Tomlin

[Vader]

If Hines and Troy, truly, had real issues with Tomlin why didn't they leave? I have the same issues with folks who complain about drafting players that didn't fit DL's scheme. Yet DL stayed for, what, 8 years, under a ****** head coach who drafted players he couldn't use.

When a coach has been to two Super Bowls and has to rebuild a team, there should be some leeway given. Several losing seasons in a row would show that the new way isn't working. Most teams, when rebuilding have, at least, one losing season. For all of the talk about the incredible lack of talent evaluation by Tomlin, all that ****** talent has yet to turn in even one losing season. Of course, people here think a statement like that is the same declaring that an 8-8 season is a great result and that Tomlin is SuperCoach. Of course, it is not the same.

So losing seasons? One game out of 16 means the new way isn't working? Tomlin won 8 games because he had Ben. Period. A franchise QB can cover a multitude of bad coaching. Especially a top 3 QB.

 

[ark steel]

So losing seasons? One game out of 16 means the new way isn't working? Tomlin won 8 games because he had Ben. Period. A franchise QB can cover a multitude of bad coaching. Especially a top 3 QB.

Whatever you would like to nitpick. Would a couple of 7-9 seasons mean something isn't working? Depends, I suppose. In the example given there weren't a couple of 7-9 seasons, there were 6-10 and 4-12 along with 2 8-8 seasons. People here have wanted Ryan over Tomlin because he is "a better coach". I don't see it.

As I have said before, there were plenty of rumors that Ben was, essentially, forced on cowher, so I don't consider him a "cowher player" and, you might say, Cowher only finally won because of Ben. Even not having played well in the SB, Ben got them there. I know you don't like that opinion because you don't agree with it, and it doesn't fit your narrative, but it is what it is. Not something I made up or, even, can be proven. It is my opinion. We will NEVER know whether Tomlin would have had losing seasons without Ben, but you can speculate so because that fits your narrative. Doesn't bother me as long as you understand, as I do, that it is your opinion and nothing more. I don't even, completely disagree with the theory, but it cannot be proven.

With as many sacks as he has taken, did Ben miss any games in those 8-8 seasons that were wins? I'd bet there is, at least, one win without Ben, but I didn't look it up. Did any of losses in those seasons come with Ben at QB where he didn't play well?

I don't think Tomlin is an average or below-average coach. Plenty of people agree with me that he is an above average coach. No idea why you get so worked up about that.

 

[Vader]

I read Rooney's book where he says he "steered" the conversation back to Ben but to my knowledge nobody in that room said Cowher or anyone else was against drafting him. They were discussing several players and picked Ben. If you have statement contrary to that from people that were in the room then I'd like to hear it.

Also Tomlin is an average coach. Put him with AZ when Whiz took over and I doubt they make the SB. I think Pittsburgh is the only spot for him. I don't think he'll succeed anywhere else.

 

[antdrewjosh]

I read Rooney's book where he says he "steered" the conversation back to Ben but to my knowledge nobody in that room said Cowher or anyone else was against drafting him. They were discussing several players and picked Ben. If you have statement contrary to that from people that were in the room then I'd like to hear it.

Also Tomlin is an average coach. Put him with AZ when Whiz took over and I doubt they make the SB. I think Pittsburgh is the only spot for him. I don't think he'll succeed anywhere else.

I liked Whiz would have had no problem if we hired him. Honestly thought he would be the hire. But there is nothing that has happened that makes your statement true or even a plausible scenario. Whiz lost the Super Bowl to the Steelers coached by Mike Tomlin. Where you have to consider he should of had a slight coaching advantage being that he knew the players. He was then fired from the Cardinals.

 

[papillon]

So how long does a Super Bowl win give? It's an honest questions. And regarding respect, why is it that players who have left, namely Hines and Troy, have stated there have been issues with Tomlin?

Stability, if it's not working, isn't worth anything is it? I just said I'm not calling for him to be fired during the season, I think that would be stupid. But if we have a poor year, it's time to make a change.

