1 draft spot CAN make a difference.

[Hines57]

While I always knew that Pittsburgh beat out Chicago for the rights to draft Terry Bradshaw via a coin flip in 1970 (under current rules Steelers would have had top pick due to tie breaker). There is no question Bradshaw's selection changed Steelers history.

But the NFL Network Caught in the Draft series for the years ending in 4 have been interesting:
We all know about Noll wanting to draft Stallworth in round one instead of Swann. It took the entire braintrust to convince Noll that Bill Nunn was the only one to really know what Stallworth was capable of and no one else would take him.

But the interesting part was how the Cowboys were picking right after the Steelers and they had their draft card in to select Swann. The debate in Pittsburgh nearly took the full 15 minutes and in fact the card with Swann's name on it was turned in with only 5 seconds left. The slightest delay and we may not have 4 Super Bowls.

In 2003 - the Steelers lost a meaningless game to the Ravens in week 17 in OT. That loss moved the Steelers to the head of the 3 way tie breaker (Bills, Jets) and enabled the selection of Roethlisberger when the Bills wanted him badly.

In 2007 Tomlin loved Revis, I don't know if word got out but the Jets traded up to select him. Maybe I got Coolie for Brains, but I am willing to bet he isn't the headcase he turned out to be if he played in Pittsburgh with their leadership and absence of Rex Ryan's feeding his head. And I say we beat Green Bay with Revis in 2010.

I imagine adding Revis to that defense would have added more trophies to our team. Revis alongside Ike in his prime would have been ******* sick. We probably still would have drafted Woodley in round 2. We definitely tipped our hand that we wanted Revis and it cost us. A shutdown corner is a prize possession, kind of like this draft. 1.15 Dennard

 

[Stoney]

Maybe they are 11 or 12. Is that worth it?

We really won't be able to answer that until we who is taken 3 or 4 spots ahead of us.

I will continue to argue that to lose all three you have to do more than just play younger guys. It has to be purposeful losing. I can't square that.

I'm not advocating that either. It would be incredible if some young player unexpectedly turned into a star, but even playing hard there'd be a drop off in performance.

 

[Badcat]

I'm glad TMC isn't the GM. The Steelers #1 goal is to win Championships and you simply don't do that when you essentially quit on a season. You don't foster that kind of attitude in the locker room, but rather an attitude of never quitting regardless of how hard the climb may be. The Steelers were struggling and fought their way back into the playoffs in 2005 and became the first team to win a SB as the wild card team. I don't back quitters, I want a team to fight until the very end. Period.

 

[TMC]

LMAO, does anyone remember the draft following the LAST 6-10 season? Who did it bring?

If the Steelers had won 2 more games, which would have tickled you endlessly, they would have drafted 16th. The Buffalo Bills drafted JP Losman that year with the 22nd pick. They took Lee Evans at #13. The Steelers took Ben Roethlisberger at #11.

Two losses that year brought the Steelers 2 Super Bowls and they played in a 3rd.

If the #1 goal is to win Championships, then SOMEONE has to plan long-term instead of giving fans a reason to jackoff in Kleenex for a couple meaningless wins.

Odd how they can sit guys the week before the playoffs and it does not foster a losing attitude. How do they ever make it through the preseason and not foster a losing attitude? You mean grown ******* men can understand the concept of we are not in the hunt and we want to play the backups? Nah, all those knuckledraggers cannot grasp that concept. Why would ANYONE ever sign a player from a losing team? If they were on that losing team, it had to foster a losing attitude.

In 2005, the Steelers were 7-5, had a winning record, and won 4 straight to end up 11-5. In 2013, the Steelers were 5-8? Notice a difference between 7-5 and 5-8? Nah, sure you don't.

You may not back quitters, but the last two seasons you have backed losers. If they fail to find talent in the draft, all the rah-rah **** in the world won't change that......

 

[deljzc]

I think the #1 goal is to be a competitive franchise, year-in, year-out. I think the goal is to honestly look around the division (be the best), around the conference (be in the top 2-3 teams), and around the league (be in the top 5). That's the goal. Winning championships takes a little bit of luck after you accomplish that and trying to evaluate personnel, coaching, or GM work on "championships" is a very slippery slope to me (both for and against).

