Steelers PLAY DOWN to weaker opponents

The Steelers PLAY DOWN to opponents with losing records. A win in any ONE of these and they would be in the playoffs - first game with Cleveland - they left the Browns hang around and tie. First game with the Ravens - the Ravens were still floundering with Flacco. They should have easily beaten Denver and Oakland. Gave away the Chargers game in last 5 minutes. And Steelers struggled the last game with the Bengals. Why do they play down to weaker opponents and play great against strong teams? (NE, NO) The only answer is they do not take weak teams seriously. I put this squarely on Tomlin and the coaching staff for not getting the team "up" for EVERY game. There is no way all 53 players could not take an opponent seriously. It has top come from coaching.

 

Groundbreaking

 

Players have no problem getting motivated for good teams, but it's Tomlin's job to get them motivated for the bad ones and he fails miserable at it. It's nothing new, it has been going on for awhile now, if you're a bettor, you would know to automatically fade the Steelers when they play bad teams and bet on them when they play good teams, it's easy money.

 

What I don't understand is why the Steelers are always favored by 10+ points against bottom feeders? Hasn't Vegas learned anything by now? This "playing down" crap has been going on for 10 years now.... and it's been well documented here.

 

I hope Vegas never smartens up. I've made a lot of money over the years betting against the Steelers when the spread is high

Also made a bunch of money making various bets when they come off a bye. They always start very, very slow coming off a bye.

This team is very inconsistent but actually very predictable.

 

A double digit point spread is the kiss of death for the Steelers. It’s like the team keeps track of it and it goes to their head.

 

I think MT is the main reason this team always plays down to lesser teams. He is just like the players, he doesn't take lesser teams seriously either, example is last year him talking about the New England game when that game was two weeks away. He seems to just shrug his shoulders when he plans or talks about games with teams with bad records. With all the talented players he has it's easy to see how he might feel that way.

 

What was the chargers, chiefs, and saints?

 

Did we play down to them?

 

Of any coach with a winning record Mike Tomlin is the only one that has multiple loses to sub .500 teams for 9 straight seasons. He owns the worst record of winning coaches when his team is favored by double digits. He is the only winning coach who is under .500 in games against teams with less than 6 wins in a season.

 

No, Steelers played well overall vs. Chargers and Saints... turnovers killed them in those games. Chiefs game... Steelers D got torched early and offense took too long to get going... like Jax playoff game the year before.

 

Right... was just responding to the "What was Chargers, Chiefs, Saints" in a thread entitled "Steelers Play Down to Weaker Opponents". Doesn't fit the narrative.

 

A loss is a loss. Blowouts rarely happen in the NFL even against bad teams.

 

Still not seeing how this ties into us playing down to weaker opps. None of those listed are "weaker". Nor did we play down to them.

 

Yea what's next.. Tomlin is losing control of the team?

 

How did we play down to Oakland? Came down to lost drive. The chiefs nearly lost to them in Oakland. How did we play down to Denver? It came down to the last drive. They beat San Diego.

 

Oakland was 2-10 = weaker opponent.

Denver was 5-6 = weaker opponent.

Chiefs/Oakland/Denver = divisional opponents. Say what you want, the proof is there that div opps play each other tougher. Especially in the AFCW.

 

Then why did the OP bring up the ravens or browns. Divisional opponents... and then does that mean the saints played down to us? They had a far better record?

 

I'm not the OP, so don't know why. Perhaps lumping that in with the general pattern of underachievement. I wouldn't have, but my point is still valid.

 

So answer this. Did the saints play down to us?

 

Not at all. I've already stated that we field a superior product. So when we meet up (in regular season) with tough opponents, we normally play them pretty close. The Saints knew they would have their hands full with us, and they were right. Aside from a couple of coaching goofs and a tragic fumble, we were in it right up to the last second.

Had this been the playoffs, I'm quite convinced the game would have gone in a horrible direction.

But still no one has adequately disputed the OP's point, not that it needs further beating.

 

So how come when we are in a game with a worse record than the team we are playing the team didnt play down to us but when a team vs us are in a game with a worse record beats us or makes it close we played down to them. I dont get that double standard.

 

It's not a double standard. Sure, our record was lesser than NO - but in no way were we considered a "lesser opponent".

Oakland? Denver. Yep, they sure were.

 

We are in the same place as those 2. At home watching the playoffs. And we at the time were not considered on the saints level. Saints were considered probably the best team in football all year.

 

No argument there. And sadly, we should be considered on the same level as the other two - if nothing else than for mismanagement.