Define stability not working? Stability by definition means you have to take history into account and since 1970 I think you can take any 10 year period and see that the Steelers were one of the most successful franchises in the NFL during that time frame. Was it because of stability? No way to tell, but it certainly is one of the factors since the Steelers have had 3 coaches in 46 years and one owner; the Steelers are typically lauded for their winning percentage over that time frame.

The other side of the coin is that we can certainly identify certain franchises that have made coaching changes frequently and have had little to no success in winning games, let alone playoff games and Super Bowls. Noll had multiple years when the Steelers weren't that good, same as Cowher and up to this point Tomlin has not, but at some point he'll have a losing a season its inevitable. Firing Tomlin because you believe he hasn't developed players, but continues to win games, made questionable in game decisions, you don't like his interviews, doesn't adjust during a game, or whatever your beef du jour is would, IMO, be fool-hearty.

There would have to be a lot worse football happening before I'd even remotely consider firing Tomlin and I wasn't a fan when he was hired.

On the flip side how long does winning 64% of the games that you have coached give you. Winning 2 out of every 3 games is pretty good. There's probably a handful of coaches winning at that rate and I doubt any of them are on the hot seat, nor should they be, IMO. Since, 1966 no team that has changed coaches mid-stream has made the playoffs, so why would the Steelers throw in the towel at 2-2 this year with one of the league's best offenses and a defense on the rise?

I realize you don't want him fired mid-season, but I think some do.

Papillon

 

[ark steel]

I read Rooney's book where he says he "steered" the conversation back to Ben but to my knowledge nobody in that room said Cowher or anyone else was against drafting him. They were discussing several players and picked Ben. If you have statement contrary to that from people that were in the room then I'd like to hear it.

Also Tomlin is an average coach. Put him with AZ when Whiz took over and I doubt they make the SB. I think Pittsburgh is the only spot for him. I don't think he'll succeed anywhere else.

No idea why there would be any discussion at that point. A probable franchise QB is sitting on the board, you haven't had one in years, why would Rooney have to "steer" anything toward him. I understand some discussion like "these players were on our board that we thought would be available and a good fit", but if there was enough discussion that the owner had to "steer" the conversation that way, it tells me there was something going on. Either way, Cowher was handed Ben on a silver platter and the draft pick had to be 'steered' that way. I believe that Rooney was being kind in his book.

Warner played pretty well when Whiz was there. Think Tomlin would have made the Warner/Boldin/Fitzgerald/Breaston combination any worse? I don't. Warner's rating those three years was never below 89. For what it is worth, Warner was already on the team when Whiz took over (although not playing that well the prior two years). Would Whiz have had any good years without Kurt? Who knows, but the winning seasons stopped when Kurt left.

I liked Whiz would have had no problem if we hired him. Honestly thought he would be the hire. But there is nothing that has happened that makes your statement true or even a plausible scenario. Whiz lost the Super Bowl to the Steelers coached by Mike Tomlin. Where you have to consider he should of had a slight coaching advantage being that he knew the players. He was then fired from Cardinals.

There are some (not saying Vader is one) that say Tomlin was outcoached in that SB. The only reason the Steelers won was because of the players.

In any event, Whiz had Kurt Warner for three years (2 winning seasons and one 8-8). He loses Kurt and goes 5-11, 8-8 and 5-11. For an Offensive coach who is supposed to be great with QB's, he couldn't replace Warner and had 2 losing seasons that were well below 8-8. At Tennessee, he is 2-14 and started this season at 1-2 where the only win is against the 1-3 Buccaneers.

I thought we would hire Whiz, too. But, from his HC results, no idea what makes anyone think he would be better than Tomlin.

 

[bermudasteel]

And you blame others for assuming you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer? Keep posting this garbage,

With all due respect Bermuda, if Tomlin's NOT signing off on those situations, he should be fired for not doing his job. He is the HEAD COACH! The buck stops with him, and the excuses and blaming of everybody else but him got old years ago.

I respect that. You're post are always logical and sensible.

