What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

"Roethlisberger manages the game...." (1 Viewer)

That's not even what I meant though. For a definition of winning the game with your arm, see yesterday. See the Cincinnati game too. He doesn't have to throw 40 times in order to be the key to the victory. If a QB is the single most important factor in a team's win, and he does so by making great throws, then I consider that winning a game with your arm. There's no qualifier of how many attempts you need in order to achieve this.
That is where we are different. I saw yesterday's game as a great example of a quarterback winning the game by managing it well. Roethlisberger took what the defense was going to give them; in this case they were going to stop the run and give the offense some soft coverages; Roethlisberger took what was given to the Steelers and executed beautifully.However, if a defense's top priority is stopping the offense's passing attack, and the offense is still very effective in passing the ball...then the quarterback has beaten the defense with his arm.
hey onion can you give me an example of a team (that passes the ball successfully) where the defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the running game?
Arizona would probably be the best example, but they obviously run the ball sometimes. I doubt teams spend a lot of time gameplanning to stop it though.
Definetly Arizona. http://nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-PASS...ar?sort_col_1=8

The only other team close to the top without a very good RB is Green Bay.

Maybe Minnesota in previous years. Oakland is near the bottom in rushing as well, but LJordan does get respect.

 
The fact is that Ben has put this offense on his back and carried them through the playoffs. Anyone who suggests otherwise simply isn't paying attention.

 
That's not even what I meant though.  For a definition of winning the game with your arm, see yesterday.  See the Cincinnati game too.  He doesn't have to throw 40 times in order to be the key to the victory.  If a QB is the single most important factor in a team's win, and he does so by making great throws, then I consider that winning a game with your arm.  There's no qualifier of how many attempts you need in order to achieve this.
That is where we are different. I saw yesterday's game as a great example of a quarterback winning the game by managing it well. Roethlisberger took what the defense was going to give them; in this case they were going to stop the run and give the offense some soft coverages; Roethlisberger took what was given to the Steelers and executed beautifully.However, if a defense's top priority is stopping the offense's passing attack, and the offense is still very effective in passing the ball...then the quarterback has beaten the defense with his arm.
Ok, there's the crux of it. Personally, I could care less what the defense is doing. If the defense puts 10 in the box all game long, you'd be foolish not to throw it. If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs. But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?The Steelers will almost always be a run-first team. That's their offensive philosophy, and defenses will always scheme as such. If your prerequisite to a QB actually "winning games" as opposed to "managing games" hinges on that, then for Roethlisberger to enter that former category in your estimation is virtually impossible.

 
The fact is that Ben has put this offense on his back and carried them through the playoffs. Anyone who suggests otherwise simply isn't paying attention.
Precisely. We're quibbling over the definition of winning games vs. managing games, but common sense dictates that winning games for his team (via the air, or "with his arm") is exactly what Ben has been doing.
 
I guess I really am missing your point. You keep saying that you have not seen Ben involved in a game where the pass was the # 1 option.
Yesterday, from the Steelers' offensive game plan the pass was the #1 option. What I am talking about is when a defense believes the pass is the offense's #1 option and want to take the pass away. If this circumstance was to arise, yet the quarterback still passes all over the defense is when I see a quarterback 'beat a team with his arm.'
 
Ok, there's the crux of it. Personally, I could care less what the defense is doing. If the defense puts 10 in the box all game long, you'd be foolish not to throw it. If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs. But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?

The Steelers will almost always be a run-first team. That's their offensive philosophy, and defenses will always scheme as such. If your prerequisite to a QB actually "winning games" as opposed to "managing games" hinges on that, then for Roethlisberger to enter that former category in your estimation is virtually impossible.
Fair enough. But you are limiting your definition to the small scope of the Pittsburgh football culture and asking everyone else outside of Pittsburgh to change their definitions.

I understand Roethlisberger may be the closest thing the Steelers ever come to the Greatest Show on Turf, but to expect other NFL fans outside of Pittsburgh to bend their definitions to better fit inside the Pittsburgh snow globe is naive.

 
I guess I really am missing your point.  You keep saying that you have not seen Ben involved in a game where the pass was the # 1 option.
Yesterday, from the Steelers' offensive game plan the pass was the #1 option. What I am talking about is when a defense believes the pass is the offense's #1 option and want to take the pass away. If this circumstance was to arise, yet the quarterback still passes all over the defense is when I see a quarterback 'beat a team with his arm.'
OK I understand your point but the Steelers are going to take what the defenses give them. If the defenses go to nickel/dime coverages, they will run it. Because the steelers have the potential to run effectively, it isn't really possible to prove/disprove your point as long as Ben is playing for this team.
 
hey onion can you give me an example of a team (that passes the ball successfully) where the defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the running game?
There was the Air Coryell attack of the 80s, Dan Marino, John Elway (pre-Terrel Davis), Peyton Manning, Houston and Detroit's run-and-shoot offense of the 90s.
 
