The news surrounding Hines Ward's future with the Steelers has been unreliable and has pretty much changed by the day, but the one thing that's well established is that he's not staying on the team at a price tag of $4 million. He's said he's willing to re-structure his contract and make less and the Steelers have said that they'd love to have him back if the price is right.
My only problem with the situation is this: If they're both thinking the same thing, why hasn't this gotten done yet? My guess is that it's because Ward's idea of re-structuring is more like $2 million and the Steelers idea of the "right price" is the veteran minimum. That means they've been staring at each other since February 11th when news broke that the Steelers were going to cut Ward, and both of them are waiting for the other to blink. Ward has a clause in his contract that the Steelers need to tell him whether or not he's going to be on the team by Thursday, March 1st, not March 13th when free agency begins. That means that someone had better blink soon. Since the Steelers are still over the cap, I'm thinking that Hines will need to blink first. Otherwise, he's gone.
So, assuming that Ward is willing to take the veteran minimum ($925,000 in his case), we end up with another question: Is he worth retaining, even at that price?
If the Steelers manage to retain Mike Wallace -- which is starting to look more and more likely -- and also re-sign Jerricho Cotchery, that puts Ward fifth on the depth chart behind Wallace, Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders, and Cotchery. Future Hall of Famer or not, $925,000 is a lot of money to pay a fifth wide receiver that (presumably) won't help out on special teams.
There's the argument that Ward will be able to contribute in other ways, such as tutoring and developing all the young receiving talent currently ahead of him on the depth chart. I think there's something to that, since I firmly believe that Terrance Mathis helped Antwan Randle-El considerably in his rookie year, but that was a different situation. Mathis was a specialist: He was a smaller guy that played slot receiver and returned kicks, just like El. He had a unique perspective and set of experiences that helped make El into the player he became.
Ward doesn't have much in common with the other receivers on the roster. Plus which, aside from teaching guys how to block, I haven't heard much about Hines coaching and tutoring young guys. There's nothing wrong with the fact that he doesn't do it, but Jerome Bettis added value in his later years by giving advice to Willie Parker, helping him become the back he was. Bettis was able to do that even though he and Parker had vastly different builds and running styles. I don't think Ward adds that extra value. Plus which, as Mike Prisuta correctly pointed out on DVE, there are guys that already get paid to teach players. They're called coaches.
Once the Steelers got Hines to 1,000 receptions, he completely disappeared. I don't remember seeing him on the field after that. If he's not going to be an effective surrogate coach, he's not going to be involved on offense, and he's not going to contribute on special teams, then he's not worth $925, to say nothing of $925,000. That sucks to say, but it's true. From a business/team perspective, it doesn't make sense to retain Ward, even at the veteran minimum. They're better off grabbing a cheaper rookie in the late rounds or as an undrafted free agent for the fifth spot and developing that guy from there.
But... here's the thing. It's weird to think of Hines playing for another team. It's weird that Franco Harris closed out his career with the Seahawks. As a fan, I don't want this to get weird.
Here's the other thing: It's highly unlikely that the Steelers will sign Wallace and Cotchery by Thursday. If they don't sign either of those guys, then Hines becomes a bargain at 925K as the third receiver. I don't think that will happen, but I can't guarantee that it won't. Signing Ward gives them insurance -- and at a pretty good rate -- if they don't sign Wallace or Cotchery. If they do sign both of those guys, then Cotchery can help out on special teams and they have insurance in case anyone gets hurt. Wallace had a calf issue last season, Cotchery had hamstring problems, and Sanders wasn't available until about mid season.
Steelers N At Official Stance:
Hines should stay.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Todd Haley Situation
It's been quite some time since I posted anything -- a little over three weeks -- so I figured I'd try to catch up.
When I heard that Todd Haley was interviewing for the offensive coordinator job, I was less than pleased. I knew the Steelers would end up hiring him and I had some serious reservations about him. The more I thought about it, the more I realized those reservations boiled down to one thing: Ken Whisenhunt had a chance to bring Haley back in the Steelers West fold and decided against it. That's really it. My thinking was, Haley is a known quantity in Arizona. I thought that, if Whisenhunt passed on the opportunity to bring Haley back, then he must be damaged goods.
Now, that could still be true, but Haley does bring a lot of positive things to the table.
When I heard that Todd Haley was interviewing for the offensive coordinator job, I was less than pleased. I knew the Steelers would end up hiring him and I had some serious reservations about him. The more I thought about it, the more I realized those reservations boiled down to one thing: Ken Whisenhunt had a chance to bring Haley back in the Steelers West fold and decided against it. That's really it. My thinking was, Haley is a known quantity in Arizona. I thought that, if Whisenhunt passed on the opportunity to bring Haley back, then he must be damaged goods.
Now, that could still be true, but Haley does bring a lot of positive things to the table.
- When he's had the personnel to work with, his offenses have always performed well. I'm giving him a pass for last year in Kansas City, even if the Chiefs did not.
- He doesn't have an existing relationship with Ben Roethlisberger and the first few weeks of their current relationship have been rocky.
- He's not a passing guy or a running guy. He's a guy that takes the players he has on hand and designs the offense from there.
For #1, you could look at his track record in Arizona or the fact that he helped turn Matt Cassel and Dwayne Bowe into fantasy football all-stars in 2010.
Number 2 and Number 3 are both positive and important because those two qualities make him the polar opposite of Bruce Arians. The big things that always annoyed me about Arians were the facts that he was too buddy-buddy with Roethlisberger and he was always fond of saying, "The offense is the offense." Basically, he had his design, the players would run it, and the other team's defense needed to try and stop it. When it worked, it was very effective. When it didn't, Arians was very reluctant to adjust, and the offense was not so effective.
A lot has been made about the fact that Roethlisberger wasn't happy with the decision to let Arians go and that he hasn't been very responsive to Haley since it was announced he would be the team's next offensive coordinator. I think that talk is overblown and that most of it, if not all of it, will be forgotten when the team reports back to work. Remember when Roethlisberger's suspension was supposed to divide the team? Or Rashard Mendenhall's Twitter remarks? James Harrison's Men's Journal interview? Hines Ward's DUI? None of it did. This longer room is too tight, too strong, and Mike Tomlin has these guys too focused to get derailed by any distractions.
It also couldn't hurt for Roethlisberger to feel that he has something to prove and that there are people out there that don't believe in him. He's a very self-motivated guy, but he can often become complacent. I think the Haley hiring will light a bit of a fire under him.
When Haley had Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, and Steve Breaston, he threw the ball a lot and the offense was extremely successful. When he had Thomas Jones and Jamaal Charles, he ran the ball a lot and the offense was extremely successful. When Charles blew out his knee early in the 2011 season and Matt Cassel was placed on injured reserve, Haley did the best he could with Dexter McCluster and Tyler Palko.
Since Mendenhall will probably start the season on the PUP list and Ike Redman isn't exactly a franchise back, Haley will probably focus on throwing the ball more. He's got Roethlisberger and a bunch of talent at wide receiver -- which is similar to the situation he had in Arizona -- so it makes sense to get eight or nine yards per pass attempt instead of three or four yards per rush attempt.
The only issue there is if ownership keeps meddling with the offense. They already dropped the ball big time by completely screwing up the Arians firing/retiring/lack of contract extension. My hope is that they take more of a "hands off" approach, at least for the upcoming season, and let the football people do their jobs.
That's my hope, anyway.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Handicapping the Super Bowl
(Side Note: I'm not sure I can use the words "Super Bowl" to describe tomorrow's game. That has a copyright on it, doesn't it? Now that I have eight followers instead of two, I need to watch out for stuff like this. I've finally crested $6 on Google Ad words -- click the links on the ads, please! -- and I don't want to see my mighty empire come crashing down. But, I'm going to live dangerously.)
If you're here to get gambling tips -- which is a bad move, since I did a horrible job handicapping the Championship Round -- then I like the Giants to win outright (+130) and the Over (53).
Here's why...
The Patriots defense, in my mind, is a constant. They're always bad. They'll give up 24-28 points a game on a consistent basis, but they won 15 games because they consistently put up 30 or more points on offense. This has been especially true during their current ten game win streak. The reason they were able to keep Denver and Baltimore at 20 points or under -- and the hated Ravens could have scored 23 or 27 in that game had a couple things gone their way -- is because those teams don't quality depth at receiver. If New England is facing a team that does have depth at receiver, then they need to decide who to put Julian Edelman on. If you're not familiar with Edelman, he a quarterback-turned-receiver-turned-cornerback who has played more snaps on defense than he has on offense this season. He's a gifted athlete and a hell of a team player, but he is an awful cornerback. In the AFC Championship game, Baltimore was able to get Anquan Boldin isolated on Edelman and Edelman got abused. I like Boldin and I think he's a great player, but he's not very dynamic or explosive. He's also not as explosive as Mario Manningham, Hakeem Nicks, and especially not as explosive as Victor Cruz.
If Kevin Gilbride (offensive coordinator for the Giants) can find a way to match Cruz up on Edelman through formations and motion, then this game is going to get ugly in a hurry. Cruz had a huge game against a significantly better 49ers secondary in the championship round and he's a special player. My guess is that Bill Belichick will focus on taking Cruz away first, but that still leaves Manningham and Nicks and still leaves him with someone to assign Edelman to.
Even if New York isn't able to run the ball effectively and the Patriots play mostly zone to take away the long ball and force Eli Manning to throw the ball into tight spots, it still won't end well for New England. That just means the Giants will be able to mix in some Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. Also, the Patriots zone defense is even worse than their man coverage. I think Belichick realized this about halfway through the season -- right after they lost two straight to the Steelers and Giants -- and switched to more man schemes. He just needed to find a way each game to insulate Edelman by assigning him to the team's worst receiver. New York's worst receiver is still considerably better than Edelman. The opportunities will be there for the Giants on offense and I think that they will be able to take advantage of those opportunities.
So, Eli and company are going to be able to score points. Will they be able to score more than Tom Brady's offense?
For me, this comes down to Rob Gronkowski. He has a high ankle sprain, he's listed as questionable, and he's expected to play. That's fine, but I keep wondering how limited he'll be and how effective he'll be given his limitations. Steeler fans have come to know (and hate) the high ankle sprain and we've had a lot of experience with it over the last two seasons. It's true that Gronkowski is younger than Roethlisberger and he's had two weeks to rest and get better, but I think there's an upper limit of what rest and recovery will do for an injury like this. From everything I've seen and read, it just takes time, and Gronk hasn't had enough time for it to heal fully. He may have a different, less severe, lower grade high ankle sprain than Roethlisberger, but you also can't get a little bit pregnant. You either have a high ankle sprain or you don't. Roethlisberger was able to play through his injury, but he was less effective. Gronkowski will probably be able to play through the pain as well -- and he's getting fitted with a special shoe for the game -- but tight ends need to run more than quarterbacks. I think the injury will slow him down and wear him down, which takes away a big weapon for the Patriots.
Aaron Hernandez and Wes Welker are great players, but they're not game breakers like Gronkowski. They'll be able to help Brady out and New England will be able to move the ball, but I don't think either of these guys is going to make a play that will break the game wide open. Welker's also listed as questionable with a knee injury. He'll play, too, but is he 100 percent? I doubt it. He had six catches for 53 yards against Baltimore and six catches for 55 yards against Denver. The numbers against the hated Ravens are understandable, especially considering that Brady struggled in that game. But Brady threw for 363 yards and six touchdowns against the Broncos and Welker ended up with 6/55 (with one touchdown). He's not 100 percent and this offense will not be the same if Hernandez and Deion Branch are their primary weapons.
Then there's the New York pass rush, which is pretty good. They were the key in Super Bowl XLII and they will be the key again. Even with Welker and Gronkowski being limited, this is still a potent Patriots offense with a Hall of Fame quarterback and an outstanding offensive line. New England knows that they'll need to score a ton of points to win this game and they'll be highly motivated to do so. In any game against the Patriots, stopping the offense means getting to Tom Brady with four guys. In New England's three losses -- and near losses to Baltimore and Miami -- the common thread has been that Brady has not had a good game. He threw four picks against the Bills and was ineffective against the Steelers. He had two interceptions and was inconsistent in the red zone against the hated Ravens. Get in Brady's head and you have a chance.
The front four for the Giants know that they are the key to this game. They understand that success on defense begins and ends with them. I think they're up to the task and I think they're ready to get after it.
Still, the Patriots aren't known for rolling over and playing dead. The Giants are going to score a lot of points because of the match-ups and New England is going to score a lot of points because they have to, and because they're still very good. I see a close, high-scoring game, with New York coming out on top.
Prediction:
Giants 31, Patriots 28
If you're here to get gambling tips -- which is a bad move, since I did a horrible job handicapping the Championship Round -- then I like the Giants to win outright (+130) and the Over (53).
Here's why...
The Patriots defense, in my mind, is a constant. They're always bad. They'll give up 24-28 points a game on a consistent basis, but they won 15 games because they consistently put up 30 or more points on offense. This has been especially true during their current ten game win streak. The reason they were able to keep Denver and Baltimore at 20 points or under -- and the hated Ravens could have scored 23 or 27 in that game had a couple things gone their way -- is because those teams don't quality depth at receiver. If New England is facing a team that does have depth at receiver, then they need to decide who to put Julian Edelman on. If you're not familiar with Edelman, he a quarterback-turned-receiver-turned-cornerback who has played more snaps on defense than he has on offense this season. He's a gifted athlete and a hell of a team player, but he is an awful cornerback. In the AFC Championship game, Baltimore was able to get Anquan Boldin isolated on Edelman and Edelman got abused. I like Boldin and I think he's a great player, but he's not very dynamic or explosive. He's also not as explosive as Mario Manningham, Hakeem Nicks, and especially not as explosive as Victor Cruz.
