Pittsburgh at Arizona

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

What drives me nuts about how the Cards beat the Steelers is that it is the exact game plan that I have screamed about for years ... and the obvious choice that the Patriots have used to beat them in every big game ... and very similar to the game plan that the Raiders from several years back used when they came into Pittsburgh and won even being a big time underdog. That plan starts on offense with the quick drop short passes, followed by the big play attempts. Get the LeBeau defense doing what it does not like to do ... play the pass constantly. Much like the West Coast Offense of old, use the pass as a sort of running game. It takes a certain kind of QB to do that. Obviously, Brady is that guy. Warner is another ... quick drop, quick release guy. I think Palmer is that guy as well. On defense, force them to do the same ... pass, pass, pass. They might get lucky on a big one (like yesterday), but go in knowing it is possible. Benji will make mistakes if that is all he can do is pass. There is nothing special about the Cardinals offense or defense ... they just did what that coaching staff knows works against the traditional Steeler style team. On defense, they mimicked what the Ravens did to the Steelers last year, and on offense, they did what the Patriots have done year in and year out against them.

When will the league realize this? When they do, they will send this Pittsburgh team to many, many losses.

It was funny when the pass that burned the Cardinals looked a lot like Deja Vu. Let's see...it's 3rd and 28. How about the CB stays in his backpedal forever, lets the guy get past him, and the safety takes his good sweet time getting over. Where have I heard this before?

[SteelerFan87]

What drives me nuts about how the Cards beat the Steelers is that it is the exact game plan that I have screamed about for years ... and the obvious choice that the Patriots have used to beat them in every big game ... and very similar to the game plan that the Raiders from several years back used when they came into Pittsburgh and won even being a big time underdog. That plan starts on offense with the quick drop short passes, followed by the big play attempts. Get the LeBeau defense doing what it does not like to do ... play the pass constantly. Much like the West Coast Offense of old, use the pass as a sort of running game. It takes a certain kind of QB to do that. Obviously, Brady is that guy. Warner is another ... quick drop, quick release guy. I think Palmer is that guy as well. On defense, force them to do the same ... pass, pass, pass. They might get lucky on a big one (like yesterday), but go in knowing it is possible. Benji will make mistakes if that is all he can do is pass. There is nothing special about the Cardinals offense or defense ... they just did what that coaching staff knows works against the traditional Steeler style team. On defense, they mimicked what the Ravens did to the Steelers last year, and on offense, they did what the Patriots have done year in and year out against them.

When will the league realize this? When they do, they will send this Pittsburgh team to many, many losses.

The Cardinals won that game by playing Steeler football. They dominated the line of scrimmage. It wasn't because they passed all the time, it was because they blocked well, and got through the Steelers' blocks. The problem wasn't that Ben can't pass alot, or "if you take away the Steelers' run game and force Ben to beat you, you win", it was that the Cardinals came out and dominated physically. That's something the Bengals have never been able to do. Try to drop back and pass constantly WITHOUT that physical domination up front, and the Steelers D will tee off on your QB. This game, like every game, was won in the trenches. Furthermore, you could clearly see after Hampton and Polamalu got hurt, the Steelers' D was not the same. Obviously that will happen when you lose the most important guy in your fromt 7 and the most important guy in your secondary. And I think Chris Hoke, the backup NT, got hurt too, so we were down to 3rd string Nick Eason. There's a big difference in the effectiveness of a 3-4 when you have a Casey Hampton at NT, and when you have Nick Eason there. Hampton eats up 2 blockers and can still get some pressure, which is key because he makes room for the rest of the guys to rush the passer. Without that big NT there to eat up the middle of the offensive line, it's easy to see why the Cardinals dominated in the trenches, protecting Warner, and allowing him to drop back and pass.

When will the Bengals realize that it all starts with physical play up front? When they do, they will send many teams to losses.