OK I understand your point but the Steelers are going to take what the defenses give them.
And in my opinion this is the best formula to win a championship. And ideally what a team needs is a good game manager at quarterback, that is why I have such respect for Roethlisberger as a game manager.
If the defenses go to nickel/dime coverages, they will run it. Because the steelers have the potential to run effectively, it isn't really possible to prove/disprove your point as long as Ben is playing for this team.
:shrug: Them are the breaks. Many people think Kobe Bryant is talented enough to win an NBA championship without Shaq. But until he does it, it hasn't been done. The same thing could be said about Tom Brady after the Rams Super Bowl, everybody thought he was just a good game manager. The next year the Steelers opened on Monday night against the Patriots and Brady threw the ball all over them. Brady's success that night was entirely due to Brady being a super-quarterback as much as it was the Steelers were not prepared for it.One of my favorite sayings is, "Until it happens, it has yet to happen." So maybe Roethlisberger is talented enough to beat defenses even when a defense is strictly scheming to stop the quarterback, but until it happens, it has yet to happen.

 
hey onion can you give me an example of a team (that passes the ball successfully) where the defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the running game?
There was the Air Coryell attack of the 80s, Dan Marino, John Elway (pre-Terrel Davis), Peyton Manning, Houston and Detroit's run-and-shoot offense of the 90s.
And how many of them were winners?Winning teams don't have offenses that rely on QB play with no running game. The winningest QBs of all time had running games to get them over the top, so the presense of the Steelers ground game shouldn't diminish what Ben does any more than it does to anyone else.

 
hey onion can you give me an example of a team (that passes the ball successfully) where the defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the running game?
There was the Air Coryell attack of the 80s, Dan Marino, John Elway (pre-Terrel Davis), Peyton Manning, Houston and Detroit's run-and-shoot offense of the 90s.
And how many of them were winners?
I hope this question was not directed at me because I never said it was a good formula to win a Super Bowl. If you were to ask me what a good formula to win a Super Bowl was, I would tell you a good\great running game, a good\great defense and a quarterback who can manage the game. I think the Steelers have all these components yet some people like myself get lambasted for saying, "Roethlisberger manages the game." :shrug:

What say ye?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, there's the crux of it.  Personally, I could care less what the defense is doing.  If the defense puts 10 in the box all game long, you'd be foolish not to throw it.  If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs.  But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?

The Steelers will almost always be a run-first team.  That's their offensive philosophy, and defenses will always scheme as such.  If your prerequisite to a QB actually "winning games" as opposed to "managing games" hinges on that, then for Roethlisberger to enter that former category in your estimation is virtually impossible.
Fair enough. But you are limiting your definition to the small scope of the Pittsburgh football culture and asking everyone else outside of Pittsburgh to change their definitions.

I understand Roethlisberger may be the closest thing the Steelers ever come to the Greatest Show on Turf, but to expect other NFL fans outside of Pittsburgh to bend their definitions to better fit inside the Pittsburgh snow globe is naive.
I'm not asking anyone to redefine anything, simply to use their eyes. I think rather you're the one asking people to change their definitions - I haven't seen one other person contend that a QB can't be considered capable on winning a game with his arm unless the defense he's facing specifically schemes to stop the pass first. There's no correlation there.If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs. But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?

You didn't answer this. By your definition, yes - that would mean Roethlisberger did NOT win the game with his arm, even if he passed every single snap of the game and the Steelers won 35-17.

:shrug:

 
hey onion can you give me an example of a team (that passes the ball successfully) where the defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the running game?
There was the Air Coryell attack of the 80s, Dan Marino, John Elway (pre-Terrel Davis), Peyton Manning, Houston and Detroit's run-and-shoot offense of the 90s.
And how many of them were winners?
I hope this question was not directed at me because I never said it was a good formula to win a Super Bowl. If you were to ask me what a good formula to win a Super Bowl was, I would tell you a good\great running game, a good\great defense and a quarterback who can manage the game. I think the Steelers have all these components yet some people like myself get lambasted for saying, "Roethlisberger manages the game." :shrug:

What say ye?
Nobody's lambasting you for saying Roethlisberger manages the game. He does. What people are questioning you on is your assertion that Roethlisberger has never gone above and beyond that, and actually carried the team with his passing, because opposing defenses play run-first against Pittsburgh. That's horribly false, and Steeler fans who know otherwise rightly are taking you to task on it.
 
If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs. But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?

You didn't answer this. By your definition, yes - that would mean Roethlisberger did NOT win the game with his arm, even if he passed every single snap of the game and the Steelers won 35-17.

:shrug:
With my definition. Technically, yeah his arm did most of the work but his arm would not have beaten the Broncos as much as the Broncos beat themselves by committing 10 guys to stop the run.
 
If Denver had played 10 men against the run all day yesterday, and the Steelers hadn't run the ball once as a result, Roethlisberger may have gone 45-65 for 500 yards and 5 TDs.  But, because the defense was playing run-first, that means Roethlisberger wouldn't have won the game with his arm?

You didn't answer this.  By your definition, yes - that would mean Roethlisberger did NOT win the game with his arm, even if he passed every single snap of the game and the Steelers won 35-17.

:shrug:
With my definition. Technically, yeah his arm did most of the work but his arm would not have beaten the Broncos as much as the Broncos beat themselves by committing 10 guys to stop the run.
See, this is why I feel your definition is flaVVed. If a QB throws for 500 yds and 5 TDs, and wins, and his team rushes 0 times for 0 yards, no matter what defensive scheme the opponent used, I'd say the QB won that game with his arm.
 
Nobody's lambasting you for saying Roethlisberger manages the game. He does. What people are questioning you on is your assertion that Roethlisberger has never gone above and beyond that, and actually carried the team with his passing, because opposing defenses play run-first against Pittsburgh. That's horribly false, and Steeler fans who know otherwise rightly are taking you to task on it.
There is some truth to what you are saying here. In the literal sense, Roethlisberger beat the Broncos with his arm so aguing with you on the literal sense of the expression, I am not going to win.But my question is, was Roethlisberger beating the Broncos because the Broncos couldn't defend his arm, or because the Broncos were far more concerned about stopping the Pittsburgh running attack and force the Steelers to beat them with Roethlisberger's arm?