If Kevin Gilbride (offensive coordinator for the Giants) can find a way to match Cruz up on Edelman through formations and motion, then this game is going to get ugly in a hurry. Cruz had a huge game against a significantly better 49ers secondary in the championship round and he's a special player. My guess is that Bill Belichick will focus on taking Cruz away first, but that still leaves Manningham and Nicks and still leaves him with someone to assign Edelman to.
Even if New York isn't able to run the ball effectively and the Patriots play mostly zone to take away the long ball and force Eli Manning to throw the ball into tight spots, it still won't end well for New England. That just means the Giants will be able to mix in some Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. Also, the Patriots zone defense is even worse than their man coverage. I think Belichick realized this about halfway through the season -- right after they lost two straight to the Steelers and Giants -- and switched to more man schemes. He just needed to find a way each game to insulate Edelman by assigning him to the team's worst receiver. New York's worst receiver is still considerably better than Edelman. The opportunities will be there for the Giants on offense and I think that they will be able to take advantage of those opportunities.
So, Eli and company are going to be able to score points. Will they be able to score more than Tom Brady's offense?
For me, this comes down to Rob Gronkowski. He has a high ankle sprain, he's listed as questionable, and he's expected to play. That's fine, but I keep wondering how limited he'll be and how effective he'll be given his limitations. Steeler fans have come to know (and hate) the high ankle sprain and we've had a lot of experience with it over the last two seasons. It's true that Gronkowski is younger than Roethlisberger and he's had two weeks to rest and get better, but I think there's an upper limit of what rest and recovery will do for an injury like this. From everything I've seen and read, it just takes time, and Gronk hasn't had enough time for it to heal fully. He may have a different, less severe, lower grade high ankle sprain than Roethlisberger, but you also can't get a little bit pregnant. You either have a high ankle sprain or you don't. Roethlisberger was able to play through his injury, but he was less effective. Gronkowski will probably be able to play through the pain as well -- and he's getting fitted with a special shoe for the game -- but tight ends need to run more than quarterbacks. I think the injury will slow him down and wear him down, which takes away a big weapon for the Patriots.
Aaron Hernandez and Wes Welker are great players, but they're not game breakers like Gronkowski. They'll be able to help Brady out and New England will be able to move the ball, but I don't think either of these guys is going to make a play that will break the game wide open. Welker's also listed as questionable with a knee injury. He'll play, too, but is he 100 percent? I doubt it. He had six catches for 53 yards against Baltimore and six catches for 55 yards against Denver. The numbers against the hated Ravens are understandable, especially considering that Brady struggled in that game. But Brady threw for 363 yards and six touchdowns against the Broncos and Welker ended up with 6/55 (with one touchdown). He's not 100 percent and this offense will not be the same if Hernandez and Deion Branch are their primary weapons.
Then there's the New York pass rush, which is pretty good. They were the key in Super Bowl XLII and they will be the key again. Even with Welker and Gronkowski being limited, this is still a potent Patriots offense with a Hall of Fame quarterback and an outstanding offensive line. New England knows that they'll need to score a ton of points to win this game and they'll be highly motivated to do so. In any game against the Patriots, stopping the offense means getting to Tom Brady with four guys. In New England's three losses -- and near losses to Baltimore and Miami -- the common thread has been that Brady has not had a good game. He threw four picks against the Bills and was ineffective against the Steelers. He had two interceptions and was inconsistent in the red zone against the hated Ravens. Get in Brady's head and you have a chance.
The front four for the Giants know that they are the key to this game. They understand that success on defense begins and ends with them. I think they're up to the task and I think they're ready to get after it.
Still, the Patriots aren't known for rolling over and playing dead. The Giants are going to score a lot of points because of the match-ups and New England is going to score a lot of points because they have to, and because they're still very good. I see a close, high-scoring game, with New York coming out on top.
Prediction:
Giants 31, Patriots 28
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Bruce Arians Situation
Basically, Art Rooney II dropped the ball.
Originally, word came out that Bruce Arians had "retired" as offensive coordinator, which led many to assume that the Steelers were being nice and decided to let him retire in peace instead of firing him. That was Friday, January 20th. Over the weekend and into the early part of the next week, it came to light that he was told his contract wasn't going to be renewed, then it was announced that he was retiring. By Friday, January 27th, Arians was officially back in play and the jig was officially up: The Steelers wanted to fire Arians, but they didn't. Within a couple of days, he was named offensive coordinator for the Colts.
I've never been the man's biggest fan and, on a number of occasions, I've called for his head. But, the thing that I've been saying about coaching changes since the first time someone suggested firing Cowher still holds true. Before you fire a guy, you need to make sure that there's someone better out there. Before you fire him, you need to make sure that his replacement will get hired before he finds a new job. Basically, you need to think about how quickly another team will grab him as soon as he's in play. Arians only lasted a couple of days after it was discovered that he still wanted to coach. With all the other veteran coordinators and former coaches that are offensive specialists that are out there, it speaks volumes for Arians that Chuck Pagano filled his coordinator position with Bruce as soon as his availability was confirmed.
In the week and change since Arians "retired" I've started to re-think my opinion on him. There were issues in the red zone all season, with the Steelers finishing 12th in total yardage, but 21st in scoring offense. His decision to throw the ball more than run it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but I have to say I agree with that decision. The offensive line has struggled with run blocking since 2008 and it's been clear for a while that Ben Roethlisberger is the most talented player on offense. Given the talent they have at receiver, why run the ball for three or 3.5 yards a carry when throwing gets you seven or 7.5 yards an attempt? Struggles in the run game led to struggles in the red zone. Going back to Super Bowl XLIII, it's been clear that the Steelers knew they couldn't get a yard when they absolutely needed one.
In 2011, they didn't finish well in the offensive rankings, but they also went 12-4. It's true that they played a pot pourri of absolutely awful quarterbacks, but they also played a lot of solid defenses: Cleveland, Cincy, and Baltimore twice, Kansas City, San Francisco, and even the Seahawks and Jaguars. With the level of defenses they played last season and given the fact that they had half an offensive line all year, it's actually pretty impressive that they finished as well as they did.
So, I think I judged Arians too harshly. He's in a new city, with a new coach, getting a fresh start with one of the highest rated college quarterback prospects of the last 30 years. I hope it works out for him. Last night, my brother texted me to say: "Arians now coordinator for Colts. I hope Luck throws for 50 TDs next season." Not only are Steeler fans re-evaluating Arians as a coordinator, they're hoping that he succeeds in spite of the Steelers.
At this point, it's done and can't be undone. The biggest issue now is that the team doesn't have an offensive coordinator. And the heir apparent is currently recovering from serious injuries. And Art Rooney II looks like an idiot. Actually, that's a lot of big issues, but I think the fact that Rooney dropped the ball is the biggest one.
