And then again, sometimes a team just matches up better against the league powerhouse for intangible reasons. I saw the same type of intangible thing happen in the NBA during theearly 80s with a decent Houston Rocket (Robert reid) matching up well against one of the best NBA players ever (Larry Bird).
Larry Bird was able to score or assist almost at will against virtually any team or player in the league during that time period, except for a couple of people. One of those people was the no name player Robert Reid. Tho Reid wasn’t a defensive powerhouse in any sense of the phrase, when it came to Bird, he was pretty consistant in shutting him down. Why? Who knows, sometimes that match up just happens.
That’s the same type of feeling I get watching what may be this year’s best team struggling against the Jets. John Madden used to call it the Any Given Sunday Rule™. Sometimes, for no real discernable reason, it just happens.
And… (here’s the biggie)… the Steelers found a way around that and still won. Deserved? Since when is anything in the NFL deserved? The W at the end is what matters, what goes into the books.
Btw, I haven’t been a Steeler fan since 1975, I’m just offering my take on the continuing discussion.
NoClueBoy, I agree entirely. That is, it could be that the Jets show Rothlisberger something strange that makes him screw up. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what they might have done to make him throw the ball right to Tongue instead of getting it to Randle El for a touchdown, but it could be the Jets doing that explains Rothlisberger’s bad games.
But I would also point out again that it stops there. I don’t think a team can be said to “match up” well if they give up 100 yards rushing to one back and 50 to another.
McNabb has a propensity for bad reads; he is prone to ignoring or not seeing the smart play downfield to an open receiver and instead choosing either a) the safe dumpoff to a back or b) pulling down the ball and running. I suspect his athleticism is partly the reason he still doesn’t understand coverages well enough to mount an effective passing game. Why bother when he can just run? As evidence I point to the early part of the 2003 season, when pundits were in general agreement that this was a major factor in the Eagles poor play.
So it’s not really a change in my position. Looking back at that post, I chuckled at this exchange:
That’s pretty funny considering last week’s game.
But all other things can’t be equal. Scrambling detracts from your ability to read coverages, because the only way to learn how to do that is in games. It’s like the smart kid in highschool who never had to study because he could do well enough winging it. Then he gets to college and has to learn how to study because winging it doesn’t cut it anymore… Same concept with scrambling, if you consider the Superbowl to be college in this analogy.
McNabb is credible evidence to support my theory. A cursory glance at his career numbers shows that he was always a 50s percentage passer when he scrambled, and that was in a system that artificially inflates completion percentage. In a traditional system he likely would have been in the 40s. Now that he toned down the scrambling, he’s much more effective. TO gave him the confidence to hang in the pocket and try to pick apart defenses. And what do you know, that turns out to be a much more effective tactic for a QB to employ in the NFL.
Idle question that occurred to me looking at McNabb’s stats. What is a more impressive passing achievement in a season: 4000 yards or 30 touchdowns? Both are amazing, but are they equally so?
Oh yeah, unfortunately it looks like the Steelers are going to get crushed this week. How irritating it would be to lose the AFC Championship at home to the same team twice in four years. But it could be worse. You could be Peyton Manning. (The signing bonus helps ease the sting, I’m sure.)
Bradshaw’s good ol’ boy, “hyuk hyuk – I sure am crazy” routine on TV has made me want to severly distance myself from him. If I get any more throwbacks I will get a Lambert next.
OK, first I want to apologize to everybody not named Ellis, since we’re woefully off-topic, and I realize that nobody else much cares about this particular subject. Airman, it’s your thread, so if you like I’ll either start another thread elsewhere and let you guys have your Steelers thread back, or just drop it and let you guys have your Steelers thread back.
Right then:
OK, but we’ve hashed that part out before. Your opinion was that McNabb was too stupid and cowardly to be a good quarterback. I said he just didn’t have the weapons. The Eagles added a weapon, and McNabb had the only 30 touchdown/ sub-10 interception season in NFL history. I’m confident that my part of that particular aspect of the discussion was backed up by events. I mean, read that paragraph again, and then remind yourself that you were talking about a guy who was about to post one of the highest QB ratings ever, and then reconsider whether it’s not possible you were a little hasty to apply your pet theory here.
See, that’s what you’re saying, but I’m saying it isn’t so. It’s not really a falsifiable hypothesis, and the best we can do is bitch about it back and forth anyway, so here goes.