 
Nobody's lambasting you for saying Roethlisberger manages the game.  He does.  What people are questioning you on is your assertion that Roethlisberger has never gone above and beyond that, and actually carried the team with his passing, because opposing defenses play run-first against Pittsburgh.  That's horribly false, and Steeler fans who know otherwise rightly are taking you to task on it.
There is some truth to what you are saying here. In the literal sense, Roethlisberger beat the Broncos with his arm so aguing with you on the literal sense of the expression, I am not going to win.But my question is, was Roethlisberger beating the Broncos because the Broncos couldn't defend his arm, or because the Broncos were far more concerned about stopping the Pittsburgh running attack and force the Steelers to beat them with Roethlisberger's arm?
I'd say it was Roethlisberger's accuracy and reads combined with the inability of the Broncos' secondary to adjust to what the Steelers were doing. In any event, although a portion of the blame clearly lies with the Broncos' defensive scheme and execution, to suggest that Roethlisberger did not pass the Steelers to victory yesterday would be an erroneous statement.I understand what you're saying here, I really do. We just see the parameters for "winning a game with your arm" differently, and we can just agree to disagree here.

 
See, this is why I feel your definition is flaVVed. If a QB throws for 500 yds and 5 TDs, and wins, and his team rushes 0 times for 0 yards, no matter what defensive scheme the opponent used, I'd say the QB won that game with his arm.
I guess another way to look at this would be. If Steelers were going to send 2 or 3 guys out for a pass play and the Broncos were going to try and cover these receivers with 1 defensive back, would you still say the quarterback beat the defense with his arms?I think if the Broncos were to comitt 10 to stopping the run and the Steelers did not run a single running play, I would say the Steelers already beat the Broncos with the run prior to the game starting.

 
I understand what you're saying here, I really do.  We just see the parameters for "winning a game with your arm" differently, and we can just agree to disagree here.
Let me ask you this, just for the sake of argument.Looking at the Colts-Steelers game, more pointedly the 2nd half.

Would you consider the effectiveness with which the Steelers ran the ball against the Colts 8/9 man front in the second half just as impressive as Edge's ability to run the ball in the 2nd half against a defense that were defending the pass?

To me, there is a huge difference in doing something on offense and doing something on offense when the defense knows it is coming.

Edited to Add: And this was the most impressing display of running the football I have seen in a long time. And the Steelers were not running draw-plays in obvious passing downs either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand what you're saying here, I really do.  We just see the parameters for "winning a game with your arm" differently, and we can just agree to disagree here.
Let me ask you this, just for the sake of argument.Looking at the Colts-Steelers game, more pointedly the 2nd half.

Would you consider the effectiveness with which the Steelers ran the ball against the Colts 8/9 man front in the second half just as impressive as Edge's ability to run the ball in the 2nd half against a defense that were defending the pass?

To me, there is a huge difference in doing something on offense and doing something on offense when the defense knows it is coming.

Edited to Add: And this was the most impressing display of running the football I have seen in a long time. And the Steelers were not running draw-plays in obvious passing downs either.
I would consider the Steelers ability to run the ball against stacked fronts more impressive, yes. And likewise, there IS a huge difference between doing something on offense and doing something on offense when the defense knows it's coming. That's even more of a reason why Roethlisberger really won that game for the Steelers yesterday. Yesterday, the Steelers faced 8 situations of 3rd and 7 or more. In other words, obvious passing downs. On those 8 plays, Roethlisberger was 7-8 for 78 yards, 5 first downs and a TD, with no turnovers. Overall on the game, he was 11-14 on 3rd down for 114 yards and 2 TDs, plus one carry for 4 yards and a TD. Personally, I call that getting it done with his arm - even when the Broncos knew the pass was coming (shotgun formation, 4 wide, empty backfield) they STILL couldn't defend Roethlisberger.
 
I would consider the Steelers ability to run the ball against stacked fronts more impressive, yes. And likewise, there IS a huge difference between doing something on offense and doing something on offense when the defense knows it's coming. That's even more of a reason why Roethlisberger really won that game for the Steelers yesterday. Yesterday, the Steelers faced 8 situations of 3rd and 7 or more. In other words, obvious passing downs. On those 8 plays, Roethlisberger was 7-8 for 78 yards, 5 first downs and a TD, with no turnovers. Overall on the game, he was 11-14 on 3rd down for 114 yards and 2 TDs, plus one carry for 4 yards and a TD. Personally, I call that getting it done with his arm - even when the Broncos knew the pass was coming (shotgun formation, 4 wide, empty backfield) they STILL couldn't defend Roethlisberger.
He has looked awfully good, no bones about it. It would be foolish to also assume he has reached his full potential. That throw to Hines Ward at the end of the 2nd half really showed me something, Big Ben can make all the throws and has delivered in big moments. I could not think of a better offense or a better quarterback to manage the games than what the Steelers have, and I so dearly wish the Vikings would emulate them. Having said that, I still think Roethlisberger has won these playoff games with his head, not his arm. I will also concede the 3rd down stats above look very impressive, but I would have to review the game tape. If this is the case, then I have really missed something.

 
I would consider the Steelers ability to run the ball against stacked fronts more impressive, yes.  And likewise, there IS a huge difference between doing something on offense and doing something on offense when the defense knows it's coming.  That's even more of a reason why Roethlisberger really won that game for the Steelers yesterday.  Yesterday, the Steelers faced 8 situations of 3rd and 7 or more.  In other words, obvious passing downs.  On those 8 plays, Roethlisberger was 7-8 for 78 yards, 5 first downs and a TD, with no turnovers.  Overall on the game, he was 11-14 on 3rd down for 114 yards and 2 TDs, plus one carry for 4 yards and a TD.  Personally, I call that getting it done with his arm - even when the Broncos knew the pass was coming (shotgun formation, 4 wide, empty backfield) they STILL couldn't defend Roethlisberger.
He has looked awfully good, no bones about it. It would be foolish to also assume he has reached his full potential. That throw to Hines Ward at the end of the 2nd half really showed me something, Big Ben can make all the throws and has delivered in big moments. I could not think of a better offense or a better quarterback to manage the games than what the Steelers have, and I so dearly wish the Vikings would emulate them. Having said that, I still think Roethlisberger has won these playoff games with his head, not his arm. I will also concede the 3rd down stats above look very impressive, but I would have to review the game tape. If this is the case, then I have really missed something.
Here are the 8 plays of 3rd and 7 or more, from NFL.com : 3-7-DEN46 (6:20) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to N.Washington pushed ob at DEN 33 for 13 yards (D.Foxworth).