If he had called Arians into his office on the 20th and said, "Bruce, it's my team and I want to run the ball more. You don't want to run the ball more. That puts us at an impasse and it's been that way for a while. You're fired. Maintenance came in today and specially calibrated all the doors so that they wouldn't hit you on the ass on the way out. Have a nice day." If he had said that and announced it, everyone would be happy that Arians was gone, that the Rooneys had finally listened to their petitions for his removal, and that a new era was about to begin. Instead, we're re-evaluating Arians, thinking it was a mistake to let him go, and we're hoping he does well in spite of the Steelers.
It's Rooney's team. If he didn't want Arians to be involved anymore, he should have severed ties and been done with it. He didn't, so the Steelers look dumb and the search for a replacement continues.
Originally, word came out that Bruce Arians had "retired" as offensive coordinator, which led many to assume that the Steelers were being nice and decided to let him retire in peace instead of firing him. That was Friday, January 20th. Over the weekend and into the early part of the next week, it came to light that he was told his contract wasn't going to be renewed, then it was announced that he was retiring. By Friday, January 27th, Arians was officially back in play and the jig was officially up: The Steelers wanted to fire Arians, but they didn't. Within a couple of days, he was named offensive coordinator for the Colts.
I've never been the man's biggest fan and, on a number of occasions, I've called for his head. But, the thing that I've been saying about coaching changes since the first time someone suggested firing Cowher still holds true. Before you fire a guy, you need to make sure that there's someone better out there. Before you fire him, you need to make sure that his replacement will get hired before he finds a new job. Basically, you need to think about how quickly another team will grab him as soon as he's in play. Arians only lasted a couple of days after it was discovered that he still wanted to coach. With all the other veteran coordinators and former coaches that are offensive specialists that are out there, it speaks volumes for Arians that Chuck Pagano filled his coordinator position with Bruce as soon as his availability was confirmed.
In the week and change since Arians "retired" I've started to re-think my opinion on him. There were issues in the red zone all season, with the Steelers finishing 12th in total yardage, but 21st in scoring offense. His decision to throw the ball more than run it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but I have to say I agree with that decision. The offensive line has struggled with run blocking since 2008 and it's been clear for a while that Ben Roethlisberger is the most talented player on offense. Given the talent they have at receiver, why run the ball for three or 3.5 yards a carry when throwing gets you seven or 7.5 yards an attempt? Struggles in the run game led to struggles in the red zone. Going back to Super Bowl XLIII, it's been clear that the Steelers knew they couldn't get a yard when they absolutely needed one.
In 2011, they didn't finish well in the offensive rankings, but they also went 12-4. It's true that they played a pot pourri of absolutely awful quarterbacks, but they also played a lot of solid defenses: Cleveland, Cincy, and Baltimore twice, Kansas City, San Francisco, and even the Seahawks and Jaguars. With the level of defenses they played last season and given the fact that they had half an offensive line all year, it's actually pretty impressive that they finished as well as they did.
So, I think I judged Arians too harshly. He's in a new city, with a new coach, getting a fresh start with one of the highest rated college quarterback prospects of the last 30 years. I hope it works out for him. Last night, my brother texted me to say: "Arians now coordinator for Colts. I hope Luck throws for 50 TDs next season." Not only are Steeler fans re-evaluating Arians as a coordinator, they're hoping that he succeeds in spite of the Steelers.
At this point, it's done and can't be undone. The biggest issue now is that the team doesn't have an offensive coordinator. And the heir apparent is currently recovering from serious injuries. And Art Rooney II looks like an idiot. Actually, that's a lot of big issues, but I think the fact that Rooney dropped the ball is the biggest one.
If he had called Arians into his office on the 20th and said, "Bruce, it's my team and I want to run the ball more. You don't want to run the ball more. That puts us at an impasse and it's been that way for a while. You're fired. Maintenance came in today and specially calibrated all the doors so that they wouldn't hit you on the ass on the way out. Have a nice day." If he had said that and announced it, everyone would be happy that Arians was gone, that the Rooneys had finally listened to their petitions for his removal, and that a new era was about to begin. Instead, we're re-evaluating Arians, thinking it was a mistake to let him go, and we're hoping he does well in spite of the Steelers.
It's Rooney's team. If he didn't want Arians to be involved anymore, he should have severed ties and been done with it. He didn't, so the Steelers look dumb and the search for a replacement continues.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Handicapping the Championship Games
Through the first two rounds I went 5-3 in the Wild Card games and 5-3 in the Divisional Round games, so at least I'm consistent.
I'm actually 7-1 ATS, I've just been horribly wrong (3-5 record) when betting against the Over/Under, which is why I've only won three parlays out of eight bets. This is on MyBookie not real, actual money. Gambling is illegal, dontcha know.
On to the picks. Home team in CAPS...
NEW ENGLAND (-7) over Hated Ravens:
When this line opened at 7.5, I was decided that I was going to take Baltimore and not look back. My thinking was that the Patriots weren't going to win this game by more than a touchdown. Then it dropped to 7. Now, if New England wins by a touchdown, it's a push. I'd rather take a loss than a push because I'm an idiot, so I'm now prepared to go big or go home.
I originally predicted that the hated Ravens were going to represent the AFC in Super Bowl XLVI, even going so far as to state that they could beat the Patriots in Foxborough. Time and sanity have made me reconsider that position.
Baltimore doesn't have the personnel to match up against Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, though I think their cornerbacks are physical enough to at least slow Wes Welker down. I don't think they can get consistent pressure on Tom Brady with just four guys -- they weren't able to against Houston and Von Miller and Elvis Dumervil weren't able to get to Brady in the Denver game -- which means he'll have enough time to scan the field and throw the ball to the tight end that's most open. New England has gotten better at protecting the football as the season has progressed and the hated Ravens will need to force at least three turnovers to win this game.
I am also taking the over. That's a pretty bold move, considering Baltimore has a great defense and the total points is 50. I think that the hated Ravens -- especially Ray Rice catching balls out of the backfield -- will be able to score points on this craptastic Patriots defense, but I don't think they'll be able to do enough.
This Baltimore team isn't built to win shoot-outs and I think that's what this game will turn into. New England is built to win shoot-outs and that's exactly what they want this game to turn into. They're at home, they're playing well, they're feeling confident, and they're just far enough removed from their last Super Bowl appearance (and disappointment) to be hungry to return.
On top of that, they've won nine straight and only fail to cover a total points of 50 in one of those games (34-3 win over Kansas City where they took their foot off the gas). They're also 6-1-2 against a seven point spread in their last nine.
SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5) over NY Giants:
This opened at 49ers by 2.5 with an O/U of 42 and it hasn't moved. I think it's just right. Either you believe the Niners will cover or the Giants will win. Either you think it's going to be a fairly high scoring game or you think it's going to be a snooze fest. I happen to think San Francisco wins by at least a field goal and I'm taking the Over.
