week 2s. An 0-1 team shouldn't qualify IMO.)

Here's how many games each team has lost against those bottom-feeders:

New England - 0
Denver - 0
San Francisco - 0
Baltimore - 0
Green Bay - 0
Seattle - 1
Indianapolis - 1

Pittsburgh - 7

Our total does not include our skin-of-the-teeth wins over Jax and Tenn this year, nor our devastating home blowout at the hands of the 4-8 Chargers in 2012 that pretty much killed our playoff hopes.

Yep. Happens to everybody about the same.

 

[JupiterBnG]

I guess that also means Tomlin won more against good teams.

If you define "good teams" as "did better than 5-11," which includes teams with 6-10, 7-9, or 8-8 records.

 

[Steelz]

A little more digging. I checked out some of the league's better teams and their records since 2012 vs. opponents with a 0 or worse entering the game. (I didn't include anything from Week 2s. An 0-1 team shouldn't qualify IMO.)

Here's how many games each team has lost against those bottom-feeders:

New England - 0
Denver - 0
San Francisco - 0
Baltimore - 0
Green Bay - 0
Seattle - 1
Indianapolis - 1

Pittsburgh -it's his fault.
Our total does not include our skin-of-the-teeth wins over Jax and Tenn this year, nor our devastating home blowout at the hands of the 4-8 Chargers in 2012 that pretty much killed our playoff hopes.

Yep. Happens to everybody about the same.

Good job and I'm actually impressed. But do you have any video proof of the Steelers at the movies eating popcorn before those games instead of practicing? Still not convinced they're didn't practice/prepare as usual. And not sure where you can pinpoint Tomlin on this when Troy, Ben, Brown, played in those games too. Lebeau was DC for those gamed too right? How was his defense in those games. Please explain how it's on Tomlin for those loses so we all know its Tomlin's fault and a reason for all the bitching.

 

[Superman]

A little more digging. I checked out some of the league's better teams and their records since 2012 vs. opponents with a .200 or worse entering the game. (I didn't include anything from Week 2s. An 0-1 team shouldn't qualify IMO.)

Here's how many games each team has lost against those bottom-feeders:

New England - 0
Denver - 0
San Francisco - 0
Baltimore - 0
Green Bay - 0
Seattle - 1
Indianapolis - 1

Pittsburgh - 7

Our total does not include our skin-of-the-teeth wins over Jax and Tenn this year, nor our devastating home blowout at the hands of the 4-8 Chargers in 2012 that pretty much killed our playoff hopes.

Yep. Happens to everybody about the same.

since you did the research and have it all in front of you, how many of those teams actually played .200 teams?

 

[Idioteque]

since you did the research and have it all in front of you, how many of those teams actually played .200 teams?

That would involve checking every record of every opponent for each team, which would take quite a long time. But I can assure you, we do not have the market cornered.

 

[insaniti]

One-game instances vs. eight-year trends

Since we are all about nitpicking at SN these days, I'll give you a three year trend. 10 - 6, 12 - 4, 9 - 7, 12 - 4, 12 - 4 were the first five years of Tomlins tenure. There weren't a lot of losses to begin with, let alone to "bottom feeders". And lets not start the Cowher's players argument. Just pointing out that the losses to these bad teams haven't been an eight year thing.

 

[Superman]

That would involve checking every record of every opponent for each team, which would take quite a long time. But I can assure you, we do not have the market cornered.

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precisely what you stated you did, though?
I do not disagree that we've lost more than we should vs **** teams, just interested in the opportunities of those other teams vs **** teams.

 

[Idioteque]

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precisely what you stated you did, though?
I do not disagree that we've lost more than we should vs **** teams, just interested in the opportunities of those other teams vs **** teams.

I only checked all of those teams' losses. Checking all 16 games for each of them would take longer than I have at the moment.

 

[SteelBuckeye]

A little more digging. I checked out some of the league's better teams and their records since 2012 vs. opponents with a .200 or worse entering the game. (I didn't include anything from Week 2s. An 0-1 team shouldn't qualify IMO.)