Here’s the best way I can get to the bottom of it. Let’s say you’re the 49ers right now, and there are two quarterbacks at the top of your draft board, with identical grades. They both graded out the exact same in terms of arm strength, reading defenses, leadership qualities, and all that, except that one runs a 4.5 and has great escapability, while the other is stone-footed and doesn’t leave the pocket. Would you take the stone-footed one because he’s not going to try to make plays with his feet? My opinion is that a great athlete who’s also a great quarterback is better than a great quarterback. Right? I mean, you’d rather have a guy that can make a play over a guy who’s simply incapable of doing it, wouldn’t you? Or do you really think that it’s literally impossible for a mobile quarterback to make good decisions?
Sorry, I don’t know how else to say this, but that’s a load of crap. He would have been in the 40’s? Could you maybe provide a list of who plays a “traditional system” and who doesn’t, or is it just the Eagles who have the magic offense that makes retards into Pro Bowl quarterbacks? Seriously, getting 3000 yards out of a quarterback who’s too inept to complete half of his passes in a “traditional” system, plus getting all those wins in the meantime… Jesus, that was a fucking miracle job by Andy Reid, wasn’t it? It’s a shame other teams haven’t caught on, considering the success the Eagles have had with such a scattershot behind center. Suffice to say, I just don’t see how those numbers are in any way credible evidence. Taken from another, less sarcastic angle, couldn’t the numbers just as easily indicate that McNabb scrambled more back when he had less available to him in terms of open receivers? Same facts, different conclusion.
Incidentally, if TO gave him the confidence to stay in the pocket, and that explains the numbers, how does that beget the conclusion that McNabb’s athleticism had anything to do with anything from the get-go? I would think that a logical conclusion would be that McNabb had the ability all along, he just didn’t have the receivers. And what do you know, that’s exactly what I was saying prior to this season. If what you were saying was true, the addition of Owens wouldn’t have helped the offense, because McNabb would already have been crippled by his reliance on his legs, and he’d keep ignoring the open receivers (remember, you said they were open last year too). That McNabb’s numbers immediately shot up across the board with the addition of legitimate target on the outside flies completely in the face of your theory.
Yes. You are entirely correct. I mean, we did beat them soundly back in October, but now they have Corey Dillon back. With our run defense - Ouch! It’s a good thing we haven’t had to face the league’s leading rusher this year. Whatever would we do then?
What is different about the Pats D now , vs week 8 when we ran the ball 45 times for 200+ yards? (except that Seymour is now gimpy).
Is Corey Dillon going to suit up and play LB? :dubious:
It’s the Pats O you have to worry about. In Week 8, the Stillers had all those snaps because the Pats turned the ball over 4 times, and the game still wasn’t put away until the last few minutes. Won’t happen this time.
What’s different with the D, you ask, anyway? Wilfork has a half-season more experience and is now a big-time player, the secondary is solidified (ignore all those talking heads saying it’s “injury-riddled” and “patchwork”; ask Peyton Manning about it instead). Samuel is healthy (I forget if he was out Week 8), Randall Gay is now a proven pro, and Troy Brown is now one of the league’s top nickelbacks (3 INT’s to tie for the team lead), when back then he was still learning. That is the biggest surprise story of the year behind Drew Brees’ resurrection.
The Stillers have really crushed inferior opposition this year, haven’t they (ha, ha). Don’t be fooled by the record - a team that barely beat the Bengals, Giants, and Raiders, and should have lost to the punchless Jets, is going to have serious trouble against a D that has shut down everyone when they’ve showed up. The Colts only got 3 behind Peyton Manning, how many are the Stillers gonna get? The Stillers D had all it could handle against Eli Manning, how much are they gonna hold a 2-time Super Bowl MVP to?
If the Jets had copied the Pats, then Ben would have thrown for 200 yards and 2 TDs with no picks against them.
The Pats are a good team, but c’mon – they don’t piss fine wine and shit gold bricks.
Those Super Bowl championship rings are so big and shiny and sparkly, it’s a pity the Pats players have agreed never to wear them. It would only piss off the teams that have to watch the game on TV.
Steelers fans ought to feel their balls retracting into their bodies right about now.
Yeah, they ran the ball 45 times against the Pats on Halloween. Guess what. . .they had a 21 point lead in the first quarter, and a lead the rest of the game. Of course you just hand the ball off all game.
You’ve been winning, but look at some of them. . .5 points agains Cinci, 3 against the Giants, 1 against Jacksonville. Two games against the Jets, either of which they could have won.
Rothlisberger hasn’t done anything since Thanksgiving (and really didn’t do a whole lot before Thanksgiving).
Sure, IF you win the turnover battle 4-0 again, you might win again by 14. But if you think you can count on that this time, you’re crazy. What, with Berger throwing the ball terribly, Pats having Corey Dillon, Cowher’s record of collapse, Belichek getting the same team twice, hell, I’ll be surprised if Steelers can keep it within 10.