I picked against New York twice already this postseason and I was wrong twice. The first time I overvalued the Falcons and the second time they were playing the freaking Packers. I'll admit that I'm not as sold on the Giants as the rest of the world. I'll admit that I'm probably too enamored with the 49ers. I know that New York is playing better football than they were in November (when they lost at San Francisco 27-20).
Here's the thing: The 49ers are also playing better football than they were in November. They've proved they can put up points. They've proved they can win shoot-outs in pressure situations (like they did against the Saints last week). Alex Smith has shown that he can carry this team -- for brief periods of time -- if need be. They also force a lot of turnovers, run the ball well, and stop the run on defense. They can get to the quarterback and they can play man or zone. This is a very versatile team and I think they're good enough to beat the streaking Giants.
Also, I watched that game in November. The final score is misleading. San Francisco controlled the game on both sides of the ball, but entered the fourth quarter trailing 13-12. If they dominate the Giants like they did in the regular season, then they'll be the ones in the lead heading into the final quarter.
Even if the defense unravels like they did against the Saints, the offense has shown that it can keep up and score points late in games. As much as I'd love to see another Giants-Patriots Super Bowl (with Eli Manning again shattering Tom Brady's dreams), I don't see it happening.
I'm actually 7-1 ATS, I've just been horribly wrong (3-5 record) when betting against the Over/Under, which is why I've only won three parlays out of eight bets. This is on MyBookie not real, actual money. Gambling is illegal, dontcha know.
On to the picks. Home team in CAPS...
NEW ENGLAND (-7) over Hated Ravens:
When this line opened at 7.5, I was decided that I was going to take Baltimore and not look back. My thinking was that the Patriots weren't going to win this game by more than a touchdown. Then it dropped to 7. Now, if New England wins by a touchdown, it's a push. I'd rather take a loss than a push because I'm an idiot, so I'm now prepared to go big or go home.
I originally predicted that the hated Ravens were going to represent the AFC in Super Bowl XLVI, even going so far as to state that they could beat the Patriots in Foxborough. Time and sanity have made me reconsider that position.
Baltimore doesn't have the personnel to match up against Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, though I think their cornerbacks are physical enough to at least slow Wes Welker down. I don't think they can get consistent pressure on Tom Brady with just four guys -- they weren't able to against Houston and Von Miller and Elvis Dumervil weren't able to get to Brady in the Denver game -- which means he'll have enough time to scan the field and throw the ball to the tight end that's most open. New England has gotten better at protecting the football as the season has progressed and the hated Ravens will need to force at least three turnovers to win this game.
I am also taking the over. That's a pretty bold move, considering Baltimore has a great defense and the total points is 50. I think that the hated Ravens -- especially Ray Rice catching balls out of the backfield -- will be able to score points on this craptastic Patriots defense, but I don't think they'll be able to do enough.
This Baltimore team isn't built to win shoot-outs and I think that's what this game will turn into. New England is built to win shoot-outs and that's exactly what they want this game to turn into. They're at home, they're playing well, they're feeling confident, and they're just far enough removed from their last Super Bowl appearance (and disappointment) to be hungry to return.
On top of that, they've won nine straight and only fail to cover a total points of 50 in one of those games (34-3 win over Kansas City where they took their foot off the gas). They're also 6-1-2 against a seven point spread in their last nine.
SAN FRANCISCO (-2.5) over NY Giants:
This opened at 49ers by 2.5 with an O/U of 42 and it hasn't moved. I think it's just right. Either you believe the Niners will cover or the Giants will win. Either you think it's going to be a fairly high scoring game or you think it's going to be a snooze fest. I happen to think San Francisco wins by at least a field goal and I'm taking the Over.
I picked against New York twice already this postseason and I was wrong twice. The first time I overvalued the Falcons and the second time they were playing the freaking Packers. I'll admit that I'm not as sold on the Giants as the rest of the world. I'll admit that I'm probably too enamored with the 49ers. I know that New York is playing better football than they were in November (when they lost at San Francisco 27-20).
Here's the thing: The 49ers are also playing better football than they were in November. They've proved they can put up points. They've proved they can win shoot-outs in pressure situations (like they did against the Saints last week). Alex Smith has shown that he can carry this team -- for brief periods of time -- if need be. They also force a lot of turnovers, run the ball well, and stop the run on defense. They can get to the quarterback and they can play man or zone. This is a very versatile team and I think they're good enough to beat the streaking Giants.
Also, I watched that game in November. The final score is misleading. San Francisco controlled the game on both sides of the ball, but entered the fourth quarter trailing 13-12. If they dominate the Giants like they did in the regular season, then they'll be the ones in the lead heading into the final quarter.
Even if the defense unravels like they did against the Saints, the offense has shown that it can keep up and score points late in games. As much as I'd love to see another Giants-Patriots Super Bowl (with Eli Manning again shattering Tom Brady's dreams), I don't see it happening.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Handicapping the Divisional Round
I started out Wild Card weekend with a bang, going 4-0 ATS and O/U. Then I came back to Earth, but that was more the fault of those stupid, stupid New York Giants and their stupid, stupid victory than a case of me getting Tebowed. I finished 5-3, which puts me well on my way towards winning the AFC West securing a home playoff game.
On to the picks. Home team in CAPS...
SAN FRANCISCO (+3.5) over NOLA:
I think the 49ers will win this game outright (with a moneyline of +173, no less), but that last half point is really enticing. If the 49ers lose, I think they only lose by a field goal. Take the Under, because the O/U for this game is pretty ridiculous at 47. It's gone down at least a point since it opened, which means that lots of people have been taking the Under, so Vegas is trying to find a number that will convince people to bet the Over. I remain unconvinced. The total needs to drop to 43 for me to take the Over.
This goes beyond the fact that I don't trust the Saints offense outdoors. I also don't trust them on the road, where they went 5-3. San Francisco went 7-1 at home. In their three losses, they lost by 3, 2, and 10 points. They don't get blown out. They don't give up a lot of points. They play close, low scoring games. They played in only three games this season where they would've topped the Over for this game. One of those games was their 48-3 ba-thwumping of Tampa, one of them was a 33-17 victory over the Seahawks where they scored two touchdowns on special teams, the last was the season finale against the Rams, when they had already clinched a bye and let up on defense after taking a 34-14 lead.
The 49ers have the pass rushing talent up front to pressure Brees with four guys and the talent in the back seven to hang with the Saints receivers. Their run defense was ranked #1 in the league, allowing an average of only 77.3 yards per game and only two rushing touchdowns all season (both of which came in the meaningless season finale).
They're better than people think, they play well enough on defense to contain the potent New Orleans offense, and the Saints lose just enough off their fastball on the road and outdoors that the 49ers win a tight, low scoring game.
NEW ENGLAND (-13.5) over Denver:
Yes, I know. I'm totally going to get Tebowed on this one.