Here's how many games each team has lost against those bottom-feeders:

New England - 0
Denver - 0
San Francisco - 0
Baltimore - 0
Green Bay - 0
Seattle - 1
Indianapolis - 1

Pittsburgh - 7

Our total does not include our skin-of-the-teeth wins over Jax and Tenn this year, nor our devastating home blowout at the hands of the 4-8 Chargers in 2012 that pretty much killed our playoff hopes.

Yep. Happens to everybody about the same.

I see where you're going with this and I agree that losing to teams with .200 or sub .200 records reflects poorly on the team; coaches and players. I mean, the players don't get so enamored with the screen game that even children can tell when it's coming and the coaches don't go out on the field and fumble and throw interceptions.

However, I see one problem with your analysis. You are comparing the Steelers since 2012 to "some of the league's better teams". I think most would agree that the Steelers since 2012 have not been one of the league's better teams. The reasons for this are open for debate and have been debated ad nauseam, but the fact is that the team has been 8-8, 8-8 in the last two years. These are not records that say the Steelers of those years belong in any discussion with some of the league's better teams. So your premise is faulty from the start.

Now, if you could provide the same insight using "some of the league's mediocre teams" and the results were the same, the premise would be more valid. I would expect though that the comparison wouldn't be quite as dramatic. I mean, losing to bad teams and good teams is what helps to identify a team as mediocre.

 

[RollRedRoll]

Good teams losing to bad teams is something that happens all the time in the NFL... The difference in talent from team to team really isn't that far apart.. Teams that lose all the time do so mainly due to a lack of confidence and belief that they are good enough to beat the team they're playing... Basically, they get used to losing. The exact opposite is true for the supposedly good teams.. They have a formula for winning and stick to that formula even when they fall behind. They expect to win and don't hit the panic button when they are trailing. The bad teams go into the "here we go again" mindset as soon as things go south, and it snowballs from there. Momentum is the most important thing in a football game... The team that has it is playing with confidence and an expectation of success. Did you ever notice during games that sometimes a team wil be dominating their opponent, when suddenly a few bad plays happen and next thing you know it seems like they can't do anything right? Then, at the same time, the team that was getting their ***** handed to them suddenly look like world-beaters. As soon as that "Uh-oh... We might be in trouble here" mindset creeps in, everything that was working beautifully goes right in the *******, and a team that was going up and down the field all of the sudden can't string two first-downs together... or a defense that was all over the field starts getting torched. What's so puzzling about the Steelers is that there are games.. like the Jets game.. where confidence should be peeking and momentum should be squarely on their side, but yet they go out there and look lost against a team that doesn't have any reason to feel confident at all. It's quite the conundrum I tell ya.

 

[SteelBuckeye]

Red, I firmly believe that the attitude and confidence that you ascribe to the winning teams is both earned and learned. For example, Troy, Deebo, Keisel etc. are all vets that have been there, done that. They have "it" because they paid their dues, took their lumps as pups, learned what it takes to have that winning attitude and went out and performed at the level required to win (earned it). We have a mostly young team. While the vets can "tell" them what it takes, and even show them to some extent. That attitude and confidence won't take hold until these young guys go out and earn it for themselves.

 

[blitzburghv5]

Red, I firmly believe that the attitude and confidence that you ascribe to the winning teams is both earned and learned. For example, Troy, Deebo, Keisel etc. are all vets that have been there, done that. They have "it" because they paid their dues, took their lumps as pups, learned what it takes to have that winning attitude and went out and performed at the level required to win (earned it). We have a mostly young team. While the vets can "tell" them what it takes, and even show them to some extent. That attitude and confidence won't take hold until these young guys go out and earn it for themselves.

And the players you named are all on defense. Good points............our defense in the past covered for any flaws we had on offense. We didnt have to score a ton of points to secure a win. All it took was 17-20, if we were only yielding 13-15 per game on avg. Now days, we have to score 30. HAVE TO. Just to secure a win. Our defense is rebuilding and we have 5 starters out. This puts a huge responsibility on the veterans. But we (as a defensive unit) are gettin better.

When our offense cant score or has turnover issues, its spells disaster because our defense cant save the day and turn the ball back over to the offense.

When the playoffs start, im afraid its gonna be all on Ben and this offense to play mistake free, high productivity football. Fall two scores behind Den, NE or INDY and it could spell a short run.

I do believe with Heyward we have an up and coming leader to take the reigns