3-8-DEN12 (15:00) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to C.Wilson for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

3-10-DEN45 (7:04) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Ward to DEN 24 for 21 yards (A.Wilson).

3-9-DEN23 (4:50) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to A.Randle El to DEN 13 for 10 yards (N.Ferguson).

3-8-DEN11 (2:14) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to V.Haynes to DEN 3 for 8 yards (J.Lynch, S.Brandon).

3-10-DEN42 (10:25) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to W.Parker to DEN 35 for 7 yards (I.Gold).

3-8-PIT44 (11:51) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete to C.Wilson.

3-9-PIT41 (7:07) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Miller to PIT 48 for 7 yards (Da.Williams).

7 for 8, 78 yards, 5 first downs and 1 TD. I assure you the overall 3rd down stats are accurate as well.

 
Let me check this out, I am also interested in the quarter these plays took place and what the score was at the time. (be right back).

 
Let me check this out, I am also interested in the quarter these plays took place and what the score was at the time. (be right back).
The first 5 (all completions, all first downs) were in the first half - 3 came on one drive with the Steelers up 10-3. Clearly still a time when the Steelers would be passing the ball and not simply running clock and conceding the possession. Oddly, in the second half, when the possiblity of a run in such situations was much greater, if for no other reason than to wind clock, the Steelers had less success throwing the ball.
 
Let me first say, that I am being a little nit-picky here.

These first one were in the first half. Regardless, they were still passing down and Roethlisberger connected. Although I think there is still an element of suprise because the Broncos were still in abiding by their original scheme, which was to stop the run. But I am probably scrambling here and truthfully Big Ben deserves credit for these.

Here are the 8 plays of 3rd and 7 or more, from NFL.com :

3-7-DEN46 (6:20) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to N.Washington pushed ob at DEN 33 for 13 yards (D.Foxworth).

3-8-DEN12 (15:00) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to C.Wilson for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

3-10-DEN45 (7:04) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Ward to DEN 24 for 21 yards (A.Wilson).

3-9-DEN23 (4:50) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to A.Randle El to DEN 13 for 10 yards (N.Ferguson).

3-8-DEN11 (2:14) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to V.Haynes to DEN 3 for 8 yards (J.Lynch, S.Brandon).
These 2nd half examples are probably more indicative of a game manager...
3-10-DEN42 (10:25) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to W.Parker to DEN 35 for 7 yards (I.Gold). Throw is short of the first down.

3-8-PIT44 (11:51) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete to C.Wilson.

3-9-PIT41 (7:07) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Miller to PIT 48 for 7 yards (Da.Williams).Throw is short of the first down.

7 for 8, 78 yards, 5 first downs and 1 TD. I assure you the overall 3rd down stats are accurate as well.
I will say there were some "3 and 6"s left out, but there really is no tangible examples we can use to make our cases.For myself, if the Steelers were down by 6 and had 2:00 minutes to go 80 yards for a touchdown, I don't like Roethlisberger's chances of driving the Steelers for the touchdown, but again this is not a tangible example.

 
Let me first say, that I am being a little nit-picky here.

These first one were in the first half. Regardless, they were still passing down and Roethlisberger connected. Although I think there is still an element of suprise because the Broncos were still in abiding by their original scheme, which was to stop the run. But I am probably scrambling here and truthfully Big Ben deserves credit for these.

Here are the 8 plays of 3rd and 7 or more, from NFL.com :

3-7-DEN46 (6:20) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to N.Washington pushed ob at DEN 33 for 13 yards (D.Foxworth).

3-8-DEN12 (15:00) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to C.Wilson for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

3-10-DEN45 (7:04) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Ward to DEN 24 for 21 yards (A.Wilson).

3-9-DEN23 (4:50) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to A.Randle El to DEN 13 for 10 yards (N.Ferguson).

3-8-DEN11 (2:14) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to V.Haynes to DEN 3 for 8 yards (J.Lynch, S.Brandon).
These 2nd half examples are probably more indicative of a game manager...
3-10-DEN42 (10:25) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to W.Parker to DEN 35 for 7 yards (I.Gold). Throw is short of the first down.

3-8-PIT44 (11:51) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete to C.Wilson.

3-9-PIT41 (7:07) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Miller to PIT 48 for 7 yards (Da.Williams).Throw is short of the first down.

7 for 8, 78 yards, 5 first downs and 1 TD.  I assure you the overall 3rd down stats are accurate as well.
I will say there were some "3 and 6"s left out, but there really is no tangible examples we can use to make our cases.For myself, if the Steelers were down by 6 and had 2:00 minutes to go 80 yards for a touchdown, I don't like Roethlisberger's chances of driving the Steelers for the touchdown, but again this is not a tangible example.
There were 2 3rd and 6's - one was incomplete and one was converted for a first-down by air. I chose 3rd and 7 because that's typically the number TV graphics use when referring to a sure passing down. I don't think the Broncos were playing sell-out vs. the run on 3rd and 10 with the score 10-3...In the first half, while the Steelers were still going for the jugular, Roethlisberger converted 6 of 7 first downs, 5 of those from 7 yards or more. In the second half, the urgency to convert was not nearly as great, as the Steelers were more concerned with running clock. Thus, they chose much more safe, conservative throws to make on 3rd down, hoping the receiver could get the YAC required to convert. If not, they run the clock another 35 seconds and punt... the critical thing was not to turn the ball over with the secondary back playing pass. Thus, I'd say the first half examples are far more indicative of what Roethlisberger can do, and how he was able to stake them to the huge lead that allowed them to play safe in the second half and secure the game.

