We Did Not Lose Because of Bell

[Steel G]

Bell could have helped..but the other money players didn't show up. Brown didn't get his feet down on what would have been a critical TD. Ben didn't play well Heath had an off game. The other young wideouts didn't become difference makers. The line didn't pass block well The play calling was suspect. They started Troy for some stupid reason and then were taking him out in the second half. Loved Troy, as in past tense. He shouldn't have been out there. Mitchell made more of his classic bonehead plays. The pass rush did not get there. They played poorly and got their ***** kicked for it. And the coaches get the blame too I think they panicked more by the loss of Bell than they realize. Bad game all around.

Still, after the Saints game, I was ready to blow the whole thing up. I don't think they need to do that yet. There is young talent on D, they just need a fresh new perspective for coaching it. Thanks for everything DL, but you need to walk on.

 

[SteelerFan448]

The Steelers lost because of turnovers, penalties and sacks, NOT Bell's absence. Don't argue with me, argue with the box score that shows the Steelers dominated 1st downs, yards, and T.O.P.

You are completely ignoring the whole mental preparation of the situation as well. The Steelers came out tentative and appeared as though they couldn't win the game without Bell. It is how they performed.

 

[Steelerfan]

Yes we did

 

[SteelerFan448]

The Steelers lost because of turnovers, penalties and sacks, NOT Bell's absence. Don't argue with me, argue with the box score that shows the Steelers dominated 1st downs, yards, and T.O.P.

By the way, I do agree they got their ***** whooped in the trenches and were absolutely mindless with all of the penalties they took.

 

[thesteelcity]

The Steelers lost because of turnovers, penalties and sacks, NOT Bell's absence. Don't argue with me, argue with the box score that shows the Steelers dominated 1st downs, yards, and T.O.P.

a lot of that attributed to the absence of Bell. His pass blocking, catches out of the backfield as a safety net and his legs are what was missed. As I said earlier, Tate and Harris did what they could, but that added X Factor hurt any attention to detail our MVP brought to the table. Hell, Suggs even stated that them not having to account for Bell made their job easier. That is from the horse's mouth(pun intended). When it started unraveling, the undisciplined team once again showed their ugly head and took too many penalties.

 

[TDX27]

Heck, even the turnovers didn't hurt that bad. Most of them came after the game was already in hand by the Rats and we were in or should have been (kept trying to run the ball down by 2 scores) in desperation mode. Our D could not stop a mediocre Rats offense. There will be or, again, should be mass changes on the D for next year.

 

[mightyguru]

I am tired of hearing how not having Bell doomed us. We lost due to horrible play calling and game planning. Tate came out running the ball fine, then the fumble happen and they got away from that. I do not think Bell would have had much success against the Ravens front 7 either. We had no slants / quick outs / curls. We had a 3rd and 1 and threw the ball 40 yrds. I just dont get it. Brown could have ran outs / slants / curls. Then the D eventually would jump those routes and we could have hit them up with out and ups or stop and gos. Not bubble screens or runs up the middle with new backs. Bryant seemed to be playing well and he should have been more involved as well. Sure Bell would have helped, but we could have easily won this game without him. I understand Haley wanted to establish a run so Ben does not get killed, but there are other ways to counter act that. Also the D was terrible Troy / Mitchell were godawful along with Worilds. Harrison was OK but just could not quite get there. Everyone else was pretty much invisible.

yeah...who needs the best RB in the game when we gots Dri!!!!!

 

[Troglodyte]

You are completely ignoring the whole mental preparation of the situation as well. The Steelers came out tentative and appeared as though they couldn't win the game without Bell. It is how they performed.

They lost to the Ravens and four other teams with Bell. We'll never know how things would have turned out had Bell played but I'm not convinced they would have won, and I am convinced they could have won without him had it not been for the turnovers and penalties.

 

[bermudasteel]

I would argue in favor of both theories. The game plan stunk of desperation and second guessin' it would be very unambiguous, at best.
We indeed could have benefited from better production out of the backfield but going into the season with the backfield as thin as it was, was askin' for trouble..

Tomlin could also be in some trouble for putting Ben back in after gettin' his bell rung, there are protocols for that and I don't see that any were followed.

There's lots to work on for next year, that's for sure but hey..we made the dance.... that's some improvement.