[duus]

I see, ... so once again the arrogance comes out. Only two ways the Steelers ever lose or have lost ... the other team *somehow* played Steeler football OR the Steelers beat themselves. And, since the theory goes in such a way as the Bengals never play "Steeler football", then the Bengals never actually *beat* the Steelers the last few years ... it's just that the Steelers beat themselves. (oh, and injuries are permitted to be an excuse for a Steeler loss, but how dare those Bengals fans mention the various injuries to key players on defense ... some day, someone needs to call these fans out on the hypocrisy)

Gotta love 'dem Urine fans.

[SteelerFan87]

I see, ... so once again the arrogance comes out. Only two ways the Steelers ever lose or have lost ... the other team *somehow* played Steeler football OR the Steelers beat themselves. And, since the theory goes in such a way as the Bengals never play "Steeler football", then the Bengals never actually *beat* the Steelers the last few years ... it's just that the Steelers beat themselves. (oh, and injuries are permitted to be an excuse for a Steeler loss, but how dare those Bengals fans mention the various injuries to key players on defense ... some day, someone needs to call these fans out on the hypocrisy

So you deny that the Cardinals were very physical in that game? You deny that football games are won in the trenches? You deny the fact that the Bengals aren't known for being physical? Tell me duus, exactly what part of my post was incorrect? Anyone who saw that game could tell that the Cardinals were more physical in that game than the Steelers. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that games are won in the trenches, and can recognize that that's exactly what the Cardinals did. And guess what duus? Physical football, where you dominate the line of scrimmage, IS Steelers football. That's what it is. That's what the Cardinals did. Therefore, the Cardinals played Steeler football. Which, considering their head coach and assistant head coach/line coach used to coach for the Steelers, isn't exactly surprising, now is it?

As for us beating ourselves against the Bengals, what do you call it when one team dominates in just about every statistical category, marches up and down the field at will, and yet throws picks in the endzone, fumbles at the 1 yard line, and muffs punts, giving the opponent their only real chance to win the game? I'm pretty sure that's called beating yourself. Face it. Last time you beat us, we GAVE you that game. Would the Bengals have won if Parker didn't fumble on his way into the endzone? Would they have won if Ben didn't throw a pick in the endzone? We'd have gotten 14 points right there, if not for those mistakes. Would the Bengals have won if Colclough hadn't muffed that punt, setting up, I believe, a Bengals TD? What, are you going to say somehow the skill of the Bengals made Ricardo muff that punt? No, I'm pretty sure that was just a mistake by the Steelers that helped hand the game to you.

And as for the injuries thing, when you have a Casey Hampton or a Troy Polamalu on your defense, and they get hurt, THEN you can complain to me about injuries on your defense. But the reason we Steeler fans laugh at you when you bitch about defensive injuries is because your defense isn't even good when it's healthy!

[duus]

I see, ... so once again the arrogance comes out. Only two ways the Steelers ever lose or have lost ... the other team *somehow* played Steeler football OR the Steelers beat themselves. And, since the theory goes in such a way as the Bengals never play "Steeler football", then the Bengals never actually *beat* the Steelers the last few years ... it's just that the Steelers beat themselves. (oh, and injuries are permitted to be an excuse for a Steeler loss, but how dare those Bengals fans mention the various injuries to key players on defense ... some day, someone needs to call these fans out on the hypocrisy

So you deny that the Cardinals were very physical in that game? You deny that football games are won in the trenches? You deny the fact that the Bengals aren't known for being physical? Tell me duus, exactly what part of my post was incorrect? Anyone who saw that game could tell that the Cardinals were more physical in that game than the Steelers. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that games are won in the trenches, and can recognize that that's exactly what the Cardinals did. And guess what duus? Physical football, where you dominate the line of scrimmage, IS Steelers football. That's what it is. That's what the Cardinals did. Therefore, the Cardinals played Steeler football. Which, considering their head coach and assistant head coach/line coach used to coach for the Steelers, isn't exactly surprising, now is it?