As far as the second half of your post goes....

He is 7-1 lifetime as a starter in games decided by less than a TD. Only loss came in overtime this year vs. New England. 6 times in those 7 wins, Roethlisberger led the team down the field for the winning score on the Steelers final offensive possession (technically, in a 33-30 win last year over the Giants, the Steelers did get the ball back one more time and kneeled it out after Eli threw an INT on the Giants' final possession)

What you touched on is the EXACT reason why I like Roethlisberger so much as a QB. When the chips are down, and the Steelers need a big score, more often than not he delivers the goods.

 
What you touched on is the EXACT reason why I like Roethlisberger so much as a QB. When the chips are down, and the Steelers need a big score, more often than not he delivers the goods.
I think you have made some good points. However, I still consider him a manager of the game. Not saying I will always view him that way, Brady made me change my mind about him as well.
 
What you touched on is the EXACT reason why I like Roethlisberger so much as a QB. When the chips are down, and the Steelers need a big score, more often than not he delivers the goods.
I think you have made some good points. However, I still consider him a manager of the game. Not saying I will always view him that way, Brady made me change my mind about him as well.
According to your definitions, the Steelers will have to become a pass-first team in order to change your mind, and barring injuries, that's not likely. Thus, I won't be holding my breath. :D Good discussion though - killed a lot of my day !!!

 
According to your definitions, the Steelers will have to become a pass-first team in order to change your mind, and barring injuries, that's not likely. Thus, I won't be holding my breath. :D

Good discussion though - killed a lot of my day !!!
:thumbup: And really the only thing that should define a player is the difference in how many games his team has won and how many his team lost (not super bowls or 'big games'; everything else is secondary in my opinion.

What we talked about today is really in the same discussion as Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. I like Big Ben and personally I don't care how people want to label him. Some people could label him a freeloader, the reality is he is a (big) part of the Steelers offense which is clicking on all cylinders right now; whether they run 10 straight pass plays or 10 striaght running plays, he deserved just as much credit (or blame) as the rest of the Steelers offense.

Our tangent today was simply an attempt 'rate' Roethlisberger against other quarterbacks, which I think is stupid. Roethlisberger should only be measured by how much his team wins and how much his team losses.

It looks pretty good for the kid right now.

 
According to your definitions, the Steelers will have to become a pass-first team in order to change your mind, and barring injuries, that's not likely.  Thus, I won't be holding my breath.  :D

Good discussion though - killed a lot of my day !!!
:thumbup: And really the only thing that should define a player is the difference in how many games his team has won and how many his team lost (not super bowls or 'big games'; everything else is secondary in my opinion.

What we talked about today is really in the same discussion as Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. I like Big Ben and personally I don't care how people want to label him. Some people could label him a freeloader, the reality is he is a (big) part of the Steelers offense which is clicking on all cylinders right now; whether they run 10 straight pass plays or 10 striaght running plays, he deserved just as much credit (or blame) as the rest of the Steelers offense.

Our tangent today was simply an attempt 'rate' Roethlisberger against other quarterbacks, which I think is stupid. Roethlisberger should only be measured by how much his team wins and how much his team losses.

It looks pretty good for the kid right now.
Agreed... 26-4 as a starter is a good start. Especially since Maddox is 7-13 in his last twenty starts with this same team. :X
 
I now put Big Ben in the top 10 in the league. If and WHEN he wins this game, he moves to the top 5 in my book.He's carried them through this year's playoffs along with the defense.

 
Call me a hater, whatever.  I've come around and realized that Ben has the potential to be a great passing quarterback, and he does what's asked of him as well as anybody really could.  But I think the 'game manager' label during the regular season was fair game, because as cracker said, he rarely ever has to throw a significant amount to win.  I made the argument when the Steelers beat the Bengals in Cincinnati that Ben gets all sorts of credit for playing on a great team that wins a lot of games.  His stat line that game was something like 93 yards with 2 TDs.. but in the play-offs it's become pretty obvious that he can play in a high-powered offense.  So I give him credit for that.

All that said though, I've honestly never seen a game where Ben makes incredible throws through coverage to win.  Granted, I can't validate that statement with significant evidence, but I honestly can't recall him having one of those Elway/Favre type of games where it seems like he could walk on water if he tried.  It seems like the guys he's throwing to are usually wide open, and if he doesn't get a decent amount of time to throw, as with any quarterback (and as was the case with Brady this past week), he looks very pedestrian.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I'm getting pretty damn sick of the "great QB" argument.  He's a good quarterback on a GREAT team.  Brady was a good QB on a GREAT team.  Elway was a good QB on a GREAT team for many years, but somehow he had the reputation of Marino until his team finally won the SB.  There will always be people who are inclined to give all the credit in the world to the QB and a hand full of players with name recognition, but I'm hoping that the more knowledgeable types will begin to realize that Super Bowls are won by great teams- not just good quarterbacks.
I understand and respect your viewpoint, and agree with much of what you say. The bolded part just doesn't ring true to me though. He has excellent escapabilty, and actually has a higher passer rating when hurried/hit than he does on plays where he sits in the pocket. I believe he's the only QB in the NFL to whom this pertains, so I'd say he does better than most without good time to throw.
That's a great point. I wasn't really taking into account that he has a good sense of the rush, but basically making the point that if you put Ben Roethlisberger on the Texans, he'll look like an average if not bad quarterback (as would any QB). It seems like an obvious enough statement, but it does serve as a reminder that Ben Roethlisberger has 10 teammates on offense who all have performed very capably the past few weeks in setting him up for success. Don't get me wrong here either, I can totally understand why Steeler fans love him, and why you wouldn't want to trade him for any other QB in the league. It just seems to me that the fact that the play-calling and protection were both excellent yesterday is being completely ignored.
I agree with the spirit of your post though, except I'd say he's now a very good QB on a great team. The thing is, he's one of the, if not the, biggest reason why the team is great. Look at the games he didn't start... the Steelers are at best an 8-8 team without him under center. With him, they're 12-3 so far this year, and the best team in the AFC.
Agreed. For all the slowly eroding doubts I have about his ability to be an elite passer, I think he does bring some intangibles to the table that any team would relish on offense.
 