 

[bermudasteel]

And you blame others for assuming you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer? Keep posting this garbage,

You're ******* high. Kyle ******* Shannahan? Get bent dude. If Tomlin won 4 straight Super Bowls you'd still be whinning about something.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steelerfan81 again.

 

[bmoritz]

I respect that. You're post are always logical and sensible.

Thanks Bermuda, likewise. I enjoy healthy debates with people who can defend their positions. And I just want to state, I understand where you guys are coming from, and I do respect your sense of loyalty. I have no doubt we're all true Steeler fans, just disagree on what's best for the team.

 

[jitter77]

To me that's Cleveland Browns way of thinking..What have you done for me lately. Win now.Win now. All you are doing is creating an environment where the players dont respect the coaches and his staff because they know it's nothing stable in place. Here the players have no choice but to respect the coach cause they know he isn't going anywhere.

I do not want Tomlin gone do to the "win now" mentality I simply do not think he is doing a good job. Winning is great, but I would like to see progress. I want to see a pass rush and at least a decent secondary. I want to see a game plan that actually seems to exploit other teams weaknesses. I want to see a game where we don't seem to pick play calls out of a hat. To me some things are in-excuseable like when we had Mitch Berger punting with not one, but 2 bad hamstrings. I know that is a minor thing, but it makes 0 sense and something a professional coach should not do. I know every coach has time management problems at some point, but it seems our does it consistently. Also get tired of the cliched coach speak with no meaning behind it.

 

[AggieSteel]

To me that's Cleveland Browns way of thinking..What have you done for me lately. Win now.Win now. All you are doing is creating an environment where the players dont respect the coaches and his staff because they know it's nothing stable in place. Here the players have no choice but to respect the coach cause they know he isn't going anywhere.

To me, this is the Cincinnati Bengals way of thinking. Keep running the same coaches out there, with average or below-average results, because you win just enough games not to get fired, even though you know damn well the team has more potential than sputtering out in the first round every year. It's the definition of insanity to keep someone around who you know will only get you so far, just because the result isn't necessarily "bad" all the time.

 

[insaniti]

To me, this is the Cincinnati Bengals way of thinking. Keep running the same coaches out there, with average or below-average results, because you win just enough games not to get fired, even though you know damn well the team has more potential than sputtering out in the first round every year. It's the definition of insanity to keep someone around who you know will only get you so far, just because the result isn't necessarily "bad" all the time.

The difference is Marvin Lewis has NEVER been out of the first round, while Tomlin has TWICE made the Super Bowl.

 

[AggieSteel]

The difference is Marvin Lewis has NEVER been out of the first round, while Tomlin has TWICE made the Super Bowl.

True, but I also believe that was a result of having a ready-made dominant defense run by the same guy who was running it before he got there.

That guy is gone, and those players are gone. We're left with a Tomlin defense which, to be fair, is looking much better this year. But the trend until this season has clearly been a pretty much 1:1 correlation between inherited players and success of the D.

I don't think it's impossible for Tomlin to get us to the promised land again. But I don't think it will necessarily be because of anything he does differently or better, but rather because Ben/Brown/Bell/Bryant go nuts and our youngins on D play better.

 

[Vader]

No idea why there would be any discussion at that point. A probable franchise QB is sitting on the board, you haven't had one in years, why would Rooney have to "steer" anything toward him. I understand some discussion like "these players were on our board that we thought would be available and a good fit", but if there was enough discussion that the owner had to "steer" the conversation that way, it tells me there was something going on. Either way, Cowher was handed Ben on a silver platter and the draft pick had to be 'steered' that way. I believe that Rooney was being kind in his book.

Warner played pretty well when Whiz was there. Think Tomlin would have made the Warner/Boldin/Fitzgerald/Breaston combination any worse? I don't. Warner's rating those three years was never below 89. For what it is worth, Warner was already on the team when Whiz took over (although not playing that well the prior two years). Would Whiz have had any good years without Kurt? Who knows, but the winning seasons stopped when Kurt left.

