Pittsburgh Coaching Job Security
- Thread starter TheWerewolfFromTwilight
- Start date
What is he supposed to do? He is getting paid to win as many games as possible. He does that.
Do you think this roster is close to the Eagles or Ravens? Hell it doesn't even compete with the Vikings.
Right. He built a 6-11 team recently but still coached it to 10-7. As for the Cowher’s players crap, that’s beneath you. Until recently, that is. For some reason.
Who helped made TJ Watt the player he is? And no one outside linebacker does not make a team. That’s ridiculous.
Oh, so he does have an influence on how talented the team is? The team that has "6-11" talent. Sorry, trying to keep up with the logic.
Yes. The problem is you’re not very smart. As a GM he built a 6-11 team. He coached that team to a 10-7 record.
Damn. Maybe that 10-7 coach should tell that 6-11 talent evaluator exactly what kinds of players it takes to win games in the NFL.
Or stop trying to do the thing that he's not any good at. One or the other would work.
It's funny: you think you're being brilliant by establishing some delineation his between coaching and his drafting, but we were talking about player development. That doesn't fall under a GM's purview. If we have 6-11 talent, as you claim, and if Tomlin is responsible for developing talent, as you've said he is, then he sucks at a huge component of his job.
Tomlin is a good coach, he's not good enough to turn a 6-11 team into a 10-7 team. Their record generally reflects their talent.
In Tomlin's case, he is mostly judge, jury and executioner. He likely has more say in personnel and drafting than any other NFL coach.
Which he is the primary responsible party for securing and developing said talent.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Like, we beat bad and mid teams and typically get completely outclassed by top of the league. Seems to be a pretty clear tier we fall into, talent-wise.
Those arguing he "does more with less" are living off Duck Hodges fumes. Of course they never mention the part where the 8 teams we beat that season combined for a record of 41-86, an average of about 5-11. So, even with Duck Hodges at QB, we probably had the talent advantage in most of those games.
You can see it - allowing 300 yards rushing is more than enough proof.
Yeah, same. I'm sitting here trying to think who the Steelers beat that they shouldn't have for those other four wins. Maybe sweeping Cleveland and Cincy is harder than the rest of the world thinks? Maybe the Raiders, Jets and Giants were actually great wins. Falcons were just a way better team.
Falcons - they suck
Broncos - we caught them at the right time
Chargers - mid team
Raiders - suck
Jets - suck
Giants - suck, and we might not have won without the ridiculous pre-snap motion penalty they took off the board
Commanders - ok, decent win... granted, they were 12-5 against the next to worse schedule in the league
Ravens -congrats, Mike T - you have one trick that's worth a damn
Bengals - suck
Browns - suck
Also lost to the Browns, Bengals, Colts, and Cowboys - all of whom suck.
So, as per usual, we beat a bunch of mostly bad to mid teams and then pulled off a nice one against the Ravens, who be play oddly well against more often than not. So it's a usual season for Mike T.
There are so many horrid to average nfl teams that to get to .500 or slightly above, you don’t have to be more than a hair above mediocre.
Play conservatively, limit turnovers and win 9 or 10 games every year. Unfortunately, very little chance to ever break through to the upside.
The quality of the nfl as a whole has declined every year for the last decade…. that’s the basic point. In any given weekend half the matchups involve teams with .500 or worse records.
A bunch of teams that know they don't have a championship roster have gotten content playing these ultra-conservative games that come down to a play here or there at the end.
Well back when those teams had to walk up hill both to and from the stadium it made the players a lot tougher.
This past season 16 of the 32 NFL teams finished with records of .500 or worse. Ten years ago, 16 of the 32 NFL teams finished with records of .500 or worse. Including every team in one division. The notion that there are more games between teams with .500 or worse records today than there were 10 (or 20 or 30) years ago is silly.
If you can't look up the NFL standings for any given year you are beyond help.
I know this has got to be a shock to you, but pretty much every year approximately the same number of NFL teams finish with winning records as losing records. It's almost like in a league like the NFL wins are a zero sum game, that every time a team gets a win another team gets a loss.
Who knew, right?
I believe I’m correct but you opted to reject my opinion as “ silly” so the onus is on you to support your cheap shot. If you are correct, than I will readily admit that my opinion was an incorrect conclusion based on recency bias. In any event, the dearth of good QBs in the league has resulted in a plethora of lousy teams and lousy matchups every week.
I hate to be the one to drop this but mathematically, you're not going to have much deviation in the number of winning teams in any season. It's possible to have more winning or losing teams but not by more than one or two. Exactly half the teams had a winning record in 2024. Same in 1994. Only difference in 1994 is that there were two teams that were 8-8, which can't happen with 17 games. But most weeks, half the teams are going to win and half are going to lose. Ties do happen and that's the monkey wrench.
It is , however, mathematically possible if there was a high degree of parity, to have a lot of teams around .500 as opposed to having an inordinate number of teams with losing records. I just see an inordinate number of nfl teams that are pure garbage.
I've watched enough Capel-ball the past 7 years to feel very confident in my assessment that the guy simply can't coach from an Xs and Os standpoint. I think he's an intelligent guy, an engaging guy, a likeable guy, etc., but we are at a coaching disadvantage in just about every game we play. He has never built a complete roster, nor has he adapted his offense and D to the types of players he has had in any given season. The annual inability to defend and rebound worth a $hit is inexcusable. There is no physicality or toughness to his teams. The small bit of success he has had was with individual experienced player leadership that came from other programs--and when I say that I'm really talking about one player, Burton, and maybe Hinson. Hinson was an excellent player, a leader and a competitor but he was primarily a shooter who didn't get his uniform very dirty and being one dimensional, he couldn't put the team on his back and single handedly will it to win. The handful of promising freshmen under Capel never seem to develop, he lucked into an NBA lottery pick with Bub for one year but a one and done freshman can't help a struggling program like this very much, that type of player would only make a meaningful difference if added to an already solid, experinced team--and we haven't had one of those in an awfully long time.
We seem to be stuck with Capel, but as long as he's here, expect nothing but more of the same.
I understand and there are probably some reasons you feel that way. I think the league being larger plays a role in that. More teams does necessarily corelate to more subpar teams. But mathematically, the percentages are the same.
You can "believe" whatever you want. If you believe something that is silly and you pronounce your belief publicly, you should probably expect at some point that someone might point out that you are being silly.
There simply are not more teams .500 and worse today than there were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. There just aren't. I mean does the exact number fluctuate from year to year, up one or two one year, down one or two the next? Yeah, sure. But in every instance that's just normal variance, not some sort of overall trend that is going to continue on in the same way. It's just not. And anyone with even a basic understanding of math could see that.
And the fact that you specifically mentioned 10 years ago, and there were exactly the same number of teams .500 or worse this past season as there were ten years ago ought to show you that, even if you are math challenged.
Latest posts
-
-
Was Kevin stallings great coach that just got a raw deal here?
- Latest: KennyHeisman8
-
-
-