You need Fran Tarkenton if you're gonna start a QB on the Texans.Otherwise, watch what happens to poor poor poor Matt Leinart. He's a great QB but he's gonna be crunched seriously.

 
Quick question : In 1998, John Elway missed 3 games due to injury. He averaged only 215 passing yards a game, threw only 22 TDs and didn't rank in the top-10 in the league in yards, attempts, or completions - far from it, in fact. TD ran for over 2,000 yards and won the MVP, and the Broncos had a 52/48 run/pass split : the running game was clearly the #1 option. Elway, in the Broncos 3 playoff games that year, had 691 yards and 3 TDs, with 1 INT. Does any of this sound eerily familiar?

Why then, was Elway named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl and lionized as one of the NFL's all-time greats and not simply labeled as a "game manager" who had only to hand off to TD and not make mistakes?
I think the reason is that people already knew he was one of the all time great quarterbacks, and that he was capable of putting up great numbers, so when he started playing within himself later in his career and let Davis carry the team, they knew that he was both capable of leading the league in passing, and capable of managing his team to the Superbowl. There's a case to be made that he wasn't the biggest reason that the Broncos won the Superbowl that year - and his TD run wasn't a game winner, either - but that by managing the game well, he allowed the rest of the team to get where it could go.

The same case could be made about Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games. That's not to say that he couldn't, but unlike Elway, you've never seen him put up the numbers for the full game.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that you have to consider Roethlisberger one of the top QBs in the league at this point. I'm not trying to make a case against him. But people didn't start making the Montana comparisons for Brady until his fourth year, and even after his third Superbowl, people were saying it was too early to make the comparison. I think it's a little early to compare Roethlisberger to Elway, too.

 
Quick question :  In 1998, John Elway missed 3 games due to injury.  He averaged only 215 passing yards a game, threw only 22 TDs and didn't rank in the top-10 in the league in yards, attempts, or completions - far from it, in fact.  TD ran for over 2,000 yards and won the MVP, and the Broncos had a 52/48 run/pass split : the running game was clearly the #1 option.  Elway, in the Broncos 3 playoff games that year, had 691 yards and 3 TDs, with 1 INT.  Does any of this sound eerily familiar?

Why then, was Elway named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl and lionized as one of the NFL's all-time greats and not simply labeled as a "game manager" who had only to hand off to TD and not make mistakes?
I think the reason is that people already knew he was one of the all time great quarterbacks, and that he was capable of putting up great numbers, so when he started playing within himself later in his career and let Davis carry the team, they knew that he was both capable of leading the league in passing, and capable of managing his team to the Superbowl. There's a case to be made that he wasn't the biggest reason that the Broncos won the Superbowl that year - and his TD run wasn't a game winner, either - but that by managing the game well, he allowed the rest of the team to get where it could go.

The same case could be made about Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games. That's not to say that he couldn't, but unlike Elway, you've never seen him put up the numbers for the full game.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that you have to consider Roethlisberger one of the top QBs in the league at this point. I'm not trying to make a case against him. But people didn't start making the Montana comparisons for Brady until his fourth year, and even after his third Superbowl, people were saying it was too early to make the comparison. I think it's a little early to compare Roethlisberger to Elway, too.
Have you been watching the playoffs?
 
Quick question :  In 1998, John Elway missed 3 games due to injury.  He averaged only 215 passing yards a game, threw only 22 TDs and didn't rank in the top-10 in the league in yards, attempts, or completions - far from it, in fact.  TD ran for over 2,000 yards and won the MVP, and the Broncos had a 52/48 run/pass split : the running game was clearly the #1 option.  Elway, in the Broncos 3 playoff games that year, had 691 yards and 3 TDs, with 1 INT.  Does any of this sound eerily familiar?

Why then, was Elway named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl and lionized as one of the NFL's all-time greats and not simply labeled as a "game manager" who had only to hand off to TD and not make mistakes?
I think the reason is that people already knew he was one of the all time great quarterbacks, and that he was capable of putting up great numbers, so when he started playing within himself later in his career and let Davis carry the team, they knew that he was both capable of leading the league in passing, and capable of managing his team to the Superbowl. There's a case to be made that he wasn't the biggest reason that the Broncos won the Superbowl that year - and his TD run wasn't a game winner, either - but that by managing the game well, he allowed the rest of the team to get where it could go.

The same case could be made about Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games. That's not to say that he couldn't, but unlike Elway, you've never seen him put up the numbers for the full game.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that you have to consider Roethlisberger one of the top QBs in the league at this point. I'm not trying to make a case against him. But people didn't start making the Montana comparisons for Brady until his fourth year, and even after his third Superbowl, people were saying it was too early to make the comparison. I think it's a little early to compare Roethlisberger to Elway, too.
I hear you, and I'm certainly not comparing Roethlisberger to Elway yet, although of all the comparisons I've seen between Ben and great QBs of the past, Elway is the one that always came to mind as the most similar (the #7 notwithstanding)The difference in opinion on this entire topic is summarized by this statement :

Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games.

