Is Rooney looking for a "head coach" for the offense?

Do you think Art Rooney II is looking for a "head coach" for the offense in much the same vein as we have a "head coach" for the defense in Dick Lebeau? Think about it. Tomlin has no offensive coaching experience at all and I believe that Rooney could be wanting to bring in a strong and experienced candidate for the OC role. We've underperformed for long enought given the kind of talent that we have on offense thanks in part to Ben's free-wheeling ways and Tomlin's lack of involvement on the offense. I just think that Rooney may be looking for a strong presence to develop an offensive identity, a "head coach" of the offense if you will.

 

the far-extending reaches some on here want to go to diminish tomlin's role on this team is comical.

only on this board, and nowhere else, are people calling out mike tomlin's competence. go to general message boards and fans of other teams love the guy and would love to have him coaching their team.

it's just ridiculous.

 

Okay, so what do you disagree with? Is it the part about Tomlin not having any offensive coaching experience? He is a defensive coach and has been for most of his coaching career. You realize that don't you. You also realize that Tomlin seemed almost uninvolved anytime BA and Ben had a conference on the sidelines last year don't you? Do you watch the games? What do you think we need on offense? Do we need another buddy for Ben, or do we need a strong and experienced offensive coordinator that can take Ben and the offense to another level. I'm not questioning Tomlin's coaching competence at all, I think he's a good coach. But every good coach has weaknesses that need to be compensated by others' strengths. If you're going to criticize a post, how about letting me know point for point what you disagree with and try articulating why you disagree.

 

Tomlin was a WR in college I believe, yet he became a Defensive Coordinator?

 

Could be?We really need to fix our Redzone issues.Hope they choose the right person?

 

While I'm not necessarily taking a stance either way on this debate, your argument of fans on other boards doesn't really make sense. All they really see is our overall success and record. Other teams fans for the most part don't scrutinize the Steelers to the degree we do, the same way we don't with other teams besides the Steelers.

 

In my eyes, a teams record in a head coaches first 5 years aren't always an indication of his ability or competence. They could be, but a lot of other things could be at play, such as great assistant coaches, great scouting, a great GM, a loaded roster from the previous coach, etc. The only things other fans use to form their opinion of Tomlin is our record since he took over. We have a winning record and 2 SB appearances. That alone will make other fans think Tomlin is some kind of god.

Now I'm not saying he is or isn't a great coach, I'm just saying that other fans very rarely know much about another teams coaching staff.

The fact that Tomlin wanted to keep Arians and Rooney wanted to get rid of him (it sounds like Rooney had doubts about Arians years ago) has kind of made some people wonder a little about Tomlin. I'm one of those people. I wonder if he is in over his head. No doubt he's a good coach, but is he cut out to be a head coach? Can he make the personnel decisions that need to be made? Does he have that killer instinct? Can he stand up to Ben and put him in his place when needed? Does he have the balls to tell Ben that he isn't playing due to an injury? A lot of people are starting to wonder these things, and I think it's great we're an intelligent enough fanbase to question everything. Nothing wrong with asking questions.

 

Rooney may be looking for a head coach period if whoever MT brings in doesn't get this offense to produce some freakin points.

 

Any links you can provide? Would love to read about how other team's fans love our HC.

 

If Tomlin wasn't coaching football, he'd be on the campaign trail running for public office. Say's all the right things at all the right times-tells you what you want to hear. I've actually never seen him do a single bit of coaching now that I think about it. Game management skills are questionable at best. But boy, he gives a great post-game interview.

 

The emperor has no clothes.

 

Okay, so what do you disagree with? Is it the part about Tomlin not having any offensive coaching experience? He is a defensive coach and has been for most of his coaching career. You realize that don't you. You also realize that Tomlin seemed almost uninvolved anytime BA and Ben had a conference on the sidelines last year don't you? Do you watch the games? What do you think we need on offense? Do we need another buddy for Ben, or do we need a strong and experienced offensive coordinator that can take Ben and the offense to another level. I'm not questioning Tomlin's coaching competence at all, I think he's a good coach. But every good coach has weaknesses that need to be compensated by others' strengths. If you're going to criticize a post, how about letting me know point for point what you disagree with and try articulating why you disagree.[/quote:1f4nkhs3]

it's the terminology you chose, i guess, that bothers me. it is consistent with a ludicrous theme on here that tomlin is incapable of coaching this team. do we need a "head coach" for offense. uh . . . it's called an offensive coordinator. why do you choose to use the term 'head coach for offense?' the presupposition there is that tomlin does nothing more than give pep talks while everyone else does the coaching. have you, or anyone here, even BEEN to latrobe? spent a couple weeks straight watching practices? attended practice on the south side? if you've been around this team AT ALL, you'd realize tomlin does a HELL OF A LOT of coaching these guys. more than any other coach from what i've witnessed. he's got his nose in the middle of every single drill.

because tomlin coached defense it means he needs to hire a "head coach on offense?" why not just an offensive coordinator?

do we need a buddy for ben? naaaaaaaaaaaaw. hell, it would be a MUCH more congruent workplace if we brought in a guy whose personality clashes with ben's. maybe a guy ben doesn't like or respect on a personal OR professional level. maybe a guy who was ran out of town on a rail from his previous job for not being able to get along with any of his players. any ideas?

 

i understand what you're saying but this isn't the george seifert/barry switzer scenario. i think the statute of limitations on your argument ran out AT LEAST two years ago. we just completed YEAR FIVE and mike tomlin has firmly established himself in this organization. he's already coached in 2 super bowls and timmons, woodley, mendenhall, pouncey,gilbert, ziggy hood, heyward, mike wallace, antonio brown, gay, sanders, and more . . . all drafted under tomlin's watch. that's our starting center, starting wr's, and starting running back to go along with a 24-year old qb he inherited. i'd say he's built this offensive up rather soundly. not bad for a 'defensive guy.'

just one example, it seems hall of fame finalist bill parcells's accomplishments with the ny giants didn't hold much value since he 'inherited' phil simms, lawrence taylor, harry carson and a bevy of other ny giants from his predecessor, ray perkins. parcells coached in 2 super bowls in those 7 years and is a hall of fame finalist this season (largely based on what he accomplished in those seven seasons - he coached in another super bowl with new england but didn't accomplish much else with stints in nyjets and dallas). i don't recall who parcells "offensive head coach" was during those years since, you know, he was a defensive guy and all. don't know how he did it.

 

it's the terminology you chose, i guess, that bothers me. it is consistent with a ludicrous theme on here that tomlin is incapable of coaching this team. do we need a "head coach" for offense. uh . . . it's called an offensive coordinator. why do you choose to use the term 'head coach for offense?' the presupposition there is that tomlin does nothing more than give pep talks while everyone else does the coaching. have you, or anyone here, even BEEN to latrobe? spent a couple weeks straight watching practices? attended practice on the south side? if you've been around this team AT ALL, you'd realize tomlin does a HELL OF A LOT of coaching these guys. more than any other coach from what i've witnessed. he's got his nose in the middle of every single drill.

because tomlin coached defense it means he needs to hire a "head coach on offense?" why not just an offensive coordinator?

do we need a buddy for ben? naaaaaaaaaaaaw. hell, it would be a MUCH more congruent workplace if we brought in a guy whose personality clashes with ben's. maybe a guy ben doesn't like or respect on a personal OR professional level. maybe a guy who was ran out of town on a rail from his previous job for not being able to get along with any of his players. any ideas?[/quote:a238i240]


Thanks, Wanderer. I appreciate you elaborating on why you disagree. I understand your points but I am starting to have doubts about how much Tomlin is involved in the gameplanning at all. I can't see him getting too involved in what DL is doing on defense. DL is a legend and a strong personality and does a great job on the defensive side of the ball. I have seen and have heard others on this board talk about how Tomlin seems to be uninvolved in what is going on with the offense. When BA and Ben talk on the sidelines, where is Tomlin? He's usually nowhere close and almost seems indifferent as to what they are discussing, the play call, strategies, etc. I like Tomlin overall and feel that he's a a pretty good coach. I don't consider him a great coach and I think he has some weaknesses. I believe somebody like Todd Haley or Hue Jackson could make a huge difference on the offensive side of the ball in much the same way DL makes a difference on defense.

 

it's the terminology you chose, i guess, that bothers me. it is consistent with a ludicrous theme on here that tomlin is incapable of coaching this team. do we need a "head coach" for offense. uh . . . it's called an offensive coordinator. why do you choose to use the term 'head coach for offense?' the presupposition there is that tomlin does nothing more than give pep talks while everyone else does the coaching. have you, or anyone here, even BEEN to latrobe? spent a couple weeks straight watching practices? attended practice on the south side? if you've been around this team AT ALL, you'd realize tomlin does a HELL OF A LOT of coaching these guys. more than any other coach from what i've witnessed. he's got his nose in the middle of every single drill.

because tomlin coached defense it means he needs to hire a "head coach on offense?" why not just an offensive coordinator?

do we need a buddy for ben? naaaaaaaaaaaaw. hell, it would be a MUCH more congruent workplace if we brought in a guy whose personality clashes with ben's. maybe a guy ben doesn't like or respect on a personal OR professional level. maybe a guy who was ran out of town on a rail from his previous job for not being able to get along with any of his players. any ideas?[/quote:2u1tqb1d]


Thanks, Wanderer. I appreciate you elaborating on why you disagree. I understand your points but I am starting to have doubts about how much Tomlin is involved in the gameplanning at all. I can't see him getting too involved in what DL is doing on defense. DL is a legend and a strong personality and does a great job on the defensive side of the ball. I have seen and have heard others on this board talk about how Tomlin seems to be uninvolved in what is going on with the offense. When BA and Ben talk on the sidelines, where is Tomlin? He's usually nowhere close and almost seems indifferent as to what they are discussing, the play call, strategies, etc. I like Tomlin overall and feel that he's a a pretty good coach. I don't consider him a great coach and I think he has some weaknesses. I believe somebody like Todd Haley or Hue Jackson could make a huge difference on the offensive side of the ball in much the same way DL makes a difference on defense.[/quote:2u1tqb1d]

we all want the same thing for this franchise: MORE.

todd haley might be the answer, but i don't see it. i don't really like the guy. he seems like a young, arrogant, prlck to me. a josh mcdaniels type. comes in, plsses everyone off, leaves. i just don't think he's got the right personality for the position.

interesting take on lebeau. i don't see him being a "strong personality." not in the context it was presented anyway. in the business world, there are maturity levels for employees: the lowest level is 'dependent.' this is when employees lack strong leadership skills and NEED to be surrounded by others to be effective. my take on fitchner is that he fits in this role. the next level up is 'independent.' this is where i think someone like todd haley or josh mcdaniels falls in. i think they are competent, but i don't think they neccesarrily work well with others. they kind of need to be doing their own thing with nobody else's input or assistance. the highest level of maturity is the 'interdependent' type. i see lebau in this area. he can sacrifice his 'strong personality' to play well with others and accomodate the leader(s) he works under. tomlin is interdependent. he's a great communicator and evokes the respect and adoration of those who work around him.

coming solely from a business/leadership perspective, i don't like haley because he's an 'independent' type of employee and i don't see that as a good fit for an offensive coordinator position. the haley's, mcdaniels, lane kiffin types . . . i don't want 'em around. you mentioned hue jackson, i see him as a guy who might flourish as an 'interdependent' type. i think he'd come in, understand his role, and perform it adequately. i didn't see enough of him in oakland to understand how good he is in the role though so it's merely speculation.

as far as tomlin not interjecting himself into every conversation, i view that as a positive. great leaders delegate and they don't micromanage. dan rooney was great at this, art rooney II seems to be making me (just a little bit at this point) nervous. tomlin seems to be great at defining roles and trusting those to handle their tasks. i give him big props on this quality.

 

If they can find a LeBeau-type to run the offense, why not?

 

Chuck Noll was a guard for the Browns before becoming the D coordinator for the Colts in 1968.

 

Ok, I guess this means you have no links to share about other teams fans "loving our HC". That's cool, I didn't really think there were any. But on a more positive note, this is the first time the word "congruent" has been used on this board.

 

Heh, I was just about to post something similar to this.

The problem with JackAttack's first post is that, after the initial point about MT not having experience of being an offensive coordinator, just about everything else is based on speculation, and what things "seem" like. I don't get all this stuff about "lack of involvement", like he spends his days locked in his office refusing to come out.

 

Shaner...I'm not picking on you with this and remember I'm a simple minded fool but shouldn't a coach or a team be judged on their record and achievements. I understand you can break down anyone and debate everything about that person but at the end of the day, in football, wins and success are all that matter. For example, I see people on here complain about his lack of passion on the sidelines...isn't it possible that his team captains came to him and told him that it was hard to work with cowher yelling in their face and spitting all over...we would appreciate it if you just chill and let us do our thing. I don't know but it is possible.

 

i merely chose to ignore your post. i appreciate the homework assignment, but you can do your own research. if you can't manage to locate general nfl message boards on the internet, i don't know what to tell you. and, obviously, there aren't going to be a ton of threads about the pittsburgh steelers or mike tomlin at the moment so to suggest i "have no links to share" because i don't feel like pouring through page after page of old posts to support my thesis . . . uh, yeah. at any rate, glad i could help expand your vocabulary.

 

Thanks, Wanderer. I appreciate you elaborating on why you disagree. I understand your points but I am starting to have doubts about how much Tomlin is involved in the gameplanning at all. I can't see him getting too involved in what DL is doing on defense. DL is a legend and a strong personality and does a great job on the defensive side of the ball. I have seen and have heard others on this board talk about how Tomlin seems to be uninvolved in what is going on with the offense. When BA and Ben talk on the sidelines, where is Tomlin? He's usually nowhere close and almost seems indifferent as to what they are discussing, the play call, strategies, etc. I like Tomlin overall and feel that he's a a pretty good coach. I don't consider him a great coach and I think he has some weaknesses. I believe somebody like Todd Haley or Hue Jackson could make a huge difference on the offensive side of the ball in much the same way DL makes a difference on defense.[/quote:2fytuhh3]

we all want the same thing for this franchise: MORE.

todd haley might be the answer, but i don't see it. i don't really like the guy. he seems like a young, arrogant, prlck to me. a josh mcdaniels type. comes in, plsses everyone off, leaves. i just don't think he's got the right personality for the position.

interesting take on lebeau. i don't see him being a "strong personality." not in the context it was presented anyway. in the business world, there are maturity levels for employees: the lowest level is 'dependent.' this is when employees lack strong leadership skills and NEED to be surrounded by others to be effective. my take on fitchner is that he fits in this role. the next level up is 'independent.' this is where i think someone like todd haley or josh mcdaniels falls in. i think they are competent, but i don't think they neccesarrily work well with others. they kind of need to be doing their own thing with nobody else's input or assistance. the highest level of maturity is the 'interdependent' type. i see lebau in this area. he can sacrifice his 'strong personality' to play well with others and accomodate the leader(s) he works under. tomlin is interdependent. he's a great communicator and evokes the respect and adoration of those who work around him.

coming solely from a business/leadership perspective, i don't like haley because he's an 'independent' type of employee and i don't see that as a good fit for an offensive coordinator position. the haley's, mcdaniels, lane kiffin types . . . i don't want 'em around. you mentioned hue jackson, i see him as a guy who might flourish as an 'interdependent' type. i think he'd come in, understand his role, and perform it adequately. i didn't see enough of him in oakland to understand how good he is in the role though so it's merely speculation.

as far as tomlin not interjecting himself into every conversation, i view that as a positive. great leaders delegate and they don't micromanage. dan rooney was great at this, art rooney II seems to be making me (just a little bit at this point) nervous. tomlin seems to be great at defining roles and trusting those to handle their tasks. i give him big props on this quality.[/quote:2fytuhh3]

great post wanderer. yes you are correct about tomlin and great leaders delegating. when it's not going as planned though, it is his job to intervine and ask why. sometimes a great leader also has to re- delegate some matters to get to where his leader wants to be.

 

Thanks, Wanderer. I appreciate you elaborating on why you disagree. I understand your points but I am starting to have doubts about how much Tomlin is involved in the gameplanning at all. I can't see him getting too involved in what DL is doing on defense. DL is a legend and a strong personality and does a great job on the defensive side of the ball. I have seen and have heard others on this board talk about how Tomlin seems to be uninvolved in what is going on with the offense. When BA and Ben talk on the sidelines, where is Tomlin? He's usually nowhere close and almost seems indifferent as to what they are discussing, the play call, strategies, etc. I like Tomlin overall and feel that he's a a pretty good coach. I don't consider him a great coach and I think he has some weaknesses. I believe somebody like Todd Haley or Hue Jackson could make a huge difference on the offensive side of the ball in much the same way DL makes a difference on defense.[/quote:17jzytvh]

we all want the same thing for this franchise: MORE.

todd haley might be the answer, but i don't see it. i don't really like the guy. he seems like a young, arrogant, prlck to me. a josh mcdaniels type. comes in, plsses everyone off, leaves. i just don't think he's got the right personality for the position.

interesting take on lebeau. i don't see him being a "strong personality." not in the context it was presented anyway. in the business world, there are maturity levels for employees: the lowest level is 'dependent.' this is when employees lack strong leadership skills and NEED to be surrounded by others to be effective. my take on fitchner is that he fits in this role. the next level up is 'independent.' this is where i think someone like todd haley or josh mcdaniels falls in. i think they are competent, but i don't think they neccesarrily work well with others. they kind of need to be doing their own thing with nobody else's input or assistance. the highest level of maturity is the 'interdependent' type. i see lebau in this area. he can sacrifice his 'strong personality' to play well with others and accomodate the leader(s) he works under. tomlin is interdependent. he's a great communicator and evokes the respect and adoration of those who work around him.

coming solely from a business/leadership perspective, i don't like haley because he's an 'independent' type of employee and i don't see that as a good fit for an offensive coordinator position. the haley's, mcdaniels, lane kiffin types . . . i don't want 'em around. you mentioned hue jackson, i see him as a guy who might flourish as an 'interdependent' type. i think he'd come in, understand his role, and perform it adequately. i didn't see enough of him in oakland to understand how good he is in the role though so it's merely speculation.

as far as tomlin not interjecting himself into every conversation, i view that as a positive. great leaders delegate and they don't micromanage. dan rooney was great at this, art rooney II seems to be making me (just a little bit at this point) nervous. tomlin seems to be great at defining roles and trusting those to handle their tasks. i give him big props on this quality.[/quote:17jzytvh]

great post wanderer. yes you are correct about tomlin and great leaders delegating. when it's not going as planned though, it is his job to intervine and ask why. sometimes a great leader also has to re- delegate some matters to get to where his leader wants to be. [/quote:17jzytvh]

correct. and he 'intervenes' behind closed doors. they're called 'team/coaches meetings.' to interrupt a meeting between OC/QB publicly might undermine the public perception of the role of the OC. then, the new ire (tomlin does all the coaching, arians has no control) is thrown on the arians fire.

some applaud rooney II for publicly undermining tomlin while condeming tomlin for not publicly undermining arians.

:swordsman: who rides?!

 

It is pretty evident that Tomlin & Rooney II had a difference of opinion about retaining Arians.

Certain situations do not always remain behind closed doors. Rooney II, IMO, did his best not to undermine Tomlin publicly. Tomlin had already stated he wanted Arians back, I feel that is why it was announced that Arians had retired.

Rooney II can’t prevent Arians from announcing that he wasn’t offered a new contract, nor could he change what Tomlin stated previously.

Some might say that Rooney II felt it was the right time to intervene.

 

clements is gone , is the new packers oc