Mix of fear, hubris and disorganization led to Steelers' downfall
Fun read. Exactly how i felt after the interception.
Fun read. Exactly how i felt after the interception.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Roethlisberger said he got to the line with the intention of clocking it. The Steelers would kick the field goal and take their chances in overtime against a reeling defense.
“I felt like that was the thing to do,” Roethlisberger said. “But it came from the sideline, ‘Don’t clock it! Run a play!’ At that point, everyone thinks I’m going to clock it and we didn’t have time to get everyone lined up.”
Terrific. Play of the year and you’re disorganized. And you’re trying to get the most well-prepared and anal team in NFL history for fall for the banana in the tailpipe.Like the Seahawks figuring the Patriots would never expect a pass and opting to throw into the teeth of coverage rather than taking a calculated risk with a fade.
And here’s where the hubris comes in. Asked about the end-zone slant to Eli Rogers that was ricochet-picked, Tomlin said, “We play and play to win. That’s what we do.”
The words are “we play to win.” What he meant was, “we played to win on our terms..” With Roethlisberger and offensive coordinator Todd Haley lobbying to clock it and send the game to overtime, Tomlin -- who built this game up for a month -- injected himself and led with his chin.
This isn’t the NHL. You don’t get downgraded for the win if it comes in extra time. The Steelers are most likely traveling to Foxboro in January because Jesse James wasn’t tight on the rules -- blame him or the coaches for that -- and because Tomlin didn’t want to win the game, he wanted to win the game a certain way.
I like the look back to 2009 (failed action by BB), but I think even more important would be looking to the current game.Back in 2009, Bill Belichick, iin a game at Indianapolis, went for it on fourth-and-2. That, obviously, was a diceroll that -- like Tomlin's on Sunday -- didn't work out. But here's the difference. The Patriots gambled because they didn't like their odds playing straight up. Take the chance to end the game, but don't give it back to Peyton Manning. It was understanding game situation and defensive shortcomings. Appreciating your weakness.
The officials didn't have any index cards available that day!to this day I still maintain...Faulk converted that 4th and 2, and aint no one gonna convince me otherwise, the proof is there
to this day I still maintain...Faulk converted that 4th and 2, and aint no one gonna convince me otherwise, the proof is there
I like the look back to 2009 (failed action by BB), but I think even more important would be looking to the current game.
With a 4th and 2, early in the game, and within a chip shot of a FG, the Pattriots decided to go for the first down.
BB realized that this game was going to be about offense and scoring and decided to not trade Touchdowns for FGs. They had a plan and the confidence to stick with it. The confusion on the play calling near the end (while not expected) certainly should have had a plan.
I'm sure BB/McD and Brady would have had one.
All these bobbling replays yesterday reminded me of the same thing. They spotted the ball where he had full control.not where he caught it. Same kinda thing yesterday I suspect.to this day I still maintain...Faulk converted that 4th and 2, and aint no one gonna convince me otherwise, the proof is there
Yup.Exactly. Forget about the %s and probabilities etc that Ernie Adams throws out there.
It all came down to BB having zero confidence in his defense stopping Manning. Period.
Exactly. Forget about the %s and probabilities etc that Ernie Adams throws out there.
It all came down to BB having zero confidence in his defense stopping Manning. Period.
All these bobbling replays yesterday reminded me of the same thing. They spotted the ball where he had full control.not where he caught it. Same kinda thing yesterday I suspect.
Back in 2009, Bill Belichick, iin a game at Indianapolis, went for it on fourth-and-2. That, obviously, was a diceroll that -- like Tomlin's on Sunday -- didn't work out. But here's the difference. The Patriots gambled because they didn't like their odds playing straight up. Take the chance to end the game, but don't give it back to Peyton Manning. It was understanding game situation and defensive shortcomings. Appreciating your weakness.
That was a bad decision. Citing to a stupid call by BB doesn't really make Curran's argument better, no matter how he tries to couch it as an example of significant difference, and despite the fact that the refs were wrong about Faulk getting stopped short.
Calling for the fake spike was fine. Roethlisberger should either have gotten everyone on board in a hurry or just spiked it and explained why to the coaches.
The bigger problem was the play to DHB. That play was the trigger to the rest.
And they could have given themselves a better chance to overcome that by preparing for the possibility that the DHB play would fall short. As alluded to above, they had plenty of time during the TD review.