Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Jul 29, 2014 at 05:50 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: More of that great ESPN analysis  (Read 1749 times)
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,693



« on: Sep 26, 2007 at 18:21 »

This rampant penis proposes the following to "cure" the Steelers:

Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,395


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: Sep 26, 2007 at 18:36 »

Don't be ridiculous.  It's all about how many men you have behind the helmet.  Eight in the box, who gives a shit?  Get behind the helmet.  If they put 11 men behind the helmet then what can anyone be expected to do?

 
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
jasonic
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 1580
Offline Offline

Posts: 685



« Reply #2 on: Sep 26, 2007 at 21:04 »

yea, that's the reason Willie P is good, because of Hines Ward.  Of course they don't mention anything about our less than average O-line and the fact that besides that, he still has multiple 100 yard games in a row.  And that we just run the ball.  and run and run.   Also, I'm not complaining having santonio and ced as our other wideouts.  I know they're not Moss but F-off....at least he didn't mention ben's "managing" of the game as a problem....
Logged

"If you make every game a life and death proposition, you're going to have problems. For one thing, you'll be dead a lot."
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,976


« Reply #3 on: Sep 26, 2007 at 21:09 »

HIGHNZ WORD IS THE PRICK HEREE!!!!!!!!!111111111
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
DCSteelers
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 553
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,460


WWW
« Reply #4 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 00:40 »

Thats unbelievable, I guess they don't watch the games do they?  
Logged
TwistedLemon
Member
***

Karma: 777
Offline Offline

Posts: 490



« Reply #5 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 08:31 »

Let them all keep talking s#!*.  Let us keep making them eat it.

To hear it told, without Ward we have nothing on the O-side.  The loss of Porter results in nothing on the D-side.

It is a wonder we are not 0-3, I mean look at all the points we fail to score and all the points we have given up.

Our QB has done nothing in his career.  We are so desperate at RB that we start an undrafted player

We must be horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate it when "analizethis'"   :flipoff:     are right

 
Logged

"My reality check bounced"
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #6 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 08:50 »

That's just laughable.

If Ward was catching all the passes, then we'd hear about how Ben was using him as a crutch and stared him down to throw him the ball.  We aren't using the TEs that we drafted and Ben can't find anyone else because he lacks field vision.

True, I'd like to see Hines Ward getting the football more since I still believe he is our toughest and most reliable receiver.  But, I actually think Heat, FWP, and Holmes are more DANGEROUS to a defense right now.

Adding insult to injury, last week I heard a radio "analyst" say that the Steelers were a playoff team MAYBE, but not a serious contender because they had lost leaders like Jerome Bettis and Joey Porter, and Hines Ward just wasn't one of "those kinds of guys."

Uh, Bettis left LAST year.

The most absent part of Joey Porter's leadership is bulletin board material for the other team and two personal fouls a game.

What else does Hines Ward have to do to be one of "those guys?"
« Last Edit: Sep 27, 2007 at 08:52 by Preacherman0 » Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
pensteel
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #7 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:04 »

If you read the article, they had a diagnosis and treatment for all 32 teams in the league (including the Pats and Colts).

They had to find something else to diagnose? Can you think of any other problems this team has shown so far?
Logged
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #8 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:19 »

Quote
They had to find something else to diagnose? Can you think of any other problems this team has shown so far?

Yes, better play from the offensive line.  Big numbers aside, they are clearly not what we would want them to be.

Why invent a problem when one can simply look and see the obvious?
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,693



« Reply #9 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:20 »

Quote
If you read the article, they had a diagnosis and treatment for all 32 teams in the league (including the Pats and Colts).

They had to find something else to diagnose? Can you think of any other problems this team has shown so far?
I read the article, it sucked.

You know, when you go for a checkup, sometimes the doctor says, "You're fine, just keep doing what you're doing."

Besides, there are bigger problems with this team than a true #2 wr.  The play of the OL, particularly in pass protect.  Kickoff coverage.  The slow start of Timmons.  Any of which might have been better fodder than the BS above.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
Hercules50
Member
***

Karma: 158
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


« Reply #10 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:32 »

Quote
If you read the article, they had a diagnosis and treatment for all 32 teams in the league (including the Pats and Colts).

They had to find something else to diagnose? Can you think of any other problems this team has shown so far?
Good point.

The turf at Heinz still sucks. That's our biggest problem.  
Logged
pensteel
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #11 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:33 »

Quote
Quote
If you read the article, they had a diagnosis and treatment for all 32 teams in the league (including the Pats and Colts).

They had to find something else to diagnose? Can you think of any other problems this team has shown so far?
I read the article, it sucked.

You know, when you go for a checkup, sometimes the doctor says, "You're fine, just keep doing what you're doing."

Besides, there are bigger problems with this team than a true #2 wr.  The play of the OL, particularly in pass protect.  Kickoff coverage.  The slow start of Timmons.  Any of which might have been better fodder than the BS above.
Timmons is a rookie draft pick and apparenlty has been very good on special teams. We already had our starters. You can't be talking about a slow start to a rookie non-starter.

That's not a problem. On the offensive line, we have the NFL's leading rusher and have given up 4 sacks, 1 more than best in the league.

