Register

Board index » Stillers Talk » Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Anything and everything about the Pittsburgh Steelers
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:48 pm

Just heard the news. They are interviewing him. Two quick thoughts :

1) This is the real reason why the Cards have always and will always be a bad team.

2) How is the screening process around the NFL ? All I'm hearing is a lot of the same names. And what is even more disturbing is that they are selecting in 4/5 days somebody that will be paid millions. That is bs. No screening process whatsoever. A normal person would get weeks in order to get a good normal job. Here we are talking about premium jobs ( all 32 in the NFL are ). Beside Saban to the Browns (?) it all looks like... hmm let's give a call to x or y. No logic whatsoever. Where is the process ? Owners will pay tons of money. For me it is very disturbing.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby SoCal Stiller » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:15 pm

History has proven that organizational stability breeds success. The majority of the NFL's owners are and have always been too impatient to allow coaches to constuct a perennial winning team. This works to our advantage in most cases. Where the Steelers fail is that they are too slow to develop their young players and do not rotate personnel enough, though some areas were due to injury. With many players past 30, this is a factor for late game and late season success, especially if the offense is not controlling TOP.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:11 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Steelers76 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:42 pm

I think Whiz was axed too early considering what he's done with that franchise. Just off the top of my head;

-2008 and 2009 AFC West Division Champs.

-2008 NFC Champions in just his 2nd year as H.C. Came within less than minutes of upsetting us for The S.B. Title.

-4 post-season wins in his first 3 years in AZ.

-Finished .500 or better in 4 of 6 seasons with a franchise that is known for it's losing ways over the years.



Seems to me I would have gotten rid of their G.M. first.(If they haven't already?) Didn't exactly help them the past few years via the draft and F.A.
Last edited by Steelers76 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby SoCal Stiller » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:18 pm

I completely agree 76. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's obvious to everyone except Bidwell that the problem with that team is in personnel decision making, which falls on the owner and the GM. This is exactly what I'm talking about with these perennial losers - the wrong guy usually gets the axe.

You have to consider that the GM spends a lot more time having coffee or cocktails with the owner as compared to the coach, which means they're more likely to be buddy-buddy. One cannot deny that the personal relationship gained from time spent with another factors in to business decisions. It's the same in the regular work place, at least manufacturing anyway. The foreman or lead knows and does everything, yet the jack-off in the suit takes all of the credit when things are good and the guy on the floor who really makes shit happen gets the blame when shit hits the fan even though the failure was the direct result of poor management.

:?
Last edited by SoCal Stiller on Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:40 pm

SoCal Stiller wrote:I completely agree 76. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's obvious to everyone except Bidwell that the problem with that team is in personnel decision making, which falls on the owner and the GM. This is exactly what I'm talking about with these perennial losers - the wrong guy usually gets the axe.

You have to consider that the GM spends a lot more time having coffee or cocktails with the owner as compared to the coach, which means they're more likely to be buddy-buddy. One cannot deny that the personal relationship gained from time spent with another does not factor in to business decisions. It's the same in the regular work place, at least manufacturing anyway. The foreman or lead knows and does everything, yet the jack-off in the suit takes all of the credit when things are good and the guy on the floor who really makes shit happen gets the blame when shit hits the fan even though the failure was the direct result of poor management.

:?


What I meant was different. Today the Chiefs have hired Andy Reid. I mean his last two years were pitiful. Why don't you try a Chip Kelly ? You take somebody that his not doing good while you have people rolling it... I don't know .. just my thought. How can you even think about Hailey after this year ? Steelers offense didn't anything. His Chiefs underachieved. I cannot find a clue

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby SoCal Stiller » Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:35 pm

I thought Haley's system wasn't too bad, but the execution sucked and WR's were making mistakes all over the place. When you add in o-line injuries, you end up with 8-8. Haley was told to improve the running game and to protect Ben, but was given a shit o-line to accompish it. Bill Walsh couldn't get these guys into the playoffs, especially when you lollygag, fumble, drop passes, and throw interceptions.