These two teams met in Week 15 and the Patriots won 41-23. That game was in Denver. Total points in that game (64) were well above the O/U for this game (50). New England would also have covered this spread.
Denver's a hot team and I'm not trying to undermine what they did to the Steelers (a game which, by the way, would also have covered the Over at 52 points). They're also a streaky team. When they're feeling confident, they're pretty much unstoppable. When they're feeling down, they only manage a field goal at home against the Chiefs. They have every reason to feel confident right now, but I think they've gone past confident and have crossed over into territory that is much, much more dangerous.
Let me explain.
The week before the Wild Card round, I followed the Broncos on Twitter because I wanted to catch news that I might not get somewhere else. I forgot to unfollow them after the loss. On Tuesday, they posted a bunch of quotes from interviews with players. The quotes were regarding that Week 15 loss to the Patriots. When I read the quotes, I hadn't looked up the score, I just knew New England won. From the quotes -- things like, "we just needed to make a couple more plays" and "we missed a couple of opportunities" -- I assumed that they lost by a field goal or a touchdown. The quotes I read weren't even close to being indicative of an 18 point home loss. They've gone past confident and they're in a much, much more dangerous place. They're delusional. Since they were able to play their game their way against the NFL's best defense at home last week, the assumption is that they'll put everything together again and play their game their way on the road next week. The Steelers have the #1 defense, the Patriots have the #31 defense. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
The problem is that Bill Belichick has made a career out of making sure that teams don't get to play their game their way. This game is in Foxborough. The Patriots tend to start games out fast. If they jump out to a 14-0 lead at home against this Broncos team, it's going to be a shock to the system, like a six year old watching Belichick curb stomp the Easter Bunny.
I think the Patriots jump out to a big early lead, the Broncos re-group at halftime, and they come out fighting in the second half. I don't think they'll get anywhere close to coming back, but they've got way too much potential on offense to not score a bunch of points against a crappy New England defense. I think Champ Bailey can handle Wes Welker, but Heath Miller gouged the Broncos pretty bad last week. Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez are way better receivers and are way more involved in the Patriots offense than Miller is for the Steelers.
Denver allowed 23 points to a banged up Steelers offense that had half a quarterback and three backup offensive linemen. If Isaac Redman can rush for 7.1 yards per carry and 121 total yards behind that offensive line, then some combination of BenJarvis Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, and Stevan Ridley will be able to do just as good behind a very capable, very healthy Patriots offensive line.
Houston (+9) over BALTIMORE:
I think that the hated Ravens will win this game, but I don't think they'll cover. The Texans showed last week that they're a good team and they deserve to be here. Most of the guys on that team had never played in a playoff game before. They all realized how great it was to win in the postseason and they're bound and determined not to found out how bad it sucks to lose.
If Houston can't run the ball, they're dead meat. Their offensive line knows this. In order to run the ball successfully, you need to win at the point of attack. Winning at the point of attack is equal parts talent, scheme, and determination. The hated Ravens have a stout front seven and defensive coordinator Chuck Pagano has brought back the swagger and intimidation factor to this unit. Houston has one of the best lines in the league and their offensive line coach has brought his charges up from the dredges to the elite the last six seasons. Scheme and talent is a wash. Determination is the X factor.
Houston's offensive line knows that the season is riding on them. Baltimore's front seven knows that, if they're able to stop the run, they can tee off on TJ Yates and win this game easily. I'd say the Texans offensive line has more motivation and they'll be more determined.
If Houston can run the ball, they'll be able to score points. I think the hated Ravens can score enough to win, even against a tough Texans defense. When the lines opened, the Over/Under was 38.5. It has since moved down to 36. I was willing to take the Over at 38.5, so I'm delighted to take it at 36. This won't be a shootout, but it doesn't need to be. Everyone was predicting a low scoring game in Denver (including me) and look how that turned out.
NY Giants (+8) over PACKERS:
Again, I think the Packers win, but I don't think they win by more than a touchdown. The last time these two teams met, the score was 38-35, which is probably why the Over/Under is 52.5 and hasn't moved since it opened. These are two proud defenses that don't want to get kicked around like that again. They're also two great offenses, but I think the defenses will step up to keep the score from getting too crazy.
Kickoff temperatures are going to be in the low teens. The last time these two teams faced a situation like this -- cold playoff game in Green Bay in 2007 -- the Giants won 20-17 in overtime. I'm thinking something similar, with the Packers winning by a touchdown.
The X factor here is Aaron Rodgers. He's well rested and wants to shine in his first home playoff game. The crowd will be behind him and his teammates will be fired up. If they get on a roll, it could be Packers and the Over, but I don't think that happens.
On to the picks. Home team in CAPS...
SAN FRANCISCO (+3.5) over NOLA:
I think the 49ers will win this game outright (with a moneyline of +173, no less), but that last half point is really enticing. If the 49ers lose, I think they only lose by a field goal. Take the Under, because the O/U for this game is pretty ridiculous at 47. It's gone down at least a point since it opened, which means that lots of people have been taking the Under, so Vegas is trying to find a number that will convince people to bet the Over. I remain unconvinced. The total needs to drop to 43 for me to take the Over.
This goes beyond the fact that I don't trust the Saints offense outdoors. I also don't trust them on the road, where they went 5-3. San Francisco went 7-1 at home. In their three losses, they lost by 3, 2, and 10 points. They don't get blown out. They don't give up a lot of points. They play close, low scoring games. They played in only three games this season where they would've topped the Over for this game. One of those games was their 48-3 ba-thwumping of Tampa, one of them was a 33-17 victory over the Seahawks where they scored two touchdowns on special teams, the last was the season finale against the Rams, when they had already clinched a bye and let up on defense after taking a 34-14 lead.
The 49ers have the pass rushing talent up front to pressure Brees with four guys and the talent in the back seven to hang with the Saints receivers. Their run defense was ranked #1 in the league, allowing an average of only 77.3 yards per game and only two rushing touchdowns all season (both of which came in the meaningless season finale).
They're better than people think, they play well enough on defense to contain the potent New Orleans offense, and the Saints lose just enough off their fastball on the road and outdoors that the 49ers win a tight, low scoring game.
NEW ENGLAND (-13.5) over Denver:
Yes, I know. I'm totally going to get Tebowed on this one.
These two teams met in Week 15 and the Patriots won 41-23. That game was in Denver. Total points in that game (64) were well above the O/U for this game (50). New England would also have covered this spread.
Denver's a hot team and I'm not trying to undermine what they did to the Steelers (a game which, by the way, would also have covered the Over at 52 points). They're also a streaky team. When they're feeling confident, they're pretty much unstoppable. When they're feeling down, they only manage a field goal at home against the Chiefs. They have every reason to feel confident right now, but I think they've gone past confident and have crossed over into territory that is much, much more dangerous.
Let me explain.