I don't really see any tangible decisions in week 15 vs. Cincinnati (when we were 5-8) that Tomlin and the coaching staff should have done differently. If Arnfelt isn't practicing better than Hood, why should he play? Everyone in that locker room knows Moye isn't better than Sanders/Cotchery, are you saying Moye should have gotten 50 snaps? Really?

We played Wallace at C, Beachum at LT, Gilbert over Adams at RT.

At every level of athletics starting at age 13-14, the better player gets more playing time (except for two exceptions - worried about injury or in blowouts). That tenet is the basis for all work ethic around sports. If you work harder, if you get better, then you beat out the man in front of you and get rewarded. Period.

The locker room is a family. You encourage that camaraderie. Being a good coach is about being fair and honest with your players. About setting rules and sticking to them. Demanding hard work and time (both mental and physical) towards the craft.

I just don't understand what tangible decisions you expect Tomlin to make in a week 15 game at we are preparing to BEAT the Bengals on nationally televised night game. His job is to prepare the team to play their best football, right?

And Tomlin (and the players involved) actually did awesome. We got out to a 24-0 lead. We crushed the division leaders and embarrassed them on national television. Everyone involved did a good job (which is what we want, right?).

So again, what EXACTLY did you want Tomlin to do or decide prior to that Cincinnati game that was so much different and do you really think those differences would CHANGE Colbert's evaluation of the team or off-season decisions to date?

 

[TMC]

I have said exactly what I wanted him to do. I wanted him to play the roster depth. The Steelers were out of contention (maybe not mathematically, but realistically they were). So what if Hood performed better in practices. Maybe he was being played because he knew the system better than a rookie. Nah, that cannot be it because the coaches NEVER play a guy like Clark Haggans in front of a rookie like LaMarr Woodley. Ever. Even though Woodley ended the season with just as many sacks as the starting Haggans. Funny how people call for Adams to start at RT right now over the coaches choice of Gilbert. No way Adams could be better.

Now, I hope the extra playing time helped Hood and made him better heading into this season, because we need him to step up. Oh, ****, wait. Well, I hope the extra time helped Sanders and Cotchery because we need them this season. Oh, ****, wait.

I do not care if it changes Colbert's evaluation or off-season decisions to this point. I do, however, understand it would change their decisions on Thursday/Friday/Saturday of this week.

I also understand that if they had lost the FINAL game last season, while it may not have changed the pick of Jones (since they liked him so much) or even Bell, it could have changed things in the 3rd/4th round. Instead of taking Wheaton, they could have drafted Keenan Allen. Instead of trading back up into the 4th and giving up the 3rd, they may have just opted to draft Thomas and passed on a QB completely, leaving them with a 3rd this year.

Those meaningless wins, and that is exactly what they are, have ripple effects through the draft. Three spots, five spots, etc can be huge as you look down through the rounds and the decisions made. If they trade back at any point in this draft to garner another pick, the meaningless win in 2012 will be a factor in that decision, because it will be to re-acquire picks you gave away because of your draft position.

But, they embarrassed someone on national TV, only to watch them make the playoffs while the Steelers sat home.

You state this:

I think the goal is to honestly look around the division (be the best), around the conference (be in the top 2-3 teams), and around the league (be in the top 5). That's the goal.

I absolutely agree. That is 100% correct. When the Steelers were 5-8, was that goal a possibility for 2013? NO. So, why not begin to work on your goal for 2014? Why continue to break rocks in 2013 IF it hinders that goal in 2014 in ANY way? Why not start looking forward? Why not see IF a guy like Arnfelt can help you by testing him in live fire?

Again, that is short-term thinking and someone, somewhere, needs to be planning the future, where you can maximize your opportunities to return to the point where you are considered one of the top 5 in the league. Sorry if I do not think climbing from the 8th worst team to the 15th worst team is some sign of a champion.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Play to win.Always.

 

[deljzc]

It's not short term thinking. It's Tomlin thinking. You prepare during the week the same as you always prepare, because that's what coaches do. That's their JOB. That's what the owner is hiring them to do.

I still don't get it. Now it's not about the best players playing to you. You don't think the team would see through that? You don't think they care? You said "they are grown ups", they know. Know what? That your coaches could care less about this week's game? That to them it's a pre-season scrimmage? You think the players would play for each other then? You think that builds and reinforces "team" mentality?

The more you talk about the Cincinnati game, the more you basically wanted to just bag it completely. Hell, why even play Roethlisberger then? Are you honestly telling me, right here, Tomlin should have played Landry Jones (over a healthy Roethlisberger) on a Sunday night game vs. Cincinnati?

Because quit beating around a bush. Just come out and say that's what you would have done because all this bullshit about Arnfelt and Moye is pretty much the same thing. Might as well go all in.

Who cares if that plan gets a big fine from the commish to Rooney (because that's what would happen and you know it). Let's be sneaky about it and lose on purpose.

Hell, maybe Tomlin should just go for it on every 4th down to, right? You get to evaluate our players better. Give them more shots? Where's the ******* line to "losing on purpose" to you?

 

[TMC]

If you are a lock for the playoffs, do you play EVERY starter or do you rest someone? Don't come with the bigger picture **** if you rest people. Because you ALWAYS play to win. Or, do you NOT always play to win?

Do you play to win in the preseason or do you play lesser players after a series? Why? Are you not sending the same message? What message are you sending in either of those circumstances?

The simple fact is, teams, owners, GMs, coaches, and players KNOW there are situations where playing to win does not matter as much as the bigger picture. They tank preseason games each season and yet, somehow, they do not get the loser mentality. They fold up when they have the playoffs locked and play lesser guys, and somehow they are still able to play in the playoffs? HOW? OMG, like those 3 games last season or the game the season prior were any more important than a preseason game or game when the playoffs are locked.

Give me a ******* break.

And, why punt on 4th down? Isn't that giving up? By your premise, should they not play hard each play, each snap, fight for every inch? Yet, they punt to position themselves for later in a game. Genius. ******* amazing how brilliant that is. Why? Because the cost of failing in that option does not outweigh the benefit. They played the odds.

Yet, playing the odds to end the season is dumb, well, unless you have made the playoffs, then you sit every starter worth his salt and run in all the bench players you can. Then, losing is completely acceptable. Again, short term thinking.

And, what if Ben gets his knee blown out in the final game last season, misses this season. Still a brilliant move...right? The Steelers lost Heath Miller in the second to last game of the season. He was hampered well into the 2013 season because of it, likely a contributing factor to the 0-4 start. But hey, they won the last game. That is all that matters.

They can lose when they feel like it, just do not do it if the season is tanked.

 

[deljzc]

You didn't answer the ******* question.

Would you have started Landry Jones over Ben Roethlisberger weeks 15-17 last season?

How far are how obvious are you tanking (because that's what you are clearly implying)?

Do you think Tomlin should coach different on down-and-distance vs. a game he is "trying" to win (similar to preseason)?

I didn't hear you whine about benching Heath Miller last year, but once the injury happens, let's just monday morning quarterback the whole decision. "I would have benched him, because I'm smart."

You philosophy/position on this issue is bullshit and unattainable and unrealistic and you know it. It's half-assed. It's like "giving up a little" and "just enough to lose", which isn't even really feasible.

You don't actually want to come out and say "I would have benched Roethlisberger" because you know that's not possible, but then try to argue you'd bench other guys for the same exact reason (possible or not).

And the league office would be all over the *** of the organization if we start intentionally losing games for no other reason than go get a better draft pick. That's a dangerous precedent to set and I'm sure the Rooney's wouldn't be apart of it.

I have addressed the "not playing guys" when injury concerns effect a GAME NEXT WEEK. Not playing guys to not get hurt for a GAME NEXT SEASON? Yeah, same exact thing. Sure.

 

[TMC]

You didn't answer the ******* question.

Would you have started Landry Jones over Ben Roethlisberger weeks 15-17 last season?

How far are how obvious are you tanking (because that's what you are clearly implying)?

Do you think Tomlin should coach different on down-and-distance vs. a game he is "trying" to win (similar to preseason)?

I didn't hear you whine about benching Heath Miller last year, but once the injury happens, let's just monday morning quarterback the whole decision. "I would have benched him, because I'm smart."

You philosophy/position on this issue is bullshit and unattainable and unrealistic and you know it. It's half-assed. It's like "giving up a little" and "just enough to lose", which isn't even really feasible.

You don't actually want to come out and say "I would have benched Roethlisberger" because you know that's not possible, but then try to argue you'd bench other guys for the same exact reason (possible or not).