I hope that gives you a clue. :suxfingers:

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Pommah » Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:10 pm

Mid season we tore off some ~150 yard rushing games, then it all went kaput. How did that happen? What were we doing to get that kind of production, only to see it fall away? Purely o-line? Doesn't seem right to me. I can't understand this one. The $64 question. If we could rush like that every game we'd have been 12-4 easy.

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby trenches » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:54 am

Pommah wrote:Mid season we tore off some ~150 yard rushing games, then it all went kaput. How did that happen? What were we doing to get that kind of production, only to see it fall away? Purely o-line? Doesn't seem right to me. I can't understand this one. The $64 question. If we could rush like that every game we'd have been 12-4 easy.


The rushing demise started against KC when Ben got hurt. That was a factor in the running game. The home game against BAL was the only above the line performance after the 158 yard performance against the G-men. When Ben did return, he wasn't the same QB and I'd attribute that as a factor. Add the o-line carousel and you have another factor. Finally, add turnovers... the Steelers lost the turnover battle in 5 of the final 7 games -- turnovers clearly impacted the Cleveland game.

    Break down the final 8 games:
  • KC - Ben was hurt, weather made it hard to throw and the Chiefs dared the Steelers to throw
  • BAL - while the team had 134 total yards rushing, remember that 31 were by Lefty in the most shocking run of all-time making the remainder of the running output about average at a little under 4.0 yd/carry. Add the fact that Lefty was hurt and everyone knew (including the BAL D) -- except Tomlin -- and that makes the running output pretty miraculous, though.
  • @CLE - 8 turnovers, 'nough said
  • @BAL - 96 yards rushing (3.7 yd/carry) with Batch at QB wasn't great but still adequate in the spot
  • SD - Steelers went down 3-0 in the 1st and were down 27-3 in the 3rd. Ben wasn't sharp (22 of 42 on the day), the o-line blew and they had to play from behind putting a damper on the running game.
  • @DAL - Only 69 yards but 4.05 yd/carry. Here I'd argue against the play calling. Dwyer was sub-par (9 totes for 22 yards) yet Redman got only 3 carries (for 30 yards).
  • CIN - 96 total yards but only 3.1 yd/carry -- abysmal! Offensive line play was awful, Ben was bad and that kills a running game.
  • CLE - Meaningless game so who cares.

So, Pommah, I think the viewpoint for your question is skewed because it wasn't like the team had everything going through 8 games and it just disappeared. Did they ever really have it? I'd say that the running game was never really lost. Like the rest of the effort in 2012, it was there sometimes and non-existent in others. While they had a strong effort in 4 of 5 games in the middle of the season, they sucked ass the first 4 of 5 games and then finished for crap. In reality they only had 5 strong rushing performances in 2012 -- that's less than one strong performance every 3 games. A good running game was a fluke not a rule in 2012. If they could have done ANYTHING consistently in 2012 (catching the ball, holding onto the ball, tackling, etc.) they would have won a chunk more games. Unfortunately, this team had the consistency of diarrhea and so the season went....straight down the toilet.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:12 pm

trenches wrote:So, Pommah, I think the viewpoint for your question is skewed because it wasn't like the team had everything going through 8 games and it just disappeared. Did they ever really have it? I'd say that the running game was never really lost. Like the rest of the effort in 2012, it was there sometimes and non-existent in others. While they had a strong effort in 4 of 5 games in the middle of the season, they sucked ass the first 4 of 5 games and then finished for crap. In reality they only had 5 strong rushing performances in 2012 -- that's less than one strong performance every 3 games. A good running game was a fluke not a rule in 2012. If they could have done ANYTHING consistently in 2012 (catching the ball, holding onto the ball, tackling, etc.) they would have won a chunk more games. Unfortunately, this team had the consistency of diarrhea and so the season went....straight down the toilet.