Sure, we may not expect it to last and you can nitpick and say there were certain times where it coudl be better. But you're not gonna talk about that as a problem right now because statistically they are playing very well.

On the other hand, our WR stats through 3 games are not exactly great. Granted this is because we've scored in different ways and it doesn't matter how we get yards.

Thus, we should be happy that this is the only thing they can think of to criticize us for because there really isn't anything else you can look at and see so far.
 
Logged
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,198



« Reply #12 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:52 »

Woodley's gotten some decent play in limited action.  Given the slow start by Timmons in camp, I would hope that he starts getting integrated into a similar role soon, getting some work in packages.  He's shown some good speed and energy on STs, but crap, I want a bit more from my first rounder.  Even just a few plays a game, late fourth quarter, see if he can make some magic happen.

But I do have to trust LeBeau on this.  He'll know how fast to bring these guys along.  My guess on Timmons is limited action sometime after the bye.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Hercules50
Member
***

Karma: 158
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


« Reply #13 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 09:58 »

Quote
Woodley's gotten some decent play in limited action.  Given the slow start by Timmons in camp, I would hope that he starts getting integrated into a similar role soon, getting some work in packages.  He's shown some good speed and energy on STs, but crap, I want a bit more from my first rounder.  Even just a few plays a game, late fourth quarter, see if he can make some magic happen.

But I do have to trust LeBeau on this.  He'll know how fast to bring these guys along.  My guess on Timmons is limited action sometime after the bye.
The lack of play from Timmons and Woodley could end up being a blessing --

Not too many teams are going to be able to field fresh pass rushers in December. We may be able to. Nothing wrong with that, while going 3-0.
Logged
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,693



« Reply #14 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 13:04 »

Quote
You can't be talking about a slow start to a rookie non-starter.

 
Says who?  

Quote
On the offensive line, we have the NFL's leading rusher and have given up 4 sacks, 1 more than best in the league.

So it's a bigger problem with Holmes and Wilson having to play than it would be with, oh, dunno, say Essex or Stapleton?
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
oblongatta
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 264
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,449


WWW
« Reply #15 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 14:07 »

One thing I love about going to the game is that it is easier to watch other players while the game is going on.  During the Buffalo game I was watching Hines to see if his numbers might be down because he wasn't open.  It looked to me like, other than when he went at a guy to block him, he was open on almost every play.  Seriously.  I'm telling you they could have thrown to him about 20 times in that game.  
 
Logged
msdmnr2002
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2837
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,614



WWW
« Reply #16 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 16:49 »

Quote
That's not a problem. On the offensive line, we have the NFL's leading rusher and have given up 4 sacks, 1 more than best in the league.

Oline gets some credit, but I think a lot of those stats are credited to FWP and Ben.  How many times has Parker turned nothing into a 10+yard gain by avoiding a hit at the line?  How many times has Ben had someone take a shot at him, only to either avoid the hit, or take the hit and stay on his feet?  Oline has some definite room to improve.
Logged
jburghfan
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 223
Offline Offline

Posts: 855


« Reply #17 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 17:04 »

Quote
So it's a bigger problem with Holmes and Wilson having to play than it would be with, oh, dunno, say Essex or Stapleton?
[/b]


Ohhhhhh.......I just got a chill........Did someone open a window?
Logged
pensteel
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #18 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 17:47 »

Quote
Quote
You can't be talking about a slow start to a rookie non-starter.

 
Says who?  

Quote
On the offensive line, we have the NFL's leading rusher and have given up 4 sacks, 1 more than best in the league.

So it's a bigger problem with Holmes and Wilson having to play than it would be with, oh, dunno, say Essex or Stapleton?
That would be a problem, if our starters on the OLine went down (and it looks like Mahan is gonna start).

I'm not saying the WRs have been a problem. They haven't been. Nothing on this team has been bad to the slightest extent. We've looked very well, even if that might possibly attributed to inferior opponents.

The point is, the article had to find something wrong with every team, and if that's the best they can come up with, its a good thing.

Our O-Line has been very good so far. Lets not get into what-ifs. Essex and Stapleton are not starting now. I'm pretty sure every OLine in the league is bad if two starters go down.  
Logged
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,693



« Reply #19 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 22:18 »

Quote
Quote
Quote
You can't be talking about a slow start to a rookie non-starter.

 
Says who?  

Quote
On the offensive line, we have the NFL's leading rusher and have given up 4 sacks, 1 more than best in the league.

So it's a bigger problem with Holmes and Wilson having to play than it would be with, oh, dunno, say Essex or Stapleton?
That would be a problem, if our starters on the OLine went down (and it looks like Mahan is gonna start).
 
Q. E. D.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
JackSplat
Jerk Store Proprietor
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1541
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,311



« Reply #20 on: Sep 27, 2007 at 22:44 »

the article is bullshit.  I dont think Ward has EVER been double teamed in his life.  at least not on the football field.

so willie has to look forward to 25 carries for about 30 and change with Ward being out?
Logged

Jerry, it's Frank Costanza, Mr.
Steinbrenner is here, George is dead, call me back!
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!