You may think he was being kind but you can't possibly know that. I've listened to him describe it and nobody would come away with the impression that he forced the coaches to take Ben. It's a process they go through and Rooney steered the conversation back to Ben. You don't know if it was Colbert trying to take another player. It's just speculation. And from what I've seen and read everybody was on board with taking Ben. Remember this is done in just a few minutes before the pick. People seem to think this is some long drawn out discussion. It happened in just a few minutes.

There are some (not saying Vader is one) that say Tomlin was outcoached in that SB. The only reason the Steelers won was because of the players.

In any event, Whiz had Kurt Warner for three years (2 winning seasons and one 8-8). He loses Kurt and goes 5-11, 8-8 and 5-11. For an Offensive coach who is supposed to be great with QB's, he couldn't replace Warner and had 2 losing seasons that were well below 8-8. At Tennessee, he is 2-14 and started this season at 1-2 where the only win is against the 1-3 Buccaneers.

I thought we would hire Whiz, too. But, from his HC results, no idea what makes anyone think he would be better than Tomlin.

So if Tomlin ever leaves and goes to a non winning franchise and has the same record as Whiz will he been seen the same way? Hell Tomlin has had two 8-8 seasons with a franchise QB in his prime. Warner was old when Whiz arrived. You really think Tomlin can turn a franchise around and get to a SB in a couple of years?

 

[antdrewjosh]

To me, this is the Cincinnati Bengals way of thinking. Keep running the same coaches out there, with average or below-average results, because you win just enough games not to get fired, even though you know damn well the team has more potential than sputtering out in the first round every year. It's the definition of insanity to keep someone around who you know will only get you so far, just because the result isn't necessarily "bad" all the time.

So since the Bengals have adopted a more Rooney like approach have they waded to the depths of despair that they stayed wallowing in or have they become a quality team who is now trying to just get over the hump?

 

[ark steel]

I do not want Tomlin gone do to the "win now" mentality I simply do not think he is doing a good job. Winning is great, but I would like to see progress. I want to see a pass rush and at least a decent secondary. I want to see a game plan that actually seems to exploit other teams weaknesses. I want to see a game where we don't seem to pick play calls out of a hat. To me some things are in-excuseable like when we had Mitch Berger punting with not one, but 2 bad hamstrings. I know that is a minor thing, but it makes 0 sense and something a professional coach should not do. I know every coach has time management problems at some point, but it seems our does it consistently. Also get tired of the cliched coach speak with no meaning behind it.

I don't know, for sure, but it appears from the sack counts as if the pass rush may have kicked up a notch. I thought the draft seemed to be addressing the lack of int's but not one of those DB's is currently on the active roster (one is IR). I was really looking forward to seeing what Holliman could do and thought he was an awesome pick at his spot, but he didn't even make the practice squad. Disappointing.

 

[AggieSteel]

So since the Bengals have adopted a more Rooney like approach have they waded to the depths of despair that they stayed wallowing in or have they become a quality team who is now trying to just get over the hump?

But they're now on their 5th year of "Chargers Land" (as I like to call it) where the media drools over your "talented roster" and says things like "this is their year" and they always prove why none of that means anything. How long do you need to get over the hump? In the free agency era, you have a short time to build a contender because you need to get lucky with young players still on rookie contracts making big impacts so you can better manage the salary cap and keep a talented roster together, and most importantly, maximize the best years of your QB. When people start realizing your roster is young and talented, you won't be able to afford to keep those guys. The Bungles have spent so much time trying to get over the hump, they're about to start sliding down the other side of it before they ever even reach the pinnacle.

 

[antdrewjosh]

So which one is better sucking *** or having a shot whether you get over the hump or not? Do you think their fans want to go back to the way it was.

 

[AggieSteel]

So which one is better sucking *** or having a shot whether you get over the hump or not? Do you think their fans want to go back to the way it was.