100% agreed. Regardless of the outcome - the team, IMO, didn't have all the pieces to win the Superbowl anyway. We made it back to the post-season and I feel that the team can only get better going forward.

11-6 is much better than 8-8...

 

[bermudasteel]

Our defense is not going to win us games. The offense has the score touchdowns. Last night we didn't. It was part injury, part play calling, part execution, part turnovers. Last night was a bad mix of all.

I told my wife this very fact - The first 3 FG's should have been TD's; Baltimore would have been in a hole...

 

[Spike]

http://dkonpittsburghsports.com/

great article - thanks


Just what I was saying - Steelers played not to lose on offense - all the winning teams chukked that ball deep early and often and Haley's dink and dunk played right into the Ravens hands

chickenshit gameplans don't work in the playoffs - especially when your pro-bowl RB is OUT

 

[bermudasteel]

I'll add ONE MORE comment to this thread.

We LOST because of this:

I fully expect to see his head roll the next time we play him, should he be on the field...

 

[antdrewjosh]

Was anyone who was at the game tell us if plays to go deep were called and were just covered. Looked like the Ravens played coverage most of the game on TV. Cant take what wasnt there.

 

[DBS1970]

One dimensional offense without Bell. That means the other team can keep their safeties back to provide extra coverage with little need for run support and they LBs can pin their ears back and go for the QB with reckless abandon. Hence the 5 sacks and the FGs in the first half. So year no Bell really did hurt us.

 

[antdrewjosh]

One dimensional offense without Bell. That means the other team can keep their safeties back to provide extra coverage with little need for run support and they LBs can pin their ears back and go for the QB with reckless abandon. Hence the 5 sacks and the FGs in the first half. So year no Bell really did hurt us.

Pretty much. Losing Bell changed everything for the Ravens. It forced the Steelers young WRs to step up. No easy reads.

 

[Steel G]

Was anyone who was at the game tell us if plays to go deep were called and were just covered. Looked like the Ravens played coverage most of the game on TV. Cant take what wasnt there.

Pretty much. After Tate fumbled on his third carry, they shelved him as he only carried the ball 2 more times after that. And Undrafted Harris was not going to be any concern of the Rats. And certainly you know Archer wouldn't scare a pee wee team. I know Bell struggled to gain yards against the Rats, but they still had to honor him. As it was, their Dline was able to tee off in their search for Big Ben.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Bell would have been good for at least another TD. Defense mostly played like crap though.

 

[BAS]

Naturally, the Steelers did not lose because of the absence of Bell, but they did lose as a result of the loss of Bell from last week's injury.

First, he accounted for over 1/3 of the offenses production this season, you can't just drop a player like that in the last game of the season and expect to fill his role with the rookies we had in house and the one competent back that was picked up a couple of days before the game. It's just not going to work.
Think back to the 2010 SB - I have no doubt that the Steelers would have won that game had Pouncey not been injured in the AFC Championship game. All it took was one player to change to complexion of the offensive line. Do you really think losing 1/3 of your star scoring performers wasn't going to make a similar difference?

Second - Bell's absence from the offense allowed the Ravens defense to devote their time to shutting down the passing game, knowing the running game would be sub-par.

Third - the Steelers Defense were certainly a week point throughout the season. Even though they did improve, they were the same defense that already played the Ravens twice. In the 2 prior games against the Ravens, they allowed scores of 26 and 23 points. It hurts that the offense couldn't score, but the defense certainly performed about the level they did in the other 2 contests.

I think the front office failed in finding a replacement for Blount when he got released. They stood pat thinking that Bell would be the workhorse for the team throughout the playoffs, and the fact they didn't at least look for a more veteran replacement for Blount at that time really hurt the team. Worst fears realized when Bell got injured.

That's where the failure was, so look back on the work of the front office after week 11.

 

[obxsteeler]

Naturally, the Steelers did not lose because of the absence of Bell, but they did lose as a result of the loss of Bell from last week's injury.

First, he accounted for over 1/3 of the offenses production this season, you can't just drop a player like that in the last game of the season and expect to fill his role with the rookies we had in house and the one competent back that was picked up a couple of days before the game. It's just not going to work.
Think back to the 2010 SB - I have no doubt that the Steelers would have won that game had Pouncey not been injured in the AFC Championship game. All it took was one player to change to complexion of the offensive line. Do you really think losing 1/3 of your star scoring performers wasn't going to make a similar difference?

Second - Bell's absence from the offense allowed the Ravens defense to devote their time to shutting down the passing game, knowing the running game would be sub-par.

Third - the Steelers Defense were certainly a week point throughout the season. Even though they did improve, they were the same defense that already played the Ravens twice. In the 2 prior games against the Ravens, they allowed scores of 26 and 23 points. It hurts that the offense couldn't score, but the defense certainly performed about the level they did in the other 2 contests.

I think the front office failed in finding a replacement for Blount when he got released. They stood pat thinking that Bell would be the workhorse for the team throughout the playoffs, and the fact they didn't at least look for a more veteran replacement for Blount at that time really hurt the team. Worst fears realized when Bell got injured.

That's where the failure was, so look back on the work of the front office after week 11.

Can you give me the name of the available back in any week who would have made up for Bell given his roll on this team?

 

[ark steel]

Bell would have been good for at least another TD to get called back.

Fixed it for you.

 

[BAS]

Can you give me the name of the available back in any week who would have made up for Bell given his roll on this team?

Nope. Not my job, and I don't follow the NFL waiver wire religiously to go figure it out either.

It just seems like the front office didn't do any search at the time, and waited for Bell's injury to find a replacement. Blount was released after week 11. This was week 18. No backs available at all during that time?

 

[Steel G]

Nope. Not my job, and I don't follow the NFL waiver wire religiously to go figure it out either.

It just seems like the front office didn't do any search at the time, and waited for Bell's injury to find a replacement. Blount was released after week 11. This was week 18. No backs available at all during that time?

What, and force them to possibly drop the amazing Landry Jones from the roster? Surely you jest!

Even if the guy they brought in couldn't run half as good as Bell, they needed somebody who could get acclimated to the playbook and, more importantly, who could pass block. That probably wound up hurting them more than anything else. Throwing Tate into that roll wound up as a giant failure.

 

[blitzburghv5]

To not skip a beat in the running game youd have to bring in a Forte, a Foster.........a Jamaal Charles.........Bell is too dynamic a back to try and just plug anyone else in to have even close to his effectiveness....Bringing Blount in was no guarantee of a different outcome. I wish we would stop believing he (Blount) wouldve made a difference. He wrote his ticket out of the Burgh, and we never forsaw the injury that would shelf Bell right at the doorstep of the playoffs. NOBODY SAW IT.

Im not mad at Management...im pissed at Reggie Nelson

 

[SteelBuckeye]

Nope. Not my job, and I don't follow the NFL waiver wire religiously to go figure it out either.

It just seems like the front office didn't do any search at the time, and waited for Bell's injury to find a replacement. Blount was released after week 11. This was week 18. No backs available at all during that time?

Ah, the great unknown leads to speculation leads to "it must be this". Maybe they did search for a replacement and felt that with the players that were available at that time, they would get the same production from the combination of Harris and Archer. You don't just go out and pick up a back regardless of skill set and fit within your system. Then again, maybe they just decided to be lazy and roll the dice without even considering any of the RBs available.

 

[BAS]

Ah, the great unknown leads to speculation leads to "it must be this". Maybe they did search for a replacement and felt that with the players that were available at that time, they would get the same production from the combination of Harris and Archer. You don't just go out and pick up a back regardless of skill set and fit within your system. Then again, maybe they just decided to be lazy and roll the dice without even considering any of the RBs available.

Maybe you should read this article from when Blount was released -
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11897619/legarrette-blount-released-pittsburgh-steelers

One little blurb within -

Bell, rookie Dri Archer and Josh Harris -- who was promoted from the practice squad after Blount's release -- are the only running backs on Pittsburgh's 53-man roster.

There are a handful of veteran free-agent running backs eligible to be signed to fill the void left by Blount's release.

But running back Ben Tate, who was waived by the Browns on Tuesday after falling out of favor in Cleveland, has not drawn any interest from the Steelers, a source told ESPN.

So according to ESPN research, Ben Tate WAS available at the time, and the Steelers passed - or at least as far as ESPN analysts were aware.

So Tate wasn't good enough then, but he sure was good enough with one week to prepare.