Does any coach prepare worse for playoff games?

Tomlin wasn't the Steelers OLINE coach. Maybe it one reason Surratt was let go?

I am not 100% sure that Dotson was the Steelers best Olineman. He was a rookie that was drafted in the 4th round. The Steelers had serious deficiencies on the OLINE if a 4th round rookie was their best player. No HC in NFL history could over come that circumstance. Can you follow me if that's your opinion?

The playoff game didn't boil down to Dotson. So.................

 

You mean like #7 and his 4 interceptions

 

What OL played better than him?

 

I'd wager most any fan knows turnovers are bad, and why. Games have, however, been won despite losing the turnover ratio, so becoming so one-sided in your argument that you say no stat is more important - including final score - your view has become so far slanted it's taking from your point. And your point that coaches can't be responsible for every individual play on the field isn't incorrect.

Coaches are, though, accountable for the overall results - specifically, in some consistency to those results. One of the reasons Tomlin gets criticized is the inconsistency his teams exhibit on the field. You may argue that's on the players, but each one has an ability - good, bad, or ugly. While not necesarily the coach's job to turn water into wine, it is their responsibility - along with their trusted assistants and coordinators - to polish them up and make them part of a scheme that best focuses on the stronger parts of the unit.

While every team is going to have a bad game or two, Tomlin's have often seen rollercoaster inconsistency. More than just losing a game, it's having specific units seemingly disappear, devoid of any key injuries. Moreover, I've also seen the team go away from schemes clearly working for no apparent reason (e.g., changing/going away from a particular RB or defensive scheme) - and these decisions do fall on the coaches.

Now, one of the strengths I have noted in Tomlin teams is their ability to adjust in the second half of games. However, when coupled with the frequently flat approach observed in the first two quarters, one begins to question if they couldn't have planned better going in. Again - same players, different result.

To me, coaches can be good or bad in given situations - or for certain locker rooms. So it's not about Tomlin being a bad coach, it's whether he's been a good fit here. And for the past several years, I don't think he has. Just MHO.

 

So your defense is SOME teams won right? The LARGE % is on my side in regard to the turnover battle. Seriously what side would you rather be on?

Coaches are not responsible for every play. You can't even believe that. Players are not robots that are not controlled by coaches. Football in real life isn't like playing madden 2020.

This is simple. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to reach a logical conclusion. The more the negative the turnover ratio then the more likely a team loses a game. -5 is near 100%. -2 is probably near 80% loss. That's what the studies show over long periods of time. Regardless of final scores or any other factors when turnovers happen the % favors the winning team. Add in mistakes like penalties, poor 3rd down %, ect and it's ball game. Most games are won or loss on the field. Coaches simply can't over come player mistakes.

Bottom line is that players are MOSTLY responsible for WINS or LOSSES.

Tomlin coaches teams won .650 of games. Made the playoffs 9 out of 14 seasons. Made it to 2 Super bowls in 14 years. How many coaches helped organizations accomplish this goal in this era of football?

Now if you are looking for all time great coaches than Tomlin probably doesn't compare. In this modern age of free agency and every factor then only ONE coach was clearly better.

I don't care if Tomlin is fired today. I recognize he is a quality coach in this era of the NFL. The % suggest the next guy isn't going to do better.

I know that Tomlin is a quality coach. I know that Tomlin can coach this team to win games, win in the the playoffs, and win the Super bowl. I know that Tomlin can coach this team to 11-0. Can the next coach be as consistent a coach as Tomlin? Tomlin's day will come.

Fire Tomlin then who? Stick with the guy you know can win or go with the unknown?

The key is to build the right players around the HC. Ultimately the players need to execute and play well. Tomlin doesn't have final say over every decision the organization makes.

 

Dotson had his share of struggles and inconsistent play Considering all the INJURIES it's hard to reach the conclusion that Dotson was the best. That's why I said injuries ruined any chance for continuity on the OLINE. OLINE play isn't about ONE player. It's about how the unit functions as UNIT.

We know that the OLINE had to be shuffled at times due to injuries.

 

Defense wasn't the problem.

 

Turnovers were the problem.

 

Actually it was at the end of the season, specifically the run defense, the first half of the season they were giving up under 70 yards the second half of the season they gave up almost twice that much. No Bush, Dupree and Alalu wasn't the same player after he came back from injury.

 

Exactly. Also they could have helped by maybe making the team kick a field goal...at least once in the playoffs.

 

Your argument/logic is getting scattered here, so I'll have to respond in segments. First (and again), NO ONE is arguing against turnover ratio and it's effect on winning or losing a game. But you're extending it to the point of over-generalization:

Turnovers Create Losses --> Players Create Turnovers --> Players Create Losses

To wit:

But this isn't the argument, either. When speaking of good or bad coaches, the argument should be on how they've maximized the wins they can influence with the players they've been given. Many factors can impact this. So the choices a coach makes helps put players in certain places at certain times and can help create successful matchups and percentages, and ultimately a greater chance of winning.

Going back to turnovers, some coaches will pull the starting RB if they fumble to get them (and the rest of the team) to think about it, and avoid more turnovers. Some run repetitive drills in practice forcing the ball carriers to protect the football at all times, and so on. Every coach is different in their approach, and some are more effective than others.

Similarly, coaches occasionally call for gadget plays. These are low percentage/high reward-type plays, but if practiced and placed at just the right time can not only succeed in the moment, but swing momentum to the rest of the team - further increasing the team's success rate.

Point is, the coaches are responsible for making the most of the players' performance on the field. This leads to a better likelihood of less turnovers, making better decisions, better reads, etc. All of which set the players up with a better chance of success on a given play, and ultimatley of winning the game. Coaches can - and good coaches do - impact that in a greater fashion than you give them credit for, imho.

