We need a new Head Coach.......FIRE TOMLIN NOW!!!
- Thread starter Chicoman
- Start date
- Status
When I went to the game in 2007 vs Buffalo, I watched Reid. He was clearly a ******* *****. I will not exaggerate in stating that when he was on the sideline, he stayed as far away from Tomlin as he could. If Tomlin was walking from the open end of the field towards the closed end (on the sideline), Reid would walk around players, towards the bench and go the other way. And, I didn't want Reid either.
Touche, Sir ... Well played indeed.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,879
- Reaction score
- 940
- Points
- 113
The top of your head must be assploding because I'm not defending anybody. I am also not looking back on a guy who had a decent run and acting like he was Vince Lombardi or some great talent evaluator either. I didn't dislike Cowher at all other than his FG Bill bullshit for years. He took plenty of heat here, and had his staunch defenders too. It's the way these kinds of things work. Why it has to keep coming back to everyone being labeled a homer/nuthugger/hater for every opinion is ridiculous.
I took the time to check on both regimes and their first eight drafts. The ones after that for CowBertHoe mean squat when you compare them unless you have a damn crystal ball and can predict what the next five drafts will bring, and how those kids who are now in college or high school will pan out. Some of you are so wrapped up in your bullshit, I'm smarter than everyone else drivel that you don't even compare apples to apples half the time. Look at those first eight drafts and find me a real way where they were worlds better than these last eight. Don't get sand in your vagina, it isn't personal. You boys like proof so damn much, post it without making up what might happen. Just those eight, can you do it? Good luck already.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Cowher's first eight drafts included Hines, Faneca, Kirkland, Aaron Smith, Porter, Gildon, Steed at its apex. Role players included Darren Perry, Townsend, Roye, Holmes, Bruener, Buckner, Henry, and Willie Williams. Guys who were good with us then went on to greener pastures included Chad Brown, Searcy, and Vrabel. Yes, in my eyes, WORLDS better. Worlds and worlds and worlds. And I think that's inarguable. With all due respect, your evaluation of Tomlin's first eight drafts was pretty starry-eyed.
Obviously we can't see the future, but I have to ask: what would make anyone expect Tomlin's next few drafts to even compare to what Cowher built from 2000-06? Of course anything could happen, and Derek Jeter could become the next great synchronized swimmer, but until Tomlin shows some ability to draft anything but WRs and RBs, I don't have much hope there.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I have been giving a lot of thought to how having a franchise level QB on the roster changes the way a coach coaches.
There seems to be a big pattern in the NFL (not just here) that once a franchise quarterback is in place, there is a degradation of the physical play and intensity the rest of the team plays with. Some may say it's a salary cap issue, but I don't think so. I think there is something subconscious going on that teams kind of "expect" to win a certain way with the quarterback providing the heroics.
To me, the physical, workmanlike teams were built because they HAD to play that way because they knew some hot-shot QB wasn't going to save their season or butter their bread. New England built their dynasty when Brady wasn't Brady. When all the little things counted or they WOULDN'T WIN GAMES.
Cowher built the Steelers when we had **** at QB.
How did Newsome and Harbaugh build Baltimore? That locker room didn't think Flacco was anything.
Same thing with Harbaugh in San Francisco and Carroll in Seattle.
They all built great rosters and physical teams and concentrated on the little things FIRST because that's the only way they could win games. It wasn't until the team combined that level of detail oriented play AND physical style AND got a quarterback to come through that they started having success. But the minute the quarterback started getting too much press or too much love or was too much part of the game plan, there went the physical play, there went the detail, there went the consistency.
Obviously, this isn't black or white or some magical hard and fast rule. Indianapolis and New Orleans won super bowls late in their franchise QB's careers (albeit with somewhat soft teams). Denver and New England are still pretty competitive (although their toughness has been questioned of late).
I don't know what happens to teams or how much to blame the head coach, but there appears once the quarterback gets established the ability of a team to play physical, mistake-free, intense football that concentrates on the little things gets lost. The formula for winning becomes "do everything to give the quarterback the ability to win the game" rather than "find all the little things to win the game".
It's just an odd observation I see happening here, in New Orleans, in San Francisco, in New England, in Denver. Even in Green Bay, the team has underachieved of late because of "lack of physicality", mental mistakes and overconfidence.
