Why the Standard are so low for the steelers now?

I'm not quite so kind.
But we'll never know.
I can't defend SF - Keep your QB's healthy. Purdy was quite an uplifting story that fell short.

 

Its not what i want, its calling it like it is. And blindly keeping with some semi mythical approach for 50 years (which i don't agree is actually their carved in stone approach) is in fact - lazy.

 

There is nothing semi-mythical about it. They have been patient with coaches and that has worked extremely well for them. People like you would have had them fire Bill Cowher before he led them to a Super Bowl championship. You would have been wrong.

Your use of the word blindly is also unwarranted and as inaccurate as your use of lazy. Neither is appropriate or accurate, but you just want to throw them out there because you don't like the decision. I don't like keeping Canada, either, but I'm more rational about it.

 

Canada has had three years. So in 50 years the Steelers haven't let a coordinator or assistant go in that time frame or less? No matter how bad they were? Patience is one thing, stubbornness is another. This is the latter. I think your love or overt affection for the FO is clouding your mind and making the term lazy that offensive to you? Sorry, your the one not being rational here.

 

Canada has had two years as offensive coordinator, not three. I'm not sure how much impact he has as a first-year quarterback coach in 2020 with Roethlisberger still there. Unlike you, the Steelers realize that he has been OC in a time of transition from Roethlisberger to a rookie starting last season.

I'm more than happy to criticize the front office. I called for them to fire Tomlin years ago. I have ripped them for years for their habit of backing down to player demands to be let go, with Blount and Harrison as examples. YOur claim that I am allowing affection for the front office to cloud my judgment is unfair and factually wrong, as proven by my posting history.

I'm not offended by the term lazy. I find it unfair and inaccurate, which seems to be a bit of a trend in your posts. Criticize them for being cheap or for making a bad decision. Both are absolutely fair in this case. Lazy, however, is not.

 

What difference does a time of transition make if the offense is hampered by the design and playcalling? The offense was stifled with Ben as the QB to the point where people were using him as the scapegoat...so they gave Canada two mobile QB's in MT and KP and the offense became worse - bottom of the league until KP's footwork and accuracy made the offense look better against mediocre competition to close out the season. So i guess that gives the FO an out to keep Canada for one more year and push the burden of finding another Coordinator back six to twelve months. (That's what the always FED does - kick the can down the road - what do we call them?) Its not being pro active and it is being cheap; that's what we say in meetings at work - but behind closed doors - we use the term lazy. So lets go with un proactive.

As far as Tomlin, i think he's getting a bad shake. He needs a good staff.

 

Who do you think is hiring that staff? My biggest problem with Tomlin is the poor job he has done constructing his staff, including wanting Canada as OC.

Rothlisberger had the same issues in the second half of the 2020 season that he had in 2021. Teams figured out that he had to rely on the short stuff and passes to the sideline and adjusted. He was limited by his own deterioration.

You are one of those "Canada needs a mobile quarterback" guys, huh? Yeah. That explains a lot.

Calling them lazy or any euphemism thereof is just ridiculous. You have nothing to back that up other than your own bitterness. Cheap is absolutely fair. Hell, stupid would absolutely be fair, too. That said, defending Tomlin while attacking the front office for not firing Canada shows how little you understand the situation.

 

Here we go with the childish attacks again, you come off sounding like a twelve year old. Yeah, I'm one of those guys who thinks Canada prefers/wants a mobile QB. the evidence is everywhere. Keep denying it, its only makes your posts look silly.

Ben had plenty of arm strength and when he went no huddle we were suddenly able to move the ball pretty efficiently. It was Canada's flawed designs that kept the offense stagnated.

who's policy is it to keep the cheapest and smallest staff in the league? that's not Tomlin's call its the FO's. Where's the evidence that retaining Canada was Tomlin's decision? The announcements and statements of support have all come from Rooney and Khan. So you really don't know what your talking about do you? your all hot air and bluster.

 

There is nothing childish in pointing out the gaps in your knowledge.

By all means, find actual evidence backing up your claim that Canada prefers/wants a mobile quarterback. You and others keep insisting that it is true, yet you can't back it up. I tried to find a quote and all that I turned up was Canada saying that he can run his offense with or without a mobile quarterback. If you look at his history, he has used both at the college and pro levels.

There are comments from others in the organization about wanting a mobile quarterback. Tomlin has shown some affinity for that, including his misguided fascination with Michael Vick. That all goes back well before Canada arrived. Again, why do you not know that?

With some rare exceptions like the game against the Colts, Roethlisberger's successes during his final season were mostly gained through short passes. He was wildly inconsistent on everything else. Roethlisberger was a shell of his former self the second half of 2020 and all of 2021. Canada didn't help. I don't think he is a good coordinator, either, but it is you who seems to be looking for a scapegoat.

Regarding keeping the smallest and cheapest staff, I said calling them cheap was fair. I agree with you there. That said, how do you know whose decision that is? You are making things up to try to avoid admitting the contradiction in your posts. You insist that I can't back up my claims regarding Tomlin, even though it is common practice throughout the league for head coaches to make decisions about their staff unless something goes very wrong and ownership wants a scapegoat, yet you insist that we should just take your word on Canada wanting a mobile quarterback. People outside the team insisting that they need one doesn't mean he wants one. You can't back up your claims. Pointing that out is valid.