But if you still insist it's the players...

... this as a pro-Tomlin argument doesn't hold much weight.

Regardless, it's moot. There are very few coaches that have had Tomlin's tenure with the same team (i.e., not chosen to help rebuild a flailing franchise), and with the talent level he has had. The number is even smaller given "this era" of football you're referring to - not sure exactly the window you're referring to, but assuming late '90s and on. Still, the Steelers remain fairly consistent from a talent aspect, and if we compare that to similar eras in the past...

...Tomlin's numbers don't compare as well. So this statement essentially goes nowhere.

Again, there are very, very few coaches in this era of the NFL that can match Tomlin's tenure with the same team and talent level. And you already conceded that one is already better. So of course the '%' aren't going to suggest much - there's not much to compare against.

Ok

You're pivoting from assessing losses as directly tied to player performance, which isn't in your opinion on the HC, to assigning credit to Tomlin for the success the organization has had, and asking who else can compare - when no one else really shares the same tenure in the era.

Again, I'm not saying Tomlin is a bad coach. Nor am I advocating the team flip coaches every two years. I just feel a different approach would have lead to more wins than Tomlin's over the past several years, during which the team has had some unique talents that don't converge often. Hopefully we transition well in that regard and scout good talent over the next few years.

 

More excuses and lack of accountability. You've already shown your blind loyalty for an ineffectual coach. It seems like all you post is about why Tomlin isn't responsible for his team's failures and underachieving. You swoon over your boy Tomlin when the team wins and believe it is all due to his coaching and preparation. You call out the wins, as if it were Tomlin on the field making plays, then you proceed to say it is the fault of the players for not executing when they lose because hey, Tomlin is not out on the field, right. Just like you've been called out above, you can't have it both ways. If you can't see the fault in the logic, then I just don't know what else to tell you.

 

For a minute I thought I was reading Steelwinds.

 

How much longer should our coach have leading this team if he continues to fail in the post season? 1 yr? 3 yrs? 5 yrs? As long as he wants if reg season continues at .500? I think he been at the end of his limitations for some time now. The hiring of new coaches adds zero confidence as he keeps hiring coordinators that end up getting fired.

 

Why Teflon Tomlin never gets the blame by his boss is a real head scratcher. Hell, extend him for 3 more years. Rooney is clearly fine with mediocrity and excuses.

 

This is it. Some fans don’t recognize that the Steelers organization hangs their hat on Super Bowl titles, not division championships or non-losing seasons. Maybe it’s a generational thing. Younger fans thinking “Hey, we may not be the Patriots, but at least we’re not the Bengals”, while older fans think “ in 35 years, we went to 8 Super Bowls, won 6.”?

 

Ive honestly come to the conclusion that the real problem out of all this **** storm is this fraud of a Rooney. And guess what? There is no firing him.

 

Agree, the buck stops with Rooney, and he seems okay with just not having a loosing season and there is no firing in him for the Rule that's named after his family. It will have to be pretty bad for him to fire Tomlin.

 

35 years?

 

Snapshot of time: '74 - '10

 

I don't blame Tomlin directly on the Cleveland game.

Tomlin didn't snap a ball over Ben's head, Tomlin wasn't the one that didn't jump on it.

Ben threw 4 INTS not on Tomlin. Defense was sub par no pressure, couldn't stop the run. Once again I blame the players on the playoff game mainly.

What I do blame him, on is resting a lot of starters against Cleveland in the season finale.

Yes I know there isn't anything to gain other than maybe knocking Cleveland out of the playoffs, your worried about rest and getting people hurt etc.

But, there wasn't anything in the sample size of games from Thanksgiving to end of the season (outside of 2nd half of Colts game)
That the offense was fixed and had rebounded ,they everyone needed to play that game, and he rested a bunch of guys, and it came back and bit them.

The rest made them rusty and unready, and un-prepared, it wasn't like the Steelers were the KC Chiefs and were a well oiled machine offensive machine, it was problem central and I don't know, if they felt it would correct itself, but it didn't and it led to a one and done playoff run.

No reason on god green's earth the whole offense shouldn't of played that game.

 

So...With this logic, It's NEVER Tomlins fault? Tomlin didn't give up 45 points to Jacksonville...Tomlin didn't have them run all over them... Tomlin didn't lose to Tebow, or have Ike Taylor get stiff armed for 50 yards...

They were / are HIS teams...When they come out unprepared or stink, That's TOMLINS fault! When it continually happens over and over and over for the last 10 years.. It sure as Hell is Tomlins fault!

And...He should have been fired a few years ago because of it! How many years can this under preforming continue, with no repercussions ( replacing assistant Coaches with unknown assistant Coaches doesn't count )

Again...This IS Tomlins fault, all of it...When you continually have teams that beat the top teams during the " regular season " that **** the bed, get dominated, and out- coached during the big games and post season... That's COACHING!

 

I agree with you however I’d say players underperforming are somewhat on them as well. You can scheme a play perfectly but if the player sucks it probably won’t work anyway.

That brings up a different discussion on drafting and talent evaluations though.

To not blame TOMLIN at all for 3 playoff wins in 10 years isn’t even worth any of our time to debate anymore. It’s so clear and obvious that nothing will change a homers mind. The argument they pose is I’d rather go 11-5 with 0 playoff wins than risk going 5-11 with 0 playoff wins. Only difference is in the first scenario we always pick later in the draft. Once Ben goes even that point will be moot.

But as I stated earlier this problem is bigger than TOMLIN. This is an Art the Fraud II issue.

 

I remember fans were saying the same thing about Dan in the late 90's... polishing his vintage leather helmet, while free agents like Woodson, Lake, Brown, etc.. were signed by other teams.