There seems to be a big pattern in the NFL (not just here) that once a franchise quarterback is in place, there is a degradation of the physical play and intensity the rest of the team plays with. Some may say it's a salary cap issue, but I don't think so. I think there is something subconscious going on that teams kind of "expect" to win a certain way with the quarterback providing the heroics.
To me, the physical, workmanlike teams were built because they HAD to play that way because they knew some hot-shot QB wasn't going to save their season or butter their bread. New England built their dynasty when Brady wasn't Brady. When all the little things counted or they WOULDN'T WIN GAMES.
Cowher built the Steelers when we had **** at QB.
How did Newsome and Harbaugh build Baltimore? That locker room didn't think Flacco was anything.
Same thing with Harbaugh in San Francisco and Carroll in Seattle.
They all built great rosters and physical teams and concentrated on the little things FIRST because that's the only way they could win games. It wasn't until the team combined that level of detail oriented play AND physical style AND got a quarterback to come through that they started having success. But the minute the quarterback started getting too much press or too much love or was too much part of the game plan, there went the physical play, there went the detail, there went the consistency.
Obviously, this isn't black or white or some magical hard and fast rule. Indianapolis and New Orleans won super bowls late in their franchise QB's careers (albeit with somewhat soft teams). Denver and New England are still pretty competitive (although their toughness has been questioned of late).
I don't know what happens to teams or how much to blame the head coach, but there appears once the quarterback gets established the ability of a team to play physical, mistake-free, intense football that concentrates on the little things gets lost. The formula for winning becomes "do everything to give the quarterback the ability to win the game" rather than "find all the little things to win the game".
It's just an odd observation I see happening here, in New Orleans, in San Francisco, in New England, in Denver. Even in Green Bay, the team has underachieved of late because of "lack of physicality", mental mistakes and overconfidence.
you are well aware that you can say the things you listed above without actually typing those words. The tone of many of the anti-Tomlin crowd is that EVERYTHING is his fault.
I don't bash the posters who have been here a long time and typically try to support their irrational hatred of all things Tomlin. Those who have joined more recently ( or are new names for older banned posters) do get bashed for their mindless bashing of Tomlin, without any rational support for their viewpoint...
as supe says, this place in unbearable after a loss and it is even sucky after a win with all the "well we won but Tomlin should have done_________" threads or comments.
The team is in the middle of the playoff hunt and has actually shown something not seen in a while.....mid game adjustments (like how they handled the Titans)...but here we are after a huge divisional win, bitching about Tomlin......
this is worse than a religion debate over in the P&R forum.....
Interesting Take Del. I suppose once a Franchise QB is on the team, the focus of: Lets draft physical players early, changes to: We need to get our QB some playmakers and protect his ***. The teams draft for finesse, and defense is viewed as a lower priority. I can see how this line of reasoning makes sense.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 2,737
- Points
- 113
Really?
Because i think Scott Farkus and his little toadie Grover Dills are the problem.
IMO, this is a football discussion board. Discuss football. Sometimes opinions differ. Debate is healthy. Personal attacks are not. Personal attacks that jump from thread to thread are worse. Dri Archer Had a thread, Tomlin has one. Personal attacks jump from thread to thread and you can see examples of that this evening. Just ask Omar.
The football acumen of this board took a severe hit when we lost several quality posters during the Dri Archer debate. Long time posters who just said **** it. Posters like Dobre Shunka, TMC and the recently returned Del.They didn't leave because someone had a contrary opinion about a coach or player. They left because they are tired of all the bull ****.
It is possible to be happy that the Steelers won and still be concerned about the direction of the team and anybody should be free to express that and engage in debate without the insults from the chuckle head, follow the leader, karma crowd.
debate is fine and there is blame on both sides of the Tomlin issue. I just have issues with blind bitching just to *****....which occurs too often. even after wins. I didn't see a lot of complaints about the Ike thread....because that is an obvious weakness right now......
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
We're back!!!
FIRE TOMLIN! YEAH!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!
No really but Fire Tomlin tho
FIRE TOMLIN! YEAH!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!
No really but Fire Tomlin tho
I
Idioteque
Guest
Oh God, just let this thread die....