As for us beating ourselves against the Bengals, what do you call it when one team dominates in just about every statistical category, marches up and down the field at will, and yet throws picks in the endzone, fumbles at the 1 yard line, and muffs punts, giving the opponent their only real chance to win the game? I'm pretty sure that's called beating yourself. Face it. Last time you beat us, we GAVE you that game. Would the Bengals have won if Parker didn't fumble on his way into the endzone? Would they have won if Ben didn't throw a pick in the endzone? We'd have gotten 14 points right there, if not for those mistakes. Would the Bengals have won if Colclough hadn't muffed that punt, setting up, I believe, a Bengals TD? What, are you going to say somehow the skill of the Bengals made Ricardo muff that punt? No, I'm pretty sure that was just a mistake by the Steelers that helped hand the game to you.

And as for the injuries thing, when you have a Casey Hampton or a Troy Polamalu on your defense, and they get hurt, THEN you can complain to me about injuries on your defense. But the reason we Steeler fans laugh at you when you bitch about defensive injuries is because your defense isn't even good when it's healthy!

I don't deny why the Cards won yesterday ... that is obvious. As for the rest of your post ... I rest my case. Classic Steeler fan. Never lost a game that wasn't played in a physical style. Uh, except for those that they beat themselves or had injuries. Did you even read your own post? You just made my point.

Ugh.

[duus]

... oh, and I wish you would be careful ... one of these days they are going to send you to troll status. I still think you walk that line, especially with your Bungles trash, and statements about 'your defense isn't even good when it's healthy!'. I, for one, am tired of that in the non-smack threads. And before you argue in circles that others (myself included) throw some pro-Bengals trash around in non-smack threads, please remember that there is clear evidence of refrain on our parts ... AND IT IS A BENGALS FORUM! It just gets under my skin that you get away with this, and I think one of the guys is going to throw your butt to troll status soon enough. I enjoy your banter, but you need to leave the garbage out ... and if you want to include it in non-smack, then go to a Steelers forum.

[SteelerFan87]

I don't deny why the Cards won yesterday ... that is obvious. As for the rest of your post ... I rest my case. Classic Steeler fan. Never lost a game that wasn't played in a physical style. Uh, except for those that they beat themselves or had injuries. Did you even read your own post? You just made my point.

Ugh.

"Never lost a game that wasn't played in a physical style"

Uh, yeah. What's the problem? I said that when the Steelers lose, it's probably because the other team physically dominated us. How is that wrong?

"Uh, except for those that they beat themselves or had injuries."

Yeah, again, where's the problem here? Obviously when you lose a playmaker like Polamalu, and the linchpin of your D-line in Casey Hampton, your defense isn't going to play as well. You could see that yesterday. The announcers even mentioned that the Steelers D didn't look the same since Polamalu got hurt. I think the absence of Hampton was as much of or more of a factor than the loss of Troy. Both guys are critical to our defense. They got hurt. The quality of the defense immediately declined.

And I think I already explained how the Steelers beat themselves against the Bengals.

Please duus, if you want to continue this, actually REFUTE my arguments and back your arguments up with examples and logic. Don't just say "duh, well, you're a stupid pissburgher."

[Stripes]

Finesse and physicality are two different but equally effective philosophies for offensive football when executed properly.

[duus]

Finesse and physicality are two different but equally effective philosophies for offensive football when executed properly.

Yep ... when executed properly. Perhaps I should simply put a question out there for our overly-biased friends who have been born and bred to think that nobody beats the Steelers but themselves or someone lucky enough to play Steeler football the right way (reread that and imagine someone not seeing the arrogance in that statement ... but it continues ... that's what they are taught to think around here) ... "What losses in the last decade have come via a team BEATING YOU using a non-Steeler style of footbal?" Bet they struggle with that ... and therein lies the inherent arrogance that is Pittsburgh.

[SteelerFan87]

Finesse and physicality are two different but equally effective philosophies for offensive football when executed properly.