If you're the Bengals, I guess you're satisfied with "having a shot to get over the hump" but deep down knowing you don't have the QB to make a serious run against the big boys

If you're the Steelers, if you suspect you won't be able to get over the hump, then winning 10-11 games and getting beaten in the playoffs isn't enough to keep you happy. In Pittsburgh, the bar is "with the team at full strength, we can be considered a Super Bowl contender more often than not, and even when we're not, we trust these coaches have a plan to get there"

 

[antdrewjosh]

If you're the Bengals, I guess you're satisfied with "having a shot to get over the hump" but deep down knowing you don't have the QB to make a serious run against the big boys

If you're the Steelers, if you suspect you won't be able to get over the hump, then winning 10-11 games and getting beaten in the playoffs isn't enough to keep you happy. In Pittsburgh, the bar is "with the team at full strength, we can be considered a Super Bowl contender more often than not, and even when we're not, we trust these coaches have a plan to get there"

Definitely talking about the Bengals. We know here its super bowl or bust. But thankfully the Steelers are also realistic and realize while setting that as the goal is great you're not going to reach it every year.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So since the Bengals have adopted a more Rooney like approach have they waded to the depths of despair that they stayed wallowing in or have they become a quality team who is now trying to just get over the hump?

I think Marvin would have a better record if he was here and had the Steelers FO to work with. One reason he has been there so long is that Bengals Mike Brown is too cheap to fire him and have to pay two head coaches.

 

[swal75]

We will see how Tomlin does when Ben retires and he no longer has an elite talent at QB. I guess he'll be here for 8-10 more seasons after this one, but I'm often left wondering how much of his success is due to having a QB. I'm thinking a very large portion.

 

[antdrewjosh]

So what's the difference between Belicheat and Brady? Or Landry and Staubach. Noll and Bradshaw I could go on and on.

 

[ark steel]

You may think he was being kind but you can't possibly know that. I've listened to him describe it and nobody would come away with the impression that he forced the coaches to take Ben. It's a process they go through and Rooney steered the conversation back to Ben. You don't know if it was Colbert trying to take another player. It's just speculation. And from what I've seen and read everybody was on board with taking Ben. Remember this is done in just a few minutes before the pick. People seem to think this is some long drawn out discussion. It happened in just a few minutes. As I said, my opinion. I've been told on this board that you can't believe what coaches//players/owners say in interviews, so...IMO, there should have been no "steering" with relation to Ben. The conversation should have been more like "We are taking Ben unless someone can give me a reason another pick is better." Then discussion happens, but all with the idea that "Ben is the pick and you better have a damn good reason to try to justify anyone else."


So if Tomlin ever leaves and goes to a non winning franchise and has the same record as Whiz will he been seen the same way? Hell Tomlin has had two 8-8 seasons with a franchise QB in his prime. Warner was old when Whiz arrived. You really think Tomlin can turn a franchise around and get to a SB in a couple of years?

No idea what will happen when/if Tomlin leaves. Would you suddenly think he is a good coach if he goes to a losing franchise and they start winning? Shouldn't that perception be different if the team starts winning and never has a winning season again? Except the Cardinals did have a winning season again. With an old Carson Palmer as the QB. After Whiz left.

Sure Warner was old, but he had two damn good receivers those years (Fitz and Boldin) and another good third receiver a couple of years (Breaston). Just because he didn't get a team as filled with talent as Tomlin did doesn't mean Whiz was handed a team completely devoid of talent and he pulled in all those great players. Advanced age or not, Warner played well and that cannot be denied. For what it is worth he had Haley as his OC. The real issue I'm putting forth is that Warner was there, Whiz's record looked good. Warner left...well, not such a good record. Maybe it wasn't Whiz's fault, maybe it was. The results, overall, is that he has had more actual losing seasons as he has winning seasons as an HC.

 

[steelerscotty]

Coach Haley, correct??? I will walk to Selma, butt-*** naked, if you think Coach Tomlin signed off on those play calls. Yes, he, Coach Tomlin, owned the loss; but, those play calls sit SQUARELY on Coach Haley.

I would argue, especially at this point in the game, its entirely up to Tomlin to say to Haley: "lets go with a run here coach, and by that i mean BELL"!