Can we re-open the Archer thread too?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,879
- Reaction score
- 940
- Points
- 113
You know, if you honestly believe me saying offensively they have done a better job, but they have to get their **** together on the defensive side of the ball is starry eyed I guess I'm confused by your definition of starry eyed? Inarguable on defense? Absolutely. Offensively I think the newer regime has been better. The skill position players aren't all that close the first eight years. Brown, Bell, Sanders, Wallace are better as a whole than Ward, Holmes and Bruener. I loved Hines Ward, but he can't cancel out that many players by himself. And one great playoff run aside, Stonio hasn't done **** since he left, and he wasn't near the WR Brown was when he was here. ****, I'd take Wallace or Sanders over him too. I'm talking overall career, not one great run.
Maybe they need someone else to help them out scouting defensive players, but Woodley, Timmons and Allen aren't exactly busts either. It's easy to talk about guys who's careers are either long over, or winding down because you know how they will finish out. A good number of the new regime picks aren't even close to playing out. Vrabel carved out a niche for hoodie, nobody in Pittsburgh saw **** in him. He barely saw the field. I'll go out on a limb and say some players will end up as good as the contributors/role players you pointed out like Bruener, Roye, Buckner, Henry and Williams from the drafts in the last eight years before all is said and done. Contributor is a relative term.
We disagree, and in the grand scheme of things that's quite alright. At least it hasn't gotten chippy, just a difference in opinion. I agree, you're right about the defense to that point. We just can't see the offensive side the same way. I did appreciate the Jeter reference though.
I
Idioteque
Guest
"Starry-eyed" wasn't the best term. I only meant that I thought your breakdown of Tomlin's draftees was a little too optimistic to be objective. I look at guys like Marcus Gilbert, Mike Adams, and Jason Worilds, and I generally see failures. I'm not impressed by them winning starting jobs; that's the standard for a second-round pick. I ask a guy like that to become somewhat good - not just start, but become a solid starter. I can't call them works in progress or say "Well, they're young, we'll talk in 5 years" because that's not how things work anymore. You can almost always tell in a guys first or second year the shape his career is likely to take. No, you can't tell anything too concrete, and yes, there are a few exceptions. But in today's NFL, rookies are asked very frequently to learn on the go and be above-the-line contributors from the start. Even quarterbacks, for God's sake. So I don't need to sit idly until I've seen several seasons of Mike Adams to have low, low expectations. And we have too many guys who fall into that category IMO. Too many of our guys are just "get by" types, and too many more aren't even good enough for that. We've spent two #1s and a #2 building a d-line that can't stop the run. We've spent several #2s and #3s building a pass rush that is so anemic the Ghost of Silverback is again our best pass rusher. We've spent two #2s trying to fill the RT spot and neither are starting-caliber.
Yes, Bell and Brown are PHENOMENAL players and both are important to our success. But we all know that having a dynamite RB and/or wideout don't guarantee you anything in this sport. They go for naught when you don't have core pieces everywhere else. While those were two HUGE hits for Tomlin's record, they don't mean much when the line sucks and the defense is awful. And they mean even less when you spend most of your time in stupid gameplans that don't utilize their talents fully or get into the end zone. We certainly had our share of draft whiffs before Tomlin, but we always built a well-rounded core of talent. By the time Tomlin got here, we had talent at the skill positions, across the o-line, and throughout the front seven. (Which doesn't even say anything to the HOF SS we molded behind them.) Until Tomlin shows he can assemble more than an exciting group of skill position guys - or at least learn to score points consistently with them - then I have to look at our personnel team as lacking.
Last edited:
So we really didn't come from the Big Bang??? Wow. Science is the shiznizzle!!!!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,102
- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 113
I would appreciate more commas
I
Idioteque
Guest
Yes, but we've seen this movie before. A sudden burst of awesomeness, winning a huge game or two at midseason.. hell, we saw it a few weeks ago.. it hasn't really lasted since 2010. So there's some skepticism. It's hard for me to believe all of our problems have just suddenly solved themselves after all these years.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,102
- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 113
2005 or 2008?
I
Idioteque
Guest
Can't say I can compare this team to those
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,102
- Reaction score
- 11,861
- Points
- 113
Not yet you can't.
Who is Archer ?
I
Idioteque
Guest
Well, that team was a perennial SB contender from 04 on. This core has missed the playoffs twice in a row and hasn't won since 2010. You're right; I surely don't know the future and anything could happen. But this team is just loaded with ifs.
- Status
Similar threads