And the league office would be all over the *** of the organization if we start intentionally losing games for no other reason than go get a better draft pick. That's a dangerous precedent to set and I'm sure the Rooney's wouldn't be apart of it.

I have addressed the "not playing guys" when injury concerns effect a GAME NEXT WEEK. Not playing guys to not get hurt for a GAME NEXT SEASON? Yeah, same exact thing. Sure.

Nope, I would have played Bruce Gradkowski. Might have brought in Landry Jones. Damn sure would not continue to risk my franchise QB. And, I did not ***** about specifically benching ANYONE, I stated they should play lesser talents, never mentioned anyone specifically.

Why is "not playing guys" for a GAME NEXT WEEK (meaning you are willing to tank) any different than not playing guys when the playoff chances are done?

See, funny how you are fine with losing and playing backups prior to the playoffs but not fine with taking the same action to end a season when you are not making the playoffs. Both would be MEANINGLESS wins. Both are to set yourself up for the future, the only difference is your okay when the future is in a week or two, but not in 9 months.

Again, it is short sighted. A please me now mentality. And, it appears that no one in the organization is planning long-term anymore.

And, you can bet that one of the reasons the 49ers and Seahawks are doing well is they have longterm plans in place. Doubt it? The 49ers drafted Marcus Lattimore and IRed him as a rookie. No immediate gratification from that pick, but he is ready now and may be the feature back in the future. The Seahawks did the same thing with Walter Thurmond. Both taking potential first round talent later, shelving them, and seeing benefits in the future.

Long term planning. It is also why some teams trade picks today for picks in the future. It is all about opportunity costs and cost/benefit analysis.

 

[t-man]

I have said exactly what I wanted him to do. I wanted him to play the roster depth. The Steelers were out of contention (maybe not mathematically, but realistically they were). So what if Hood performed better in practices. Maybe he was being played because he knew the system better than a rookie. Nah, that cannot be it because the coaches NEVER play a guy like Clark Haggans in front of a rookie like LaMarr Woodley. Ever. Even though Woodley ended the season with just as many sacks as the starting Haggans. Funny how people call for Adams to start at RT right now over the coaches choice of Gilbert. No way Adams could be better.

Now, I hope the extra playing time helped Hood and made him better heading into this season, because we need him to step up. Oh, ****, wait. Well, I hope the extra time helped Sanders and Cotchery because we need them this season. Oh, ****, wait.

I do not care if it changes Colbert's evaluation or off-season decisions to this point. I do, however, understand it would change their decisions on Thursday/Friday/Saturday of this week.

I also understand that if they had lost the FINAL game last season, while it may not have changed the pick of Jones (since they liked him so much) or even Bell, it could have changed things in the 3rd/4th round. Instead of taking Wheaton, they could have drafted Keenan Allen. Instead of trading back up into the 4th and giving up the 3rd, they may have just opted to draft Thomas and passed on a QB completely, leaving them with a 3rd this year.

Those meaningless wins, and that is exactly what they are, have ripple effects through the draft. Three spots, five spots, etc can be huge as you look down through the rounds and the decisions made. If they trade back at any point in this draft to garner another pick, the meaningless win in 2012 will be a factor in that decision, because it will be to re-acquire picks you gave away because of your draft position.

But, they embarrassed someone on national TV, only to watch them make the playoffs while the Steelers sat home.

You state this:


I absolutely agree. That is 100% correct. When the Steelers were 5-8, was that goal a possibility for 2013? NO. So, why not begin to work on your goal for 2014? Why continue to break rocks in 2013 IF it hinders that goal in 2014 in ANY way? Why not start looking forward? Why not see IF a guy like Arnfelt can help you by testing him in live fire?

Again, that is short-term thinking and someone, somewhere, needs to be planning the future, where you can maximize your opportunities to return to the point where you are considered one of the top 5 in the league. Sorry if I do not think climbing from the 8th worst team to the 15th worst team is some sign of a champion.

KC makes that FG and we were watching the Steelers during wild card weekend. I'd say that's pretty ******* "in it". I'm in total agreement, if you're out of it, let the newbs get some playing time, but the Steelers at the end of last season were getting things going, no telling how deep into the playoffs that team could have gone. We'll never know, due to the ******* Cheifs playing their second string, and them missing a pretty cake FG, but IF they would have lost that game, and the Steelers had missed the playoffs because they played a bunch of newbs and lost a game, yeah, THAT would have pissed me off.