The week before the Wild Card round, I followed the Broncos on Twitter because I wanted to catch news that I might not get somewhere else. I forgot to unfollow them after the loss. On Tuesday, they posted a bunch of quotes from interviews with players. The quotes were regarding that Week 15 loss to the Patriots. When I read the quotes, I hadn't looked up the score, I just knew New England won. From the quotes -- things like, "we just needed to make a couple more plays" and "we missed a couple of opportunities" -- I assumed that they lost by a field goal or a touchdown. The quotes I read weren't even close to being indicative of an 18 point home loss. They've gone past confident and they're in a much, much more dangerous place. They're delusional. Since they were able to play their game their way against the NFL's best defense at home last week, the assumption is that they'll put everything together again and play their game their way on the road next week. The Steelers have the #1 defense, the Patriots have the #31 defense. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
The problem is that Bill Belichick has made a career out of making sure that teams don't get to play their game their way. This game is in Foxborough. The Patriots tend to start games out fast. If they jump out to a 14-0 lead at home against this Broncos team, it's going to be a shock to the system, like a six year old watching Belichick curb stomp the Easter Bunny.
I think the Patriots jump out to a big early lead, the Broncos re-group at halftime, and they come out fighting in the second half. I don't think they'll get anywhere close to coming back, but they've got way too much potential on offense to not score a bunch of points against a crappy New England defense. I think Champ Bailey can handle Wes Welker, but Heath Miller gouged the Broncos pretty bad last week. Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez are way better receivers and are way more involved in the Patriots offense than Miller is for the Steelers.
Denver allowed 23 points to a banged up Steelers offense that had half a quarterback and three backup offensive linemen. If Isaac Redman can rush for 7.1 yards per carry and 121 total yards behind that offensive line, then some combination of BenJarvis Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, and Stevan Ridley will be able to do just as good behind a very capable, very healthy Patriots offensive line.
Houston (+9) over BALTIMORE:
I think that the hated Ravens will win this game, but I don't think they'll cover. The Texans showed last week that they're a good team and they deserve to be here. Most of the guys on that team had never played in a playoff game before. They all realized how great it was to win in the postseason and they're bound and determined not to found out how bad it sucks to lose.
If Houston can't run the ball, they're dead meat. Their offensive line knows this. In order to run the ball successfully, you need to win at the point of attack. Winning at the point of attack is equal parts talent, scheme, and determination. The hated Ravens have a stout front seven and defensive coordinator Chuck Pagano has brought back the swagger and intimidation factor to this unit. Houston has one of the best lines in the league and their offensive line coach has brought his charges up from the dredges to the elite the last six seasons. Scheme and talent is a wash. Determination is the X factor.
Houston's offensive line knows that the season is riding on them. Baltimore's front seven knows that, if they're able to stop the run, they can tee off on TJ Yates and win this game easily. I'd say the Texans offensive line has more motivation and they'll be more determined.
If Houston can run the ball, they'll be able to score points. I think the hated Ravens can score enough to win, even against a tough Texans defense. When the lines opened, the Over/Under was 38.5. It has since moved down to 36. I was willing to take the Over at 38.5, so I'm delighted to take it at 36. This won't be a shootout, but it doesn't need to be. Everyone was predicting a low scoring game in Denver (including me) and look how that turned out.
NY Giants (+8) over PACKERS:
Again, I think the Packers win, but I don't think they win by more than a touchdown. The last time these two teams met, the score was 38-35, which is probably why the Over/Under is 52.5 and hasn't moved since it opened. These are two proud defenses that don't want to get kicked around like that again. They're also two great offenses, but I think the defenses will step up to keep the score from getting too crazy.
Kickoff temperatures are going to be in the low teens. The last time these two teams faced a situation like this -- cold playoff game in Green Bay in 2007 -- the Giants won 20-17 in overtime. I'm thinking something similar, with the Packers winning by a touchdown.
The X factor here is Aaron Rodgers. He's well rested and wants to shine in his first home playoff game. The crowd will be behind him and his teammates will be fired up. If they get on a roll, it could be Packers and the Over, but I don't think that happens.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Good News and Bad News: Steelers at Broncos
Only piece of Good News: They don't have to play in the Divisional Round. If they needed to travel to Foxborough to play the Patriots, there would be, like, 15 guys on the active roster. According to Tomlin's press conference on Monday, pretty much everyone suffered a catastrophic injury on Sunday and they would've only dressed two offensive linemen against New England. That's an exaggeration, but not much of one.
If there's one other silver lining, I was impressed by how the offense still hung in there and managed to put up 23 points. They were missing their starting tailback, they were down three offensive linemen, Ben Roethlisberger was at about 50 percent capacity on his banged up ankle, and they were stuck in a situation where they needed to throw the ball and the defense knew it.
Ike Taylor had the worst game of his professional career. Dick LeBeau didn't adjust from man coverage to zone when it became obvious in the second quarter that the Steelers corners couldn't handle the Denver receivers in man coverage. It could be that Ryan Clark was the X factor. Without him to cover for Troy's freelancing, there were big holes in the back end. But, I'm not ready to say that Taylor sucks because of one game. I think LeBeau would come to my house and beat me up if I even hinted at saying something like that about him and I would deserve it. William Gay leaves a lot to be desired, but he's a better option than Bryant McFadden or Curtis Brown. Troy did a great job on run defense, but he was too committed to the line of scrimmage, even after Tebow started completing long passes past overwhelmed Steelers cornerbacks. Do I think they should cut him? I do not, that would be dumb.
The defensive line was all backups and Jason Worilds was in for Lamarr Woodley for most of the game. Without pressure from the front seven -- some more blitzing would have been nice -- the secondary was left shorthanded and you saw the results. Given that this defense is going to undergo a major overhaul in the offseason due to salary cap issues, we may have had a glimpse into the future. That's really bad news.
Ike Redman actually averaged 7.0 yards a carry. Mike Wallace had a nice touchdown run. Heath Miller, Emmanuel Sanders, and Jerricho Cotchery chipped in. Roethlisberger did the best he could on one leg. The interception was inexcusable, but, like everyone else on offense, you could at least claim that he tried hard and didn't give up.
This was a maximum effort game by the Steelers on both sides of the ball, just not maximum focus. Wallace had a couple of critical drops and his head definitely wasn't in the game -- he hasn't been on the same page with Roethlisberger since Ben's ankle injury. Mundy and Troy didn't cover well on deep passes. Taylor often forgot that he was supposed to be covering Thomas. They didn't switch up to zone just to keep the plays in front of them.
Tim Tebow averaged 15 yards an attempt and 31 yards a completion. He averaged five yards a carry. Demaryius Thomas averaged 51 yards per catch. They had some ridiculous numbers on offense. They got on a roll in the second quarter and were almost unstoppable.
That's the thing about this Broncos team: They're dangerous to opponents because they feed off momentum and confidence more than any team I've ever seen. If they get on a roll, they can beat anybody, including the Patriots and the Packers. The way they're set up on offense, if they can hit on some big plays in the passing game against teams that have trouble defending the pass (Patriots are 31st against the pass, Green Bay is 32nd), then they open up the rest of the offense and can mix in runs from Tebow and the other members of their top-rated rushing attack to keep a defense off balance and possess the football.