Yep ... when executed properly. Perhaps I should simply put a question out there for our overly-biased friends who have been born and bred to think that nobody beats the Steelers but themselves or someone lucky enough to play Steeler football the right way (reread that and imagine someone not seeing the arrogance in that statement ... but it continues ... that's what they are taught to think around here) ... "What losses in the last decade have come via a team BEATING YOU using a non-Steeler style of footbal?" Bet they struggle with that ... and therein lies the inherent arrogance that is Pittsburgh.

Yeah, finesse can be effective. But to beat a physical team you have to beat them physically. In 2005, the Colts were considered a "finesse" team. But how did they beat the Steelers? They came out and physically dominated them. I saw the exact same thing yesterday. You just have to go out and execute better and impose your will in order to beat a physical team. When the Steelers, Ravens, and Pats have been at their best, how have other teams beaten them? By punching them in the mouth. A physical team is going to go out and try to dominate the line of scrimmage. The only way to beat them is to match their physicality and beat them at their own game. Or, hang around and hope that they beat themselves.

[duus]

The only way to beat them is to match their physicality and beat them at their own game. Or, hang around and hope that they beat themselves.

See. There it is again. I will not say being a 'physical team' is not better than the 'other options', but to say "the only way to beat them is to match their physicality" simply is not true. That is simply something this little town has bred you to believe. It is not universal ... whether you like it or not.

[SteelerFan87]

The only way to beat them is to match their physicality and beat them at their own game. Or, hang around and hope that they beat themselves.

See. There it is again. I will not say being a 'physical team' is not better than the 'other options', but to say "the only way to beat them is to match their physicality" simply is not true. That is simply something this little town has bred you to believe. It is not universal ... whether you like it or not.

Ok. Let's look at how a finesse team would do against a physical team. A finesse team is going to want to throw. The physical team is going to want to go after their QB. How is the finesse team going to give their QB time to throw, unless they physically dominate the physical team's front 7?

On the other side of the ball, the physical team is going to want to run it down the finesse team's throats. This will allow them to control the clock and the tempo of the game. How is the finesse team going to stop this unless they physically dominate at the point of attack and stuff the run?

I await your answers duus.

[duus]

Ok. Let's look at how a finesse team would do against a physical team. A finesse team is going to want to throw. The physical team is going to want to go after their QB. How is the finesse team going to give their QB time to throw, unless they physically dominate the physical team's front 7?

On the other side of the ball, the physical team is going to want to run it down the finesse team's throats. This will allow them to control the clock and the tempo of the game. How is the finesse team going to stop this unless they physically dominate at the point of attack and stuff the run?

I await your answers duus.

OK, punk, you are suggesting things I never said. What I have a problem with is your innate belief that 'physical teams' never get beat except by other 'physical teams' or 'themselves' (or injuries). It may generally be true (arguable, even at that), but it is not universal. That is my answer ... to my statement ... not your question that twisted mine. Seriously, did you make it out of high school yet? Oh, I'm betting you went to Bethel Park or South Park ... say no more.

[SteelerFan87]

Ok. Let's look at how a finesse team would do against a physical team. A finesse team is going to want to throw. The physical team is going to want to go after their QB. How is the finesse team going to give their QB time to throw, unless they physically dominate the physical team's front 7?

On the other side of the ball, the physical team is going to want to run it down the finesse team's throats. This will allow them to control the clock and the tempo of the game. How is the finesse team going to stop this unless they physically dominate at the point of attack and stuff the run?

I await your answers duus.

OK, punk, you are suggesting things I never said. What I have a problem with is your innate belief that 'physical teams' never get beat except by other 'physical teams' or 'themselves' (or injuries). It may generally be true (arguable, even at that), but it is not universal. That is my answer ... to my statement ... not your question that twisted mine. Seriously, did you make it out of high school yet? Oh, I'm betting you went to Bethel Park or South Park ... say no more.

I didn't suggest things you didn't say, I was merely explaining what I was saying. You know, with examples and logic. You should try it. It's fun.

And I thought I already told you a while back that I went to Bethel Park (pretty good school, btw, except for the english department, which I won't go into, but as you can see it didn't affect my ability to write) and am now in college.