Game 3 : Steelers @ Colts : 09.25.11

[JerryGlanville]

The fact is, Kevin Colbert signs the players, him and the scouts, scout them. he signs them. tomlin can be included in this stuff. Tomlin is present for combine work, try outs and all of those things. Every coach whether they are a rookie or Vet are involved in those things. The question is whether that involvement is more than just analyzing and presenting recommendations or something more.

I don't know, what do you honestly think? I mean, either he's totally disregarded, which would be further proof that he's simply a figurehead coach or he is involved in some capacity. Again, what do you honestly think? Either way, it's pretty questionable how much development he and the coaching staff are doing with the players drafted.

Why the hell is that Tomlin's responsibility? Is it Tomlin's responsibility to wipe their asses and spoon feed them breakfast, dinner and lunch? Is he supposed to hold their hands when they walk across the street and tickle their nut sacs to get them erections? These are 6,7 and 8 figure players out on the field that have been playing this game for most of their lives. They're grown adults.

You can take what a head coach is responsible for (ie, preparing the team, having them ready to go, etc.) and spin into stupid comparisons like wiping their asses and it doesn't make it any less true. When his teams constantly show up flat, unprepared, etc. which has happened a good bit under Tomlin, that is a problem that lies directly with Tomlin and his staff, NOT Colbert, who you seem to like to blame for everything that happens on the field.

Did the buck stop with the head coach every time the Cleveland Browns went through one and they kept losing and looking bad. How about the Detroit Lions? New England Patriots for all of those years where they were rotten and going through coaches? Most times coaches are only as good as the players that they are given and then the good coaches find ways to best utilize that talent schematically but rarely outside of an unexplainable fluke does a coach win without good talent. Coaches can take good talent and help make it better, but you rarely find any instances of bad talent being turned good..

Wait, you're comparing this Steelers team to the horrible teams that Detroit, Cleveland and New England had? This team has A LOT of talent on it. And that's just it, this team wins and loses mostly on the performance of raw talent (Ben and Troy make plays out of nothing on a regular basis). When has Tomlin ever outcoached another team? Honestly, when? Has it ever happened?

All teams play down to the competition.

Sure, but the Steelers do it on a REGULAR basis. Just look at the last two seasons. Again, that is ultimately a reflection of Tomlin and the coaching staff. Remember, Colbert doesn't coach these guys!

Sure. if the players are playing great then they are obviously executing the game plan put forth by the coaches. It also helps to have good talent too. That's not rocket science. The other side of the coin is that when the team plays bad, for some suddenly it has nothing to do with execution and everything to do with the coaches. Turnovers? Nah, not the players fault, not a problem with execution.

I'd be more willing to buy into this if the gameplan was actually different from week to week and attacked an opponents weakness. It isn't. How is that putting the players in the best possible position to be successful?

I'm not saying coaches don't ever deserve some blame. They do. They aren't perfect. They make some bad calls. Every coach does and always has and always will. No coach is perfect, but most times, when a team loses, or looks bad in winning like the Steelers did tonight, it's the players fault for failing to execute, for getting outplayed by their opponent.

The coaches are responsible for putting the players in the best position to be successful and win the game. Is that honestly happening with the Steelers? You really think so? I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, because I sure don't see it.

[Lady Steel]

It's the players job to man the **** up and kick ***.

Bottom line.

[Kipper]

I don't know, what do you honestly think? I mean, either he's totally disregarded, which would be further proof that he's simply a figurehead coach or he is involved in some capacity. Again, what do you honestly think? Either way, it's pretty questionable how much development he and the coaching staff are doing with the players drafted.

I don't believe that he is that involved to be honest. Again, me and you are splitting hairs because neither of us know for sure which is really my ultimate point. You don't know that type of sway he has with personnel choices and decisions. Therefor you can't be blaming Tomlin for things that there's no factual evidence of. You certainly can't do it without being called out to present some concrete proof of the allegations.

When it becomes just general assumption and speculation not used for finger pointing and blame but general discussion, I don't see Tomlin as the meddling type. Whether that's one's preference for a coach or not is another story, but Tomlin has always presented himself and has made various comments towards allowing people to do the jobs that they are paid to do. He no doubt has his say in everything and moreso when it comes to O and D Coordinating and the game plans but when it comes to positions that are above him in the hierarchy chain, I see him more as the type that gives his recommendations to Colbert, discusses personnel and different choices but ultimately relies on and depends on the resources provided by the Steelers scouting department and the ultimate choice made by the GM/Colbert.

That's not being a figurehead, that's recognizing boundaries, rightfully allowing others to perform the jobs that they are hired for and paid to perform. Not every coach has to be a Bill Cowher and Mike Holmgren type who have to have egotistical control over every little thing. Some guys like a Holmgren enjoyed the GM aspect of the sport, not every coach does, not every coach has that skill or ability. most times, 99% of the times it's best if the coach isn't interfering with the GM and the scouting department IMO. That's my opinion. I'm the type that lets people do what they are supposed to do.

Wait, you're comparing this Steelers team to the horrible teams that Detroit, Cleveland and New England had? This team has A LOT of talent on it. And that's just it, this team wins and loses mostly on the performance of raw talent (Ben and Troy make plays out of nothing on a regular basis). When has Tomlin ever outcoached another team? Honestly, when? Has it ever happened?

You answered my question. This team has a lot of talent on it. That was my point that you overlooked. Those teams I mentioned continuously suck despite going through coaches all of the time. In your world, the coaches are responsible for those crappy results. Those teams would be better at some point with a different coach, right? That's the blame that you are always presenting. Blame the coaches. Even when you attempt to blame the players, you are really devising that as a smoke screen while you muster up more blame for the coaches. Yet, those teams go through coaches and coaches and the team continues to stink. It's the talent on the team that matters the most. Win or lose, the talent makes most of the difference. That isn't to say that coaches don't have their place, they certainly do, but the reality of the sport and any sport is that the players play, the coaches aren't out there on the field competing where the game is played. It's about the players manning up winning the one on one skilled competitions out there on the field every week. Taking what the coaches give them, teach them and using it.

The players that are trotted out on that field are obtained by the GM's/Director of Football Operations. They are the ones that construct the team, the coaches are the ones that have to try and put those players obtained by the GM/DFO into positions to succeed.

Did Bill Belichick become a genius headocach over night after he went to New England or did he simply have better surrounding talent that could execute his game plans? He obviously didn't fair too well in Cleveland and he ran the club pretty similar, used his play book, schemes etc...

Every coach is only as good as the talent that he has. The same coach could run the same plays with2 different teams and get 2 different results all based on the differences between talent that is on the field. Games that can be won and lost in an instant are often done so because of the players on the field and their execution, not the coaches

Sure, but the Steelers do it on a REGULAR basis. Just look at the last two seasons. Again, that is ultimately a reflection of Tomlin and the coaching staff. Remember, Colbert doesn't coach these guys!

The Steelers went to the Super Bowl last season. If that is an issue for you regarding the coaching staff, I heard that the Dawg Pound is lookig for some new members

I'd be more willing to buy into this if the gameplan was actually different from week to week and attacked an opponents weakness. It isn't. How is that putting the players in the best possible position to be successful?

I personally saw a team come out in Indianapolis are put jup 10 points in the first quarter, stop the Colts offense with ease and have their way with the Colts secondary which hadn't performed all that bad this season and was in the Top half of the league least season. 10 points per quarter translates to 40 points per game. You act like there's only 1 team that plays on the field and there's only 11 players out on the field. You live in this fantasy world where the Steelers should score on every drive and pitch shut outs every game and that simply is notwhere near reality and illogical.

Want to talk about weakneeses? the Indianapolis Colts run defense coming into this game was their biggest weakness. They were giving up an average of 4.6 yards per carry going into Sunday nights game. They gave up 4.6 yards per carry last season. The interior of their run defense is horrible. We attacked that weakness like you wanted except that the players failed to execute as the O-Line failed miserably to open up anything resembling a hole. You can attack something all that you want but if the players fail to execute that attack, what was a possible weakness to exploit disappears.

The coaches are responsible for putting the players in the best position to be successful and win the game. Is that honestly happening with the Steelers? You really think so? I guess that's where we ultimately disagree, because I sure don't see it.

I believe so. Are the Steelers havign chances on the field to execute and produce? I see plenty of opportunity out on the field to produce and a lack of execution to produce. Every Turnover leads to a loss opportunity to produce points. Every dropped ball, missed block, failure to open a hole, inability to get shed coverage, shed a block, get pressure, get a sack, make a block, cover, is a missed opportunity to execute.