You are the one who keeps using words like lazy and childish to back up your claims. Those read like you throwing tantrums because the team won't do what you want and because I keep pointing out the flaws in your argument. They do not read like you even making an attempt at a logical argument.

 

Canada IS NOT the problem...Pickett had Guys running wide open ,deep, all year..And he wouldn't /can't make that throw...

Checkdown Kenny! Usually, when he would go deep, He lost all accuracy...Why do you think Pickens , and DJ and Cosmo Claypool to a lesser extent...Threw hissy fits all year?

BECAUSE...They were open deep over and over again...And Pickett could deliver the goods...

That has ZERO, to do with Canada... Actually, He should get more credit...But when Pickett won't pull the trigger.. Of course, " Let's blame Canada " when Pickett checks it down AGAIN!

 

Never mind that Pickett did make more accurate deep throws later in the season and he showed the ability to be consistently accurate on deep throws in college. I know. Those darn facts are getting in the way again.

Also, the offense went with a more conservative approach later in the season, probably because somebody realized that asking a rookie to throw 50 times a game wasn't a good idea.

There are also analysts, most notably Steve Smith, pointing out ways that Canada's offense is too simplistic, especially in the passing game. That creates fewer open opportunities down the field. Yes, Pickett needs to get back to being more aggressive as he develops, but Canada either has to do a better job or the team needs to replace him.

I know much of this thread reads as if I'm defending Canada. I'm not. I think the team should have replaced him. I just didn't go into hysterics when the team decided not to do what I wanted them to do.

 

To put a lot of credence into KP's stats is just the wrong outlook. As you state, look at what he did do (what we all do when looking at college prospects). then see how the progression goes at the next level. Some never develop because of system or just the mismanagement in the entire team. Some show promise, and you hope to see that continue. I have no idea if KP will become elite, what he has shown is heart and steel in those moments the team has needed him. Regardless of competition level to bring a team back for 2 last minute wins in the NFL is impressive. There is more of course, he needs to do the work, and the team needs to find ways to build on that. I am not optimistic that Canada can be that guy, but it is what they have chosen so hope for the best.

 

It's completely true... Analysts were talking about it in season , But the popular ( not popular, rather everybody ) narrative is... It's all Canadas fault and, the horrible year Pickett had, Is also, all Canadas fault

 

Very few people are looking at Pickett's season as "horrible." Neither fans nor analysts see it that way. Those that do are mostly the ones who went into the season with a negative opinion of him.

Canada's simplistic and flawed passing schemes were part of the offense's problem. The transitions at quarterback made things worse. So did the lack of a running game of the season and the offensive line's struggles the first half of the season.

After getting a backups reps for weeks, Pickett was asked to carry an offense with a leaky offensive line, no running game, and poor coaching and the results were ugly. Either the coaches realized that was a poor decision or they were able to take some heat off Pickett as the running game improved, but he was able to settle in the second half of the season as a game manager. That was the right role to put him in, at least to start. It was what they did with Roethlisberger.

Going forward, Pickett is going to have to take on more of the offense, but horrible? You're funny.

 

I watched a segment on NFL Network ( probably about halfway through the season )..The segment was actually geared towards George Pickens. They were bringing up his attitude / character issues from college, and were showing him melting down in a particular game...

Then , the other analyst interjected ( kind of defending his meltdowns) by showing numerous replays where Pickens was wide open deep, and Kenny never even looked his way...

Bottom line is, and yes...Canada is not an upper echelon OC,I agree with that but also...He has dialed up numerous plays to hit some big plays...And Kenny takes the safe Checkdown instead...

 

Except...The OL played well all year! Another false narrative created by the media

 

No, it really didn't. Moore was a turnstile in pass blocking. Dotson takes way too many penalties. There was nowhere for the backs to go the first half of the season.

They got a lot better late, but that strong finish is making you forget poor performances the first half of the season.

 

How many plays did they show in a segment like that? Three? Four? Also, often when they show guys breaking "wide open," it is happening because the ball is already out. That was true of some of the plays I've seen when Pickett supposedly missed an open receiver.

The team went to a more conservative offense. They asked Pickett to be a game manager, which called on more short and intermediate throws. It was a much smarter approach with a rookie than his first few starts, when they asked him to try to carry the team.

He is going to have to attack defenses down the field more in his second season and beyond, but this idea that the more conservative approach later in the season was all his decision is just laughable.

 

What's laughable is saying he is gonna attack more down the field... Because you say so...

 

Now go back and read what I actually wrote instead of what you made up in your head. I didn't write that he definitely will attack more. I wrote that he is going to have to attack more. Playing game manager was fine for a rookie, but he is going to have to do more if he's going to be their long-term quarterback. One of the flaws in your analysis of Pickett is your assumption that he will always be what he was last season. If you had paid any attention to his college career, you would have seen a player who understood that he had to get better at the previous level and did so. He wasn't some guy who reached a plateau and stayed there, so it doesn't make much sense to assume he would do that as a pro.