Joe

 

[diver]

Nope, I would have played Bruce Gradkowski. Might have brought in Landry Jones. Damn sure would not continue to risk my franchise QB. And, I did not ***** about specifically benching ANYONE, I stated they should play lesser talents, never mentioned anyone specifically.

Why is "not playing guys" for a GAME NEXT WEEK (meaning you are willing to tank) any different than not playing guys when the playoff chances are done?

See, funny how you are fine with losing and playing backups prior to the playoffs but not fine with taking the same action to end a season when you are not making the playoffs. Both would be MEANINGLESS wins. Both are to set yourself up for the future, the only difference is your okay when the future is in a week or two, but not in 9 months.

Again, it is short sighted. A please me now mentality. And, it appears that no one in the organization is planning long-term anymore.

And, you can bet that one of the reasons the 49ers and Seahawks are doing well is they have longterm plans in place. Doubt it? The 49ers drafted Marcus Lattimore and IRed him as a rookie. No immediate gratification from that pick, but he is ready now and may be the feature back in the future. The Seahawks did the same thing with Walter Thurmond. Both taking potential first round talent later, shelving them, and seeing benefits in the future.

Long term planning. It is also why some teams trade picks today for picks in the future. It is all about opportunity costs and cost/benefit analysis.

Well, I am consistent with this. I don't like sitting guys before the playoffs anymore than I do the idea of sitting guys with 3 games left if they are out of it. It cannot be stated enough that the Steelers were not out of it yet. However, I think it is a bad move before the playoffs. You have to keep your guys sharp. Maybe I wouldn't play them the whole game, but they would play.

I think to some degree this is a bad argument, because even if you want to sit a perfectly healthy Ben, for example, I think the league would take issue with it. Is there an inconsistency there? Sure, but when has that ever bothered the league?

All this being said, even the backups are still professional football players. It isn't Sisters of the Poor. They could still win. To ensure losses, you have to do something extra. Long term planning or not, that just isn't the way to do things.

 

[TMC]

Let me see if I can quantify this, to make it easier. The Steelers currently hold the 15th pick in the draft. If they had lost the final three, they would have drafted 9th. The difference between those two positions, by the draft chart, is 300 points. The 300 points equates to the 60th pick in the draft. So, those three wins, combined, valued at a 2nd round selection.

If you break it down by win, each win (basically) is valued at 100 points, or the 4th pick in the 4th round (pick 100). Either way you slice it, they gave up a 2nd round pick by winning all three or 3-4th round picks for 3 wins.

The season prior, the single win to end the season resulted in the 15th pick in the draft. They would have drafted 12th if they had lost. The difference in those two picks is 150 points or the 88th pick (3rd round) in the draft.

And, that is just the first round. The difference this season in the 2nd round would be a value of a 4th round pick, the 3rd round difference would be a 5th round pick.

Those are the opportunity costs of each win.

Del, didn't you flip out because they traded away this year's 3rd round pick and drafted Shamarko Thomas? If that 3rd round pick was so valuable then, why is it not valued now?

 

[Vader]

I would have played the young guys as well. These Steelers weren't going anywhere. They weren't going to win in NE or Denver. They had their chance against Miami in the snow at home. They blew it. They should have played the young guns and see what they had for next year. That doesn't instill a losing culture... losing year after year does that.

 

[antdrewjosh]

TMC we all understand what you're saying. We just dont agree with it. In hindsight yes I wish we would of lost those games. At the time though I was rooting like a maniac to win those games and get into the playoffs. Play to win always. If you lose better draft position is a consolation not the goal. I understand what your saying though.

 

[TMC]

I would have played the young guys as well. These Steelers weren't going anywhere. They weren't going to win in NE or Denver. They had their chance against Miami in the snow at home. They blew it. They should have played the young guns and see what they had for next year. That doesn't instill a losing culture... losing year after year does that.

I simply do not know if I buy into the losing culture crap. What about Seattle? Did they not have a losing culture? Yet, when they get better players, the culture goes away. New Orleans before Brees has a losing culture. With Brees, they win a Super Bowl. The Cardinals were the armpit of the NFL at one time, they get Warner and go to a Super Bowl. Odd how teams changed that losing culture when they had an influx of talent.

The problem is not the "culture", the problem is the FO's inability to find and retain talent. It is Cleveland's issue as well. They lose because of a lack of talent, not because of some mysterious culture.

And, I think the owner of the team should employ someone to plan out scenarios, perform cost benefit analysis, opportunity costs, and give him statistical measures for long-term planning. Last year, Cleveland traded their starting runningback in the middle of the season for a first round pick. I advocated against it, thinking they were throwing it in. He goes elsewhere and struggles. Someone planned ahead, got value, and now they are in a great situation to improve the team. If they draft well, it will help them towards getting out of the basement. Again, long-term planning.

 

[TMC]

TMC we all understand what you're saying. We just dont agree with it. In hindsight yes I wish we would of lost those games. At the time though I was rooting like a maniac to win those games and get into the playoffs. Play to win always. If you lose better draft position is a consolation not the goal. I understand what your saying though.

I guess we have different goals. My goal would be to win a championship. Anything less is meaningless.

 

[antdrewjosh]

I guess we have different goals. My goal would be to win a championship. Anything less is meaningless.

I'm sure our goals are the same.

 

[diver]

I do not remember one way or the other, who said what, but anybody who thought signing Jason Worilds to the transition tag was wrong because he didn't show enough cannot then turn around and say they should have played the young guys over the last 3 games to see what they had. What can you tell from 3 games?

I don't buy the losing culture thing, either. That can be rectified, if you are losing playing as hard as you can. However, I will repeat, you could have won a game or two in there, even with the backups. Hell, Cincy handed that game away, and Cleveland sucks. The only way to be sure you lose is to throw the game. That I just don't think you can square.

Also, if we are truly into long term planning, then there should be no complaints if they take Lewan 1st, should he be there, as Gilbert is a FA next year, I think. Maybe Clinton-Dix or Pryor, since TP is near the end. Hell, who knows how long Ben has, let's go with Manziel.

 

[deljzc]

Let me see if I can quantify this, to make it easier. The Steelers currently hold the 15th pick in the draft. If they had lost the final three, they would have drafted 9th. The difference between those two positions, by the draft chart, is 300 points. The 300 points equates to the 60th pick in the draft. So, those three wins, combined, valued at a 2nd round selection.

If you break it down by win, each win (basically) is valued at 100 points, or the 4th pick in the 4th round (pick 100). Either way you slice it, they gave up a 2nd round pick by winning all three or 3-4th round picks for 3 wins.

The season prior, the single win to end the season resulted in the 15th pick in the draft. They would have drafted 12th if they had lost. The difference in those two picks is 150 points or the 88th pick (3rd round) in the draft.

And, that is just the first round. The difference this season in the 2nd round would be a value of a 4th round pick, the 3rd round difference would be a 5th round pick.

Those are the opportunity costs of each win.

Del, didn't you flip out because they traded away this year's 3rd round pick and drafted Shamarko Thomas? If that 3rd round pick was so valuable then, why is it not valued now?

I'm saying you are unrealistic in your "tanking" idea and even playing some of the guys you recommended doesn't mean we lose the games.

And I still strongly think (I call bullshit), that if you really were the head coach, you don't call Ben Roethlisberger into your office when he's healthy and tell him right to his face he's not starting the Cincinnati game.

And I'm pretty sure if you tried to pull that ****, Art Rooney would call you into his office and tell you never to do it again.

You are promoting a very slippery slope for the league. What's to prevent Cleveland (who was out of it as well) to OUT-TANK you the last game of the year? According to you, that should be well within their right. Let's just have a Tank Fest around the league starting around week 10 like the NBA does. Wonderful plan.

What you are promoting isn't realistic and is never going to happen in the NFL. Teams that rest starters for the playoffs EARNED that right because they played hard and won football games. How did the Steelers earn the right to rest their guys for NEXT SEASON? When does that actually happen for you? 3-6? 4-8? 1-5?

You make it sound like losing on purpose is easy and nobody will ever know.

What's your Monday morning message as a coach when you stand up in front of the team after we lost to Miami?

"Okay boys, season's over. Next week we'll be starting Gradkowski and the week after than Landry Jones. I still want you to play hard so we know if you're a good player or not, the tape is the tape and all that crap, but don't play hard enough to win, okay? Oh... and keep this to ourselves, since what we're talking about is probably going to get us in trouble and don't leak it to the press."

Yeah, TMC, you'd be a wonderful ******* head coach. Joke with capital J.

Everyone says play the scrubs, everyone says lose the game. No one here would have the guts or the balls to stand up in front of 53 players that worked their *** off since August and tell them we're going to start tanking games. And if someone here says they would, I call bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit.

 

[SteelerAl]

I'm saying you are unrealistic in your "tanking" idea and even playing some of the guys you recommended doesn't mean we lose the games.

And I still strongly think (I call bullshit), that if you really were the head coach, you don't call Ben Roethlisberger into your office when he's healthy and tell him right to his face he's not starting the Cincinnati game.

And I'm pretty sure if you tried to pull that ****, Art Rooney would call you into his office and tell you never to do it again.

You are promoting a very slippery slope for the league. What's to prevent Cleveland (who was out of it as well) to OUT-TANK you the last game of the year? According to you, that should be well within their right. Let's just have a Tank Fest around the league starting around week 10 like the NBA does. Wonderful plan.

What you are promoting isn't realistic and is never going to happen in the NFL. Teams that rest starters for the playoffs EARNED that right because they played hard and won football games. How did the Steelers earn the right to rest their guys for NEXT SEASON? When does that actually happen for you? 3-6? 4-8? 1-5?

You make it sound like losing on purpose is easy and nobody will ever know.

What's your Monday morning message as a coach when you stand up in front of the team after we lost to Miami?

"Okay boys, season's over. Next week we'll be starting Gradkowski and the week after than Landry Jones. I still want you to play hard so we know if you're a good player or not, the tape is the tape and all that crap, but don't play hard enough to win, okay? Oh... and keep this to ourselves, since what we're talking about is probably going to get us in trouble and don't leak it to the press."

Yeah, TMC, you'd be a wonderful ******* head coach. Joke with capital J.

Everyone says play the scrubs, everyone says lose the game. No one here would have the guts or the balls to stand up in front of 53 players that worked their *** off since August and tell them we're going to start tanking games. And if someone here says they would, I call bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit.

Great post, Del. Had this same conversation / argument with TMC a few months back. Big difference between real life (with jobs / reputations on the line) and playing Madden in career mode...

 

[Vader]

Some of you people are hypocrites. How many times have we heard "play the young guys!!"? LeBeau gets called out constantly. Why the **** was Hood out there this year after they lost 8 games? They were NEVER going to re-sign him. I remember some of you people wanting to trade Ben and get "younger". I remember VERY clearly people that wanted to draft Bridgewater. So save the sanctimonious bullshit.

 

[antdrewjosh]

Play the young guys with the intent to win games not to get a better pick. Play the young guy cause he is the better player not to get a better pick.

 

[deljzc]

I am as critical of anyone around here that Tomlin/Lebeau do not always play the better guys. If that's what we are debating, let's ******* debate that.

That is completely different than what TMC is promoting. He is on record as wanting to start Brad "*******" Gradkowski over Roethlisberger against Cincinnati on that Sunday night game. **** what the team thinks. **** what the owner thinks while he's sitting in his luxury box while you tank a game. **** the media **** storm it would cause.

To TMC, tanking is a god given right every team should employ the minute they are almost eliminated from the playoffs. Treat every game as a preseason game. Give everyone reps. Get the backups in there after half time regardless of score.

I'm telling you that is unrealistic and unattainable. Period. End of story. End of discussion.

TMC has admitted the limited reps Arnfelt gets in a week 15 game (I fully admit he probably should have gotten more than 2 - maybe 10), probably doesn't do Colbert much good or even changes Colbert's plan for the off-season. He makes it sound like we KNEW for 100% certainty Hood, Woods and Sanders were already out the door and signed elsewhere (that certainly wasn't the fact), and the minute we are likely eliminated from the playoffs, just bench all three because to him they are Ex-Steelers, even though they are still dressing for games.

Hell, according to TMC, maybe we should have released all three guys after week 14. I mean, if you don't plan on playing them, why keep them on the roster at all? Let's start bringing in possible young guys. The sooner the better.