Ben did have a good year ill agree there.
Ben did have a good year ill agree there.
That's your subjective opinion.Originally Posted by Bip Roberts
No one denies they've had solid defenses; but to allude that the defense alone was the reason they go to the post-season is just another way to take a side-handed swipe at Ben and Pitt offense. Check the stats. One still has to score to win. How many of those TDs/points scored did the D make in comparison to the offense during those playoffs?The D has taken him to the playoffs, not the other way around.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I'm pretty sure my subjective opinion is held by a large majority of football fans.
Of course Ben is involved in the teams wins but so was Trent Dilfer when Baltimore won the SB. Most people would suggest he isnt all that good. Ben isnt a bad QB but with out the Steeler D he probably doesnt win as many games as he has. If anything I say Willie Parker is a bigger key for them than Ben has been.
That's nothing more than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The reality is that a bunch of people can believe a really dumb thing without that dumb thing being reality.
I was waiting for the inevitable ridiculous Trent Dilfer citing. Feel free to cite the seasons Dilfer produced at least 2,300 yards passing with a rating of 98.00 or higher. Good luck on that. Then let's ignore that the Steelers lost exactly one game he started prior to Parker becoming the featured back.Of course Ben is involved in the teams wins but so was Trent Dilfer when Baltimore won the SB. Most people would suggest he isnt all that good. Ben isnt a bad QB but with out the Steeler D he probably doesnt win as many games as he has. If anything I say Willie Parker is a bigger key for them than Ben has been.
Seriously, a 25-year-old QB already has a Super Bowl ring and has set Steelers passing records while leading his team to the playoffs in 75% of the seasons he's played while also producing a QB rating of 98.00 or higher three times in those four seasons.
But let's forget that an just attribute the team's success to anything and everything other than a really good QB. Your obvious bias is preventing you from seeing what's right in front of your face.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
Bias? I said he a good QB but the fact is a lot of QBs could be good with the running game hes had and the fact that his D tends to get him leads and all he has to do is keep the clock moving and hand the ball off.
For as much as you want to quote his regular season QB rating you skip completely over his 79.2 QB raiting in the playoffs.
Fact is any QB in the history of football would have won a SB ring with how that D was playing. He proved that when he was flat out awful during it.
Hes lost 1 game before Parker became the running back. Man who was the RB before Parker? Man I cant remember his name. Shame on me I guess he wasn't that good anyways.When Parker took over it made that running game even better. Lets not be silly here there is a reason Ben doesnt throw so many passes.
I know several Steeler fans and they all can't stand Willie Parker.
They think he's an overrated softie. They say he's the definition of a system back and if you gave Najeh Davenport the same amount of carries and he'll rush for just as many yards and more TD's.
Felix Jones or Mendenhall would be good picks for the Steelers in the 1st. If Willie were a better receiver, he'd be a perfect change of pace or 3rd down back.
Sure, the running game sets up the passing game. Basic NFL 101. Simply ridiculous to charge that the reason Ben is a good QB is solely because of their running game.
Ben had a career high 32 TD passes in '07. 9 TDs came via running the ball.and the fact that his D tends to get him leads and all he has to do is keep the clock moving and hand the ball off.
Fran Tarkenton didn't.Fact is any QB in the history of football would have won a SB ring with how that D was playing. He proved that when he was flat out awful during it.
Pittsburgh threw the ball 63.8% of the time (9th in the NFL), and was 2nd with a QB Rating of 99.9%.Lets not be silly here there is a reason Ben doesnt throw so many passes.
No, maybe they aren't "pass happy" or over-dependent on the pass, like some teams have to do due to a lack of a consistent running game, because Pitt has balance on the offensiive side. That's what teams strive for.
Last edited by GAC; 01-31-2008 at 08:12 PM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
How many times do i have to say it. BEN IS A GOOD QB. I think thats the 3rd time now ive said it.
Come on Ben until the last couple of years threw like 16 attempts per game. He threw barely over 400 times this season. 15 NFL QBs were a head of him. Dont give me that 15 other NFL teams are just pass happy or over-dependent. 2 of those QBs didnt even play full seasons. Heck he threw only 22 passes more than the passing inept Vince Young.
The Steelers were 3rd in rushing attempts and 31st in passing attempts... with 442 passing attempts and 511 rushing attempts. Thats not really 63.8% of the time. I think you were reading completion percentage.
Ben greatly benefits from having a good D, and a running game that allows him to run out the clock. He is a good QB dont get me wrong at all but the system has a lot more to do with his success than you are willing to admit.
2004 - 21 attempts/gameCome on Ben until the last couple of years threw like 16 attempts per game.
2005 - 22 attempts/game
2006 - 31 attempts/game
2007 - 27 attempts/game
That's an average of 25 attempts/game over that 4 year span.
So you're evaluating a QB by the number of attempts made per game/season? It sure seems that is where you are placing the "burden" of your argument. A very ineffective way. QBs are normally drafted to work within a designed system for that particular organization. No one, including myself, has denied that the Steelers aren't a run-oriented team.He threw barely over 400 times this season. 15 NFL QBs were a head of him.
I rate a QB at their efficiency within that system. And other then the 2006 season which was marred by a motorcycle accident, ruptured appendix, and subsequent injury, Ben has been one of the most efficient.