Many believe that to be true, but watching this team every week, I have seen a LOT of games where he has been the main reason they've won - including each of the last 3 games. There are some games where he has had to manage the game and nothing more, but none of these playoff games have fit this description. I don't take his being labeled a great game manager as an insult, just the opposite really, but those who insinuate that he can do nothing more just aren't watching, IMO.

Edit to add : As a case in point, the Steelers had 16 3rd down opportunities last week, and threw 15 times. The only run was Roethlisberger's 4 yard TD to ice the game. On those 15 pass attampts, he was sacked once, and went 11-14 on the others, converting 9 of those 11 completions into first downs. That was the key to the whole game, Denver could never get back into it because they simply could not stop the Steelers from moving the ball (at least until they decided to start playing the clock rather than the Broncos) - so in my mind, there's no doubt that Roethlisberger was the single biggest key to their victory Sunday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What you touched on is the EXACT reason why I like Roethlisberger so much as a QB. When the chips are down, and the Steelers need a big score, more often than not he delivers the goods.
I think you have made some good points. However, I still consider him a manager of the game. Not saying I will always view him that way, Brady made me change my mind about him as well.
According to your definitions, the Steelers will have to become a pass-first team in order to change your mind, and barring injuries, that's not likely. Thus, I won't be holding my breath. :D Good discussion though - killed a lot of my day !!!
Early on in Brady's career everyone said then what they are saying now about Ben. Remember in the Superbowl the Rams sitting on the bench saying he's overrated. Then doubters said he couldn't throw downfield because of a weak arm. He proved them all wrong and now Ben is too. As a Pats fan watching Brady lead and how he keeps his composure is extraordinary. Some call us arrogant and cocky. And some probably are too. But when he takes the field you just get the feeling that he is going to pull through. And Ben is pulling through big time right now. I imagine that all Steeler fans are starting to or already have the same feeling as us in NE.It is just hard to hear it when your QB is doing good and others try to rip him apart. I'm looking forward to watching Rothelisberger and Brady competing in the years to come. Good luck in the Superbowl.

 
Quick question :  In 1998, John Elway missed 3 games due to injury.  He averaged only 215 passing yards a game, threw only 22 TDs and didn't rank in the top-10 in the league in yards, attempts, or completions - far from it, in fact.  TD ran for over 2,000 yards and won the MVP, and the Broncos had a 52/48 run/pass split : the running game was clearly the #1 option.  Elway, in the Broncos 3 playoff games that year, had 691 yards and 3 TDs, with 1 INT.  Does any of this sound eerily familiar?

Why then, was Elway named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl and lionized as one of the NFL's all-time greats and not simply labeled as a "game manager" who had only to hand off to TD and not make mistakes?
I think the reason is that people already knew he was one of the all time great quarterbacks, and that he was capable of putting up great numbers, so when he started playing within himself later in his career and let Davis carry the team, they knew that he was both capable of leading the league in passing, and capable of managing his team to the Superbowl. There's a case to be made that he wasn't the biggest reason that the Broncos won the Superbowl that year - and his TD run wasn't a game winner, either - but that by managing the game well, he allowed the rest of the team to get where it could go.

The same case could be made about Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games. That's not to say that he couldn't, but unlike Elway, you've never seen him put up the numbers for the full game.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that you have to consider Roethlisberger one of the top QBs in the league at this point. I'm not trying to make a case against him. But people didn't start making the Montana comparisons for Brady until his fourth year, and even after his third Superbowl, people were saying it was too early to make the comparison. I think it's a little early to compare Roethlisberger to Elway, too.
I hear you, and I'm certainly not comparing Roethlisberger to Elway yet, although of all the comparison's I've seen between Ben and great QBs of the past, Elway is the one that always came to mind as the most similar (the #7 notwithstanding)The difference in opinion on this entire topic is summarized by this statement :

Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games.

Many believe that to be true, but watching this team every week, I have seen a LOT of games where he has been the main reason they've won - including each of the last 3 games. There are some games where he has had to manage the game and nothing more, but none of these playoff games have fit this description. I don't take his being labeled a great game manager as an insult, just the opposite really, but those who insinuate that he can do nothing more just aren't watching, IMO.
I agree that Roethlisberger has looked great in the playoffs. I agree that Roethlisberger has helped them win more than a couple regular season games, too. But I think that even you would agree that the Steelers rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run.

 
What you touched on is the EXACT reason why I like Roethlisberger so much as a QB. When the chips are down, and the Steelers need a big score, more often than not he delivers the goods.
I think you have made some good points. However, I still consider him a manager of the game. Not saying I will always view him that way, Brady made me change my mind about him as well.
According to your definitions, the Steelers will have to become a pass-first team in order to change your mind, and barring injuries, that's not likely. Thus, I won't be holding my breath. :D Good discussion though - killed a lot of my day !!!
Early on in Brady's career everyone said then what they are saying now about Ben. Remember in the Superbowl the Rams sitting on the bench saying he's overrated. Then doubters said he couldn't throw downfield because of a weak arm. He proved them all wrong and now Ben is too. As a Pats fan watching Brady lead and how he keeps his composure is extraordinary. Some call us arrogant and cocky. And some probably are too. But when he takes the field you just get the feeling that he is going to pull through. And Ben is pulling through big time right now. I imagine that all Steeler fans are starting to or already have the same feeling as us in NE.It is just hard to hear it when your QB is doing good and others try to rip him apart. I'm looking forward to watching Rothelisberger and Brady competing in the years to come. Good luck in the Superbowl.
Thanks. I don't really see anyone ripping Ben, but I really am just trying to figure out what people consider doing more than just "managing" the game, because the Broncos took the run away from the Steelers completely on Sunday, with the exception of maybe 3-4 runs) and it was Roethlisberger who totally carried that team on offense.
 