Trenches I think your numbers say only one thing :

Running game does not matter anymore. If you have or not it is not fundamental to the game result. All you need in todays game is a QB and a passing game. RB can become useful but is not necessary. That is why it is important to have one very good QB and a good back up. I loved the pick Washington made on Cousins. Also Seattle with Flynn and Wilson. I wish we could draft somebody ( already said my dream is Mariota of Oregon )

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby trenches » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:51 pm

Ohio wrote:Trenches I think your numbers say only one thing :

Running game does not matter anymore. If you have or not it is not fundamental to the game result. All you need in todays game is a QB and a passing game. RB can become useful but is not necessary. That is why it is important to have one very good QB and a good back up. I loved the pick Washington made on Cousins. Also Seattle with Flynn and Wilson. I wish we could draft somebody ( already said my dream is Mariota of Oregon )


I wouldn't say the running game doesn't matter. In reality, the role of a pure running game has diminished but teams still need ball control. A pure running game has been superseded by a running game in combination with a short passing game.

    Of the top 10 scoring offenses:
  • How many had a run ranking in the bottom third of the league? The answer: 2 - Saints and Falcons. Where are the Saints now? That means 90% of the top 10 scoring offenses can run the ball.
  • How many had a time of possession ranking in the bottom third of the league? The answer: 3 - Saints, Giants and Ravens. Where are the Saints and Giants? At home like you and I. Again, 90% of the top scoring offenses also possess the ball.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, if you're curious, ranked 22nd in scoring offense, 26th in run ranking and ranked 2ND, that's right, 2nd in time of possession. They possessed the ball but couldn't grind out 1st downs when needed, couldn't make plays (i.e. Skillet Hands Wallace & Edroppuel Sanders) and failed miserably at -20 in the turnover/takeaway department. 40 turnover's to 20 takeaways is just pitiful. Anyway, a running game alone doesn't preclude you from have a successful offense but don't be mislead that it doesn't matter any more. If you a) can't run the football and/or b) don't have a ball control passing game, you put a strain on your defense and it's not a very good equation for success in the NFL.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:45 pm

trenches wrote:I wouldn't say the running game doesn't matter. In reality, the role of a pure running game has diminished but teams still need ball control. A pure running game has been superseded by a running game in combination with a short passing game.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, if you're curious, ranked 22nd in scoring offense, 26th in run ranking and ranked 2ND, that's right, 2nd in time of possession. They possessed the ball but couldn't grind out 1st downs when needed, couldn't make plays (i.e. Skillet Hands Wallace & Edroppuel Sanders) and failed miserably at -20 in the turnover/takeaway department. 40 turnover's to 20 takeaways is just pitiful. Anyway, a running game alone doesn't preclude you from have a successful offense but don't be mislead that it doesn't matter any more. If you a) can't run the football and/or b) don't have a ball control passing game, you put a strain on your defense and it's not a very good equation for success in the NFL.


Trenches what I'm meaning is : 1980s You run to set up the pass. 2010s You pass... and that sets up the run.

I mean,if you take out the Vikings, have you seen the old heavy packages ? New Englands, Indianapolis and another bunch of team use two TEs... Just to see them catch the ball. Rarely both blocking.

I agree with you that the tendency is short - medium range passes. And that is #1 priority for the offenses.

I believe that it is natural for top team to be high in the run rankings. If you are winning you are running. If you are losing you throw. Naturally playoff team tend to have more wins than losses. Which should mean that they could run a little more.