Denver is also a danger to themselves because they feed off momentum and confidence more than any team I've ever seen. If things aren't clicking for them early and the Patriots/Packers/hated Ravens jump out to a big lead, then the Broncos will start to lose confidence and the wheels will start to come off. They may get hot late, but by then it will be too late. If the Steelers had scored touchdowns on those two first quarter possessions, the game would have unfolded much differently. I'm not saying the Broncos got lucky and the Steelers deserved to win. Denver played well and they played better than the Steelers. They deserved to win, the Steelers deserved to lose. I'm saying that controlling momentum and keeping the Broncos down is the key to victory. The Steelers didn't do that, they didn't capitalize on the opportunities they had early, and they paid the price. If future opponents do the same thing this postseason, then Denver has a great shot at some upsets.
But, the bad news for the Broncos is that the Packers, Patriots, and hated Ravens are all much better in the red zone than the Steelers. They also force more turnovers on defense. That gives those teams the ability to put Denver away early and keep them out of the game late. The Steelers didn't have that ability against anyone this season, which is one of the reasons why they'll have the same view of the games as the rest of us (in a roundabout way, I mean. I'm sure they have nicer TVs and more attractive people in their living rooms.)
And, hey, I say this every time the Steelers fall short of winning the Super Bowl: They've been there eight times, they've won six, and they've had only nine losing seasons since 1970. That's a damn impressive run and we, as Steeler fans, should appreciate it. And not be spoiled by it.
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he had a good point. The team has been on quite a run since Ben Roethlisberger took over as the starting quarterback (and before that, but the Super Bowl appearances and AFC Championship Game appearances really started to pile up starting in 2004). Steeler fans have been spoiled by that run. Maybe it's time for a bad run, so that we can learn to appreciate success again instead of just expecting it and turning up our noses at it when it just isn't successful enough. I'm not saying I want the Steelers to suck. I'm saying that it may be the best thing for us as fans, at least in the long term.
As long as we still beat Baltimore. And the Patriots.
If there's one other silver lining, I was impressed by how the offense still hung in there and managed to put up 23 points. They were missing their starting tailback, they were down three offensive linemen, Ben Roethlisberger was at about 50 percent capacity on his banged up ankle, and they were stuck in a situation where they needed to throw the ball and the defense knew it.
Ike Taylor had the worst game of his professional career. Dick LeBeau didn't adjust from man coverage to zone when it became obvious in the second quarter that the Steelers corners couldn't handle the Denver receivers in man coverage. It could be that Ryan Clark was the X factor. Without him to cover for Troy's freelancing, there were big holes in the back end. But, I'm not ready to say that Taylor sucks because of one game. I think LeBeau would come to my house and beat me up if I even hinted at saying something like that about him and I would deserve it. William Gay leaves a lot to be desired, but he's a better option than Bryant McFadden or Curtis Brown. Troy did a great job on run defense, but he was too committed to the line of scrimmage, even after Tebow started completing long passes past overwhelmed Steelers cornerbacks. Do I think they should cut him? I do not, that would be dumb.
The defensive line was all backups and Jason Worilds was in for Lamarr Woodley for most of the game. Without pressure from the front seven -- some more blitzing would have been nice -- the secondary was left shorthanded and you saw the results. Given that this defense is going to undergo a major overhaul in the offseason due to salary cap issues, we may have had a glimpse into the future. That's really bad news.
Ike Redman actually averaged 7.0 yards a carry. Mike Wallace had a nice touchdown run. Heath Miller, Emmanuel Sanders, and Jerricho Cotchery chipped in. Roethlisberger did the best he could on one leg. The interception was inexcusable, but, like everyone else on offense, you could at least claim that he tried hard and didn't give up.
This was a maximum effort game by the Steelers on both sides of the ball, just not maximum focus. Wallace had a couple of critical drops and his head definitely wasn't in the game -- he hasn't been on the same page with Roethlisberger since Ben's ankle injury. Mundy and Troy didn't cover well on deep passes. Taylor often forgot that he was supposed to be covering Thomas. They didn't switch up to zone just to keep the plays in front of them.
Tim Tebow averaged 15 yards an attempt and 31 yards a completion. He averaged five yards a carry. Demaryius Thomas averaged 51 yards per catch. They had some ridiculous numbers on offense. They got on a roll in the second quarter and were almost unstoppable.
That's the thing about this Broncos team: They're dangerous to opponents because they feed off momentum and confidence more than any team I've ever seen. If they get on a roll, they can beat anybody, including the Patriots and the Packers. The way they're set up on offense, if they can hit on some big plays in the passing game against teams that have trouble defending the pass (Patriots are 31st against the pass, Green Bay is 32nd), then they open up the rest of the offense and can mix in runs from Tebow and the other members of their top-rated rushing attack to keep a defense off balance and possess the football.
Denver is also a danger to themselves because they feed off momentum and confidence more than any team I've ever seen. If things aren't clicking for them early and the Patriots/Packers/hated Ravens jump out to a big lead, then the Broncos will start to lose confidence and the wheels will start to come off. They may get hot late, but by then it will be too late. If the Steelers had scored touchdowns on those two first quarter possessions, the game would have unfolded much differently. I'm not saying the Broncos got lucky and the Steelers deserved to win. Denver played well and they played better than the Steelers. They deserved to win, the Steelers deserved to lose. I'm saying that controlling momentum and keeping the Broncos down is the key to victory. The Steelers didn't do that, they didn't capitalize on the opportunities they had early, and they paid the price. If future opponents do the same thing this postseason, then Denver has a great shot at some upsets.
But, the bad news for the Broncos is that the Packers, Patriots, and hated Ravens are all much better in the red zone than the Steelers. They also force more turnovers on defense. That gives those teams the ability to put Denver away early and keep them out of the game late. The Steelers didn't have that ability against anyone this season, which is one of the reasons why they'll have the same view of the games as the rest of us (in a roundabout way, I mean. I'm sure they have nicer TVs and more attractive people in their living rooms.)
And, hey, I say this every time the Steelers fall short of winning the Super Bowl: They've been there eight times, they've won six, and they've had only nine losing seasons since 1970. That's a damn impressive run and we, as Steeler fans, should appreciate it. And not be spoiled by it.
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he had a good point. The team has been on quite a run since Ben Roethlisberger took over as the starting quarterback (and before that, but the Super Bowl appearances and AFC Championship Game appearances really started to pile up starting in 2004). Steeler fans have been spoiled by that run. Maybe it's time for a bad run, so that we can learn to appreciate success again instead of just expecting it and turning up our noses at it when it just isn't successful enough. I'm not saying I want the Steelers to suck. I'm saying that it may be the best thing for us as fans, at least in the long term.
As long as we still beat Baltimore. And the Patriots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)