Quick question :  In 1998, John Elway missed 3 games due to injury.  He averaged only 215 passing yards a game, threw only 22 TDs and didn't rank in the top-10 in the league in yards, attempts, or completions - far from it, in fact.  TD ran for over 2,000 yards and won the MVP, and the Broncos had a 52/48 run/pass split : the running game was clearly the #1 option.  Elway, in the Broncos 3 playoff games that year, had 691 yards and 3 TDs, with 1 INT.  Does any of this sound eerily familiar?

Why then, was Elway named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl and lionized as one of the NFL's all-time greats and not simply labeled as a "game manager" who had only to hand off to TD and not make mistakes?
I think the reason is that people already knew he was one of the all time great quarterbacks, and that he was capable of putting up great numbers, so when he started playing within himself later in his career and let Davis carry the team, they knew that he was both capable of leading the league in passing, and capable of managing his team to the Superbowl. There's a case to be made that he wasn't the biggest reason that the Broncos won the Superbowl that year - and his TD run wasn't a game winner, either - but that by managing the game well, he allowed the rest of the team to get where it could go.

The same case could be made about Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games. That's not to say that he couldn't, but unlike Elway, you've never seen him put up the numbers for the full game.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that you have to consider Roethlisberger one of the top QBs in the league at this point. I'm not trying to make a case against him. But people didn't start making the Montana comparisons for Brady until his fourth year, and even after his third Superbowl, people were saying it was too early to make the comparison. I think it's a little early to compare Roethlisberger to Elway, too.
I hear you, and I'm certainly not comparing Roethlisberger to Elway yet, although of all the comparison's I've seen between Ben and great QBs of the past, Elway is the one that always came to mind as the most similar (the #7 notwithstanding)The difference in opinion on this entire topic is summarized by this statement :

Roethlisberger - he's helped his team to win, but he hasn't been the main reason they've won most of their games.

Many believe that to be true, but watching this team every week, I have seen a LOT of games where he has been the main reason they've won - including each of the last 3 games. There are some games where he has had to manage the game and nothing more, but none of these playoff games have fit this description. I don't take his being labeled a great game manager as an insult, just the opposite really, but those who insinuate that he can do nothing more just aren't watching, IMO.
I agree that Roethlisberger has looked great in the playoffs. I agree that Roethlisberger has helped them win more than a couple regular season games, too. But I think that even you would agree that the Steelers rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run.
Often they do, but not always. Ben has proven to me that he can do more than that, but some people either haven't or don't want to see it. Even in the games where they follow that script, if Ben doesn't get the job done through the air in the first half, they can't bludgeon teams with the run in the second. In many of those games, teams play as many as 10-11 in the box against the run in the second half, and the Steelers still run it. Now, I have no doubt Roethlisberger could exploit that with play action and throw for another 150 yards and 2 TDs in the second half as well, which would satisfy the stat mavens, but it's just not Cowher's style.
 
But I think that even you would agree that the Steelers rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run.
Often they do, but not always. Ben has proven to me that he can do more than that, but some people either haven't or don't want to see it. Even in the games where they follow that script, if Ben doesn't get the job done through the air in the first half, they can't bludgeon teams with the run in the second. In many of those games, teams play as many as 10-11 in the box against the run in the second half, and the Steelers still run it. Now, I have no doubt Roethlisberger could exploit that with play action and throw for another 150 yards and 2 TDs in the second half as well, which would satisfy the stat mavens, but it's just not Cowher's style.
O RLY?
I don't blame you for being fired up Grin.  That's a great game to go to.  Now, without Burress there to add to the passing game and take the hear off the running game, I'm not too excited about the Steelers run game either.  I'm not saying its a tough matchup, but even with the Jax injuries, I'm not excited about either Pitt RB (Staley owner here).  I see this as a low scoring affair. 

Also right now, I see Pitt puting up less points than before, regardless of who the opposing Def is.  In other words, I don't see it as a matchup issue as much as I see it as a declining Pitt offense as a whole, at least FF-wise.
Agree 100%Once they get Staley and Burress back 100%, the Steelers should get back to putting up 24-27 ppg. As long as they're missing those pivotal pieces, they're going to land in that 16-20 ppg range. They rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run. I could easily see...

Pittsburgh 17

Jacksonville 14

...........but I'd take it. That's going to be a looooong 2 1/2 hour drive home if the win streak is broken. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But I think that even you would agree that the Steelers rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run.
Often they do, but not always. Ben has proven to me that he can do more than that, but some people either haven't or don't want to see it. Even in the games where they follow that script, if Ben doesn't get the job done through the air in the first half, they can't bludgeon teams with the run in the second. In many of those games, teams play as many as 10-11 in the box against the run in the second half, and the Steelers still run it. Now, I have no doubt Roethlisberger could exploit that with play action and throw for another 150 yards and 2 TDs in the second half as well, which would satisfy the stat mavens, but it's just not Cowher's style.
O RLY?
I don't blame you for being fired up Grin.  That's a great game to go to.  Now, without Burress there to add to the passing game and take the hear off the running game, I'm not too excited about the Steelers run game either.  I'm not saying its a tough matchup, but even with the Jax injuries, I'm not excited about either Pitt RB (Staley owner here).  I see this as a low scoring affair. 

Also right now, I see Pitt puting up less points