For what regards the steelers... Well your numbers didn't catch me by surprise. Problem is we have a lot of time of possession because we ALWAYS SNAP THE BALL WITH 1 OR 2 SECONDS LEFT. Even my son knows it. You have no idea how many times he went to quickly eat or go the bathroom just to come back with 5 seconds on the clock. Ahahahahahah

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby trenches » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:01 pm

Ohio wrote:For what regards the steelers... Well your numbers didn't catch me by surprise. Problem is we have a lot of time of possession because we ALWAYS SNAP THE BALL WITH 1 OR 2 SECONDS LEFT. Even my son knows it. You have no idea how many times he went to quickly eat or go the bathroom just to come back with 5 seconds on the clock. Ahahahahahah


You have a lot of good points. But best of all is your closing... lmao. Too true. Using the clock is a good strategy but you have to be able to keep the defense on their heals by changing the cadence of snapping the ball. That's related to one of Ben's gripes. He likes the no huddle for a couple of reasons; 1) he controls the flow of the game and has more input into the play calling and 2) it gives the offense leverage by eliminating the defense's ability to change personnel packages to suit their needs. As much as I get annoyed by Princess Ben's public persona, he has a legit gripe about the lack of no huddle in my opinion. Not only is it a good strategy to employ during periods of the game, it's in the franchise QB's comfort zone meaning that when things are not going well, the no huddle can "center" the QB and thus "center" the offense.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:25 pm

[quote="trenches" Using the clock is a good strategy but you have to be able to keep the defense on their heals by changing the cadence of snapping the ball. That's related to one of Ben's gripes. He likes the no huddle for a couple of reasons; 1) he controls the flow of the game and has more input into the play calling and 2) it gives the offense leverage by eliminating the defense's ability to change personnel packages to suit their needs. As much as I get annoyed by Princess Ben's public persona, he has a legit gripe about the lack of no huddle in my opinion. Not only is it a good strategy to employ during periods of the game, it's in the franchise QB's comfort zone meaning that when things are not going well, the no huddle can "center" the QB and thus "center" the offense.[/quote]

I would add : 3 ) No Huddle gives you more time in the pocket ( either being because of tired players or lack of substitutions ). And I agree that we should change pace once in a while just for the element of surprise ( my son jokes that the day we snap the ball with 25 seconds left we score a TD... ).

Trenches just watching this game. Indianapolis has 102 rushing yards. Baltimore 90. Problem is : Rice sets up the offense ( Flacco can throw it downfield because the Colts put 8 in the box ). Ballard ( or Moore ) can run because the Ravens have to defend the pass...

And by the way... I have no doubt that between the rookies QB Luck will be the better one. He is the only classic QB. He throws. RGIII and Wilson are runners. Which means : Luck plays in the pocket. Only if he has to he leaves it, runs or throws away. Wilson and RGIII have to move around. Their career will be much shorter...

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby trenches » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:57 pm

Ohio wrote:And by the way... I have no doubt that between the rookies QB Luck will be the better one. He is the only classic QB. He throws. RGIII and Wilson are runners. Which means : Luck plays in the pocket. Only if he has to he leaves it, runs or throws away. Wilson and RGIII have to move around. Their career will be much shorter...


It's a good point.

I also agree on your comment about having more pocket time with the no huddle due to having more time plus you have match ups working somewhat to your favor.

There's no doubt, based on your running comment, that there's a give and take and in today's game the running doesn't setup the pass. Still, ball control by run or short pass are a critical element. You need to be balanced and afford your defense time to rest and/or to eat clock when ahead.

As to the Ravens/Colts game, another ball control gain is what's killing the Colts though. They are lined up to stop the Ravens and aren't. Flacco isn't winning this game...the run (6.3 yd/carry) and short passing game are based on a couple of critical gains by the Ravens' Rice (47 yd dump off) and Pierce (43 yd run).

Side note... I hate the going to the ground rule. When a guy gets two feet, a knee, an elbow and a hip then gets hit and the ball comes out it should be a catch. Period. I find it very annoying. It's very different from a tip-toe on the sideline then fall to the ground scenario which what the rule was written for.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:03 pm

trenches wrote:
Side note... I hate the going to the ground rule. When a guy gets two feet, a knee, an elbow and a hip then gets hit and the ball comes out it should be a catch. Period. I find it very annoying. It's very different from a tip-toe on the sideline then fall to the ground scenario which what the rule was written for.