Never stated or alluded to that. Those are your words (assumption). Only that there are teams in the NFL whose QBs were forced to pass more because of the unreliability/inconsistency of their running game. Teams like New Orleans, Green Bay, Cincinnati, and Seattle for example.Dont give me that 15 other NFL teams are just pass happy or over-dependent.
Last edited by GAC; 02-01-2008 at 07:38 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
You tried to say that the Steelers pass the ball almost 63% of the time. You are back tracking off that statement of other teams are just pass happy or just overly dependent. You have tried to say they are a balanced offense when its clearly not the case, although they did try to be more balanced last year than previous years.
I dont even know what point you are prove with trying to combine stats in some attempt to I guess say he passes more than 16 times on a yearly basis.
Even if you wanted to do that they still are one of the least passing teams in the league, and my whole argument all along has been that Ben is the least important part of that team. His performance has less to do with the SB and the winning of his team than you are for some reason willing to admit.
Cripes. Pittsburgh has put up historically great defenses since the Steel Curtain prior to Roethlisberger and they won nothing. Not with Bubby Brister. Not with Neil O'Donnell. Not with Kordell Stewart.
The Steelers have trotted out defenses that were MUCH better than what Roethlisberger has seen and yet the only Pitt QB since Bradshaw who has a ring is Big Ben.
That's pure hyperbole.For as much as you want to quote his regular season QB rating you skip completely over his 79.2 QB raiting in the playoffs.
Fact is any QB in the history of football would have won a SB ring with how that D was playing. He proved that when he was flat out awful during it.
Roethlisberger's playoff QB rating in 2005 was 101.7. Even with a rough Super Bowl. That rating led all 2005 playoff QB's, BTW, ad it includes a 148.7 rating versus the Bengals, a 95.7 against the Colts, and a 124.9 rating in the AFC championship game. The Steelers don't even make it to the Super Bowl in 2005 without a QB capable of putting up high-level performances against winning teams, yet you act like any schmo could have done it.
You dramatically overrate Willie Parker. Because Parker's game is "boom or bust", that guy leaves the Steelers in a LOT of second-and-long and third-and-long situations. Tack on the fact that Ben got sacked more than anyone not named Kitna, and you might figure out that Roethlisberger is a guy who has to take a lot of chances and he has to be efficient and effective when doing so. In fact, Roethlisberger led the NFL in 1st Down percentage while being placed in a ton of long-yardage situations where everyone in the stadium knows the pass is coming.Hes lost 1 game before Parker became the running back. Man who was the RB before Parker? Man I cant remember his name. Shame on me I guess he wasn't that good anyways.
At this point, you're just arguing to argue.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
Yea im not saying Ben is as bad as the guys you named. Hes good enough to keep them going and fits the team much better than those other guys.
They won nothing since the Steel Curtain? Do you mean they just didnt win SBs or were they flat out terrible? Hmm...
Does winning a SB makes you automatically better than anyone who hasnt won a SB?
Not back tracking at all. That is simply how you chose to read something into it that wasn't there.... that every QB above Ben in Pass Attempts was "pass happy". Those were your words (and assumption), not mine. And I think I clarified that in my previous post.
Not combining stats. I got mine from NFL.com. Really not hard to look up. Very straightforward and to the point. Over his career as QB, he's averaged 25 pass attempts a game. That's a huge difference from the 16 you gave. Where did you get that from?I dont even know what point you are prove with trying to combine stats in some attempt to I guess say he passes more than 16 times on a yearly basis.
But again - the number of pass attempts is not a very reliable and accurate method of evaluating a QB.
and my whole argument all along has been that Ben is the least important part of that teamAnd listening to your logic, all they really need is a guy standing back there handing the ball off and staying out of the way.His performance has less to do with the SB and the winning of his team than you are for some reason willing to admit.
It's really hard to get a feel on your position when you call the guy a terrible QB, then retract it and say you exaggerated - then say he's a GOOD QB (3-4 times), but then every subsequent statement that follows contradicts that. Now he's the least important part of the team?
More exaggeration?
It does in most people's book. Or are you now going to contend that Pitt got lucky in '05? When you go on a run, and defeat the quality teams that Pitt did in '05, there's more then luck involved.
Last edited by GAC; 02-01-2008 at 02:02 PM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
The Giants run this year is very similar. That is, if they can seal the deal and knock off the Pats.
How can I read this wrong, or how can you say that I'm just making it up that you said it?No, maybe they aren't "pass happy" or over-dependent on the pass, like some teams have to do due to a lack of a consistent running game, because Pitt has balance on the offensiive side. That's what teams strive for.
Your response to me saying until the last couple of years he was throwing like 16 attempts per game is to combine 4 years of stats and then say that its well more than 16?
Yes I surely did exaggerate when I called him terrible. He is a good QB, hes better than what the Steelers have had for years. He would start on a heck of a lot of NFL teams, but with out a doubt the running game, and the defense is the main reason they steelers are having success. Please try to explain to me why the Steelers run the ball so many more times than they throw it if it wasn't the case.
Pitt did get lucky in 05, not to say they werent good because they obviously were. They weren't the best team in the NFL but just like most playoffs the hottest team normally pulls through.
Winning the SB or not winning a SB doesnt change the talent level of the QB.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote