Tomlin gets extended

A bit below,you will see their starting lineup

Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens - January 6th, 2024 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

If you compare it to the previous week, it looks like they sat both starting cornerbacks, Hamilton, Smith, and another starting linebacker, Malik Harrison. Another starter, Stone, was injured during the game. That doesn't even include that the Ravens were one of the best teams in the league at disguising their defenses. It's a good bet they went with more vanilla formations and calls given that winning the game was a relatively low priority and they were adjusting to playing without so many starters.

 

I saw Ben at the Urban Impact event a couple of weeks ago and he said the the only question mark he had about the offense was at the WR position. He thought that the team was solid other than that.

 

PFR is using their nickel package, which is fine. They were down two of three CBs in that set, but due to injury, not choice (Hamilton with an MCL; Humphrey with a calf). Stone was injured later in the game; he played in 75% of their snaps that game. Harrison was part of a committee, he played in 21% of the snaps on the year.

The whole vanilla defense theory is possible, but conjecture. I'm not on any hype train for Rudolph, but to suggest he had advantages considering he was the third-string QB making his third start of the year, playing on the road against an arch rival in a monsoon seems like a reach. I'd think there are more obvious examples of why he was third on the depth chart and allowed to sign elsewhere this offseason.

 

There are, but it's a reminder that despite the weather conditions, he also had some advantages in that game. Whether it was injury or choice by the Ravens, the bottom line is that he didn't have to face those guys.

 

Don't feel too sorry for Bill Belichick, his 23 year old girlfriend is trying out to be an NFL cheerleader. The 2 met on a plane 2 years ago when she was 21 and he was 70.





CRAZY.... What makes this even crazier is her previous boyfriend who dated her before Bill is 64.
Man, 64, who dated Bill Belichick's 23-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson, says she is 'wise' (pagesix.com)

 

Of course, but you said they 'sat many of their best players'. I felt it was the kind of distinction, with little bearing to the overall point, that you wouldn't let slide.

 

Seems about correct.

 

Not really because the reason why they sat is irrelevant to the discussion, but if you are going to continue your odd little crusade by trying to imitate the way I post at least do a better job of it.

 

Of course it's irrelevant; I already said that. The point is you do that with irrelevant details all the time. If you don't think so, ask around.

You're doing it here, too. You said the Ravens sat many of their best players on defense. They were without three starters, not the same. Then you tried obfuscating things with your conjecture about vanilla packages after somebody provided lineups that showed your original statement wasn't exactly correct.

Regardless, you admitted there are more obvious examples of why Rudolph isn't QB1 material. But you're off in the weeds trying to support it by arguing he had an advantage when a team was without a few starters in a game played in a monsoon one year. Not really relevant to the larger point.

 

that is what he does. welcome to the war! LOL

 

no, it is not. He would not be coaching on 31 other teams with his lack of success the past 7 years.

 

Wait....so a coach that has went to two SB, and won one(no matter players because many coaches have won with other coaches players, and guys they haven't drafted....especially since the GM does most the drafting, and if people don't believe this....why do they say our draft is different since we got a different GM?) is worse than HCs that haven't even been to one???
Also don't say past doesn't matter, or how do other coaches get more jobs.

 

He said the last 7 years.....Be better than that

 

Wow!! Wouldn't mind a 23 year old but I'll be damned if I'm undressing in front of them.

 

I'm not for or against Mike Tomlin but I damn well know if he wanted to still Coach after the Steelers more then one team would make him an offer. We are looking at it from a fan perspective, owners are not.

 

So history doesn't matter???
Funny it's seems to matter when You want it , and a person's history seems to effect a lot,,but I guess when people don't want it to be.
Example: One game You keep rambling on about Josh Allen.....so You can keep using one game in the past (that He lost), but I can't use a SB win???
Got you. LoL

 

They sat both corners, Hamilton, Smith, and another linebacker who started more than half of their games. That isn't three. The rest of your stalkerish nonsense might resonate more if you didn't start with false information.

The point was about people forgetting the first five-plus seasons of his career due to three games, ignoring the weakness of the defenses he faced. The Ravens aren't weak, but they weren't close to full strength even if you don't by my theory regarding a more vanilla defense. Of course, my theory fits the facts, but facts don't seem to be your friend here.

 

And here we go with your troll-tropes. One of your current favorites seems to be some iteration of 'your argument might mean more if...[passive aggressive insult].'

Hamilton WAS one of the CBs in that nickel package. They were also without Humphrey. Then Smith at ILB makes three. Trying to include somebody else because you want to and then accusing the other person of using false information is just troll behavior. If you want to try selling somebody that a LB who had 8 starts sprinkled into a 14-game season while playing in 21% of the defensive snaps on the year is one of their best players, make sure you bring along that bridge of yours as well.

No, you're just using hasty generalization. It's the same as someone saying, 'Mason Rudolph started three games last year, and the Steelers won all three. Mason Rudolph should start at quarterback next year.' I told you it was possible they ran more vanilla schemes, but saying they did was conjecture (IMO not likely, as the logic in them doing so assumes they don't trust their backups knowing how to run their coverages). It's possible Rudolph could've become the QB1 this year and Steelers went to the Super Bowl. Likely? No.

The main hurdle for Rudolph that day was the monsoon-like conditions. That Smith, Hamilton, and Humphrey didn't play was, obviously, a benefit, but blunted due to the weather.

 

They were missing two corners in addition to Hamilton. They lost Stone during the game. Smith did not start. Another part-time starter also sat out. Those are the facts. it wasn't just three players. Even if you leave out the part-time starter, it was four, then five when they lost a starting safety. Your facts were wrong. It is not trolling to point out that you are trying to build an argument on false information.

It is not a hasty generalization to present something as a theory, making it clear it is only a theory, and pointing out that it fits the available facts. Hell, you are even agreeing that it is possible they ran more vanilla formations, which makes this all seem like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Haven't you whined about me doing that? Y

ou also misunderstood or misrepresented my argument for that theory. It wasn't that the backups didn't know their coverages. That is unlikely. It was that it is harder to run the more complex schemes smoothly when you are missing those key starters. We saw that at times with the Steelers, too. The other argument is that the Ravens were more interested in what would help them in the playoffs, so putting less of their exotic schemes on film would make sense. It's far from a sure thing, but it is something that could have made them an easier defense to face.

It would be a hasty generalization if I tried to pass it off as a fact, but I did not do that. If you are going to accuse someone who teaches logical fallacies of committing one, you might want to make sure you have a better understanding of what constitutes that particular fallacy.

Of course, I should also remind you that you are doing exactly what you have accused me of doing, cluttering the threads with personal nonsense. I'm surprised the hypocrisy is lost on you.

 

Well, this is just a miasma of regurgitated 'facts' that have already been de-bunked and pretzel-twists of logic that go nowhere, accompanied by your signature personal attacks and victim-playing. There's nothing new to entertain here.

 

Gotta keep .500 win percentage going baby! Screw playoffs, we chasing other dreams! You just gotta know what’s important here!

 

Translation: You have been confronted by your hypocrisy, factual error, and inaccurate accusations of logical fallacy and cannot argue any of it. Thank you. Let's play again sometime.

 

the STANDARD is the STANDARD!