In a game of Football, every play won't be a successful one, but the Steelers right now are a victim of their own mistakes, not the coaches failure to put them into positions to succeed. 7 Turnovers against Baltimore, 3 more against Indianapolis. Roethlisberger has thrown 3 TD's to 4 Int's. The team as a whole has 6 combined fumbles. Eliminate the harm that the players are putting on themselves with dreadful ball protection and you likely have different and better outcomes. We definitely won't be having this conversation.

[JerryGlanville]

I don't believe that he is that involved to be honest. Again, me and you are splitting hairs because neither of us know for sure which is really my ultimate point. You don't know that type of sway he has with personnel choices and decisions. Therefor you can't be blaming Tomlin for things that there's no factual evidence of. You certainly can't do it without being called out to present some concrete proof of the allegations.

Very true, but it's extremely hard to believe that the coaching staff doesn't have at least SOME input on who is selected. But like I said, it's hard to see too much development being done with the players selected, regardless. I do agree that Colbert and whoever is responsible for the O-linemen selections have, for the most part, done a horrible job in this area of the team. But again, that could partially be the coaches input that has to do with those selections.

The players that are trotted out on that field are obtained by the GM's/Director of Football Operations. They are the ones that construct the team, the coaches are the ones that have to try and put those players obtained by the GM/DFO into positions to succeed.

I think in some ways you have that backwards. The FO is responsible for finding the right players to fit the type of schemes the coaches implement into the team (ie, Lebeau's 3-4), etc. I mean, the coaches aren't sitting back and waiting for random players to be drafted and then buliding schemes around those players. This ESPECIALLY applies to the Steelers! And again, I think the coaches have a good bit of input for exactly the reason stated above.

Did Bill Belichick become a genius headocach over night after he went to New England or did he simply have better surrounding talent that could execute his game plans? He obviously didn't fair too well in Cleveland and he ran the club pretty similar, used his play book, schemes etc...

Belichick actually took a fairly mediocre Browns team to the playoffs one year. And some of those Pats teams that won the SB weren't exactly loaded with talent. Remember how everyone picked the Rams to annihilate the Pats in their first SB appearance under Belichick? The Rams were completely outcoached in that game, which is a big reason they lost. The Pats didn't have more talent than the Rams.

I agree that talent plays a big role in the success of a team, but coaching plays a huge role as well, especially in today's NFL. Which is my point in regards to continually playing down to teams. Happens all the time under Tomlin and 2009 is a perfect example of what can happen when questionable coaching allows that to happen too often.

Every coach is only as good as the talent that he has.

To a certain extent, but coaching, scheme, gameplanning, discipline, etc. all has just as much to do with the success of a team. To say it's only talent is simply not true, Kip.

I personally saw a team come out in Indianapolis are put jup 10 points in the first quarter, stop the Colts offense with ease and have their way with the Colts secondary which hadn't performed all that bad this season and was in the Top half of the league least season. 10 points per quarter translates to 40 points per game.

And how many points did the Steelers offense score in that game? 16!! Three of which came in the final seconds of the game. This is the MO with the Steelers under Arians and Tomlin. Come out with a good drive and then stall the rest of the game while going away from what was working and try to run to victory. Same story in almost every game.

We attacked that weakness like you wanted except that the players failed to execute as the O-Line failed miserably to open up anything resembling a hole. You can attack something all that you want but if the players fail to execute that attack, what was a possible weakness to exploit disappears.

The Steelers attacked that weakness by running virtually the same play (up the middle) repeatedly on 1st down over and over again after scoring 10 points in this game. That is just boneheaded playcalling, coaching, gameplanning, etc. But that is par for course for Arians, especially in the run game. Not exactly putting your team in the best position to be successful.

I believe so. Are the Steelers havign chances on the field to execute and produce? I see plenty of opportunity out on the field to produce and a lack of execution to produce. Every Turnover leads to a loss opportunity to produce points. Every dropped ball, missed block, failure to open a hole, inability to get shed coverage, shed a block, get pressure, get a sack, make a block, cover, is a missed opportunity to execute.

There is technically opportunity to produce on pretty much any play in football. The difference is what are the chances of producing given the situation, scheme, playcall and execution.

Scheme, gameplanning and playcalling play a huge role in the outcome in any given play. Like you said, there is another team playing on the other side of the ball, which is why it's crucial to put the players in the best possible position to be successful instead of simply telling a player "Go out and produce, playcall and scheme be ****ed." I just want to see a big improvement in those areas. Execution as well.