If you noticed... actually the ball was hit by the knee of the defender. That's why the colts lost it. For me it was a completion. Anyway seems like the Ravens got away with this one. Just hope that this makes them pay average Joe even more.

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Pommah » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:04 pm

Great thread.

Wall Street Journal had an article about how the Pats scored the most points and ran the most plays. They don't waste any time. Try to get as many plays off as fast as possible.

You can't score if you don't play.

To me, Bellichick, who is supposedly a defensive guy, caught on that with the rules the way they are now, scoring is easy, all teams are going to score something, and it's all about scoring at a faster rate than your opponent does. The game now is about offense, not defense, a big switch from about the past 40 years, say 1968-2007. Old school coaches with a defensive outlook are passé. It's all about offensive sophistication now.

Do we have offensive sophistication? Not yet. We have been all about the D. Trib has pointed out how there is a big mismatch in spending, 2:1 in favor of the D. Hey, statistically we had the best D! That and 5 smacks buys you a cup of latte at Starbucks.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:14 am

Pommah wrote:Great thread.

Wall Street Journal had an article about how the Pats scored the most points and ran the most plays. They don't waste any time. Try to get as many plays off as fast as possible.

You can't score if you don't play.

To me, Bellichick, who is supposedly a defensive guy, caught on that with the rules the way they are now, scoring is easy, all teams are going to score something, and it's all about scoring at a faster rate than your opponent does. The game now is about offense, not defense, a big switch from about the past 40 years, say 1968-2007. Old school coaches with a defensive outlook are passé. It's all about offensive sophistication now.

Do we have offensive sophistication? Not yet. We have been all about the D. Trib has pointed out how there is a big mismatch in spending, 2:1 in favor of the D. Hey, statistically we had the best D! That and 5 smacks buys you a cup of latte at Starbucks.


That's why I wanted to see Kelly in the NFL. Think that he will have great deal of success. Teams are already copying him. Yesterday the Colts had a good success with an up tempo offense. They had more than 80 offensive plays. If I'm not wrong the NFL average for the season is around 65. Patriots snap it close to 80. Very curious to see what happens next weekend. But anyway I agree that the policy should be to snap it quick and snap it a lot. Only problem is ... Steelers are heading toward the opposite philosophy

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:29 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Pommah » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:41 pm

Ohio, you're onto it. It appears to me the most innovative thinking in football is coming from the college ranks. I really like what Pete Carroll is doing in Seattle. He had a disastrous time in the pros the first time around, but after spending a number of years in college, has really picked up his game.

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby SoCal Stiller » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:25 pm

I had been screaming for no-huddle all season, especially when the O was struggling. Also, I can't understand why we don't run more plays where you move the pocket by design. Ben is one of the better passers in the league thowing while moving right or left for that matter. I'm still with conventional thinking that it's better to have a guy who is a big, strong, and smart pocket passer than to have a mobile and athletic QB. History keeps repeating itself over and over the last 7 or 8 years with teams drafting QB's like Vick, Cam Newton, and RG3, but which QB's keep winning Superbowls?

:cheers:

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Hailey to the Cardinals ?

Postby Ohio » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:40 pm

SoCal Stiller wrote:I had been screaming for no-huddle all season, especially when the O was struggling. Also, I can't understand why we don't run more plays where you move the pocket by design. Ben is one of the better passers in the league thowing while moving right or left for that matter. I'm still with conventional thinking that it's better to have a guy who is a big, strong, and smart pocket passer than to have a mobile and athletic QB. History keeps repeating itself over and over the last 7 or 8 years with teams drafting QB's like Vick, Cam Newton, and RG3, but which QB's keep winning Superbowls?

:cheers:


SoCal completely agree with you. Pocket passer as Luck will be remembered. Guys like RGIII will be on the ESPN Highlights during the season. But I doubt he will complete a season without injury. I stated already : Washington long term QB will be Cousins. It would be fun to see if RGIII is out until October. I doubt he gets the job back...

Return to Stillers Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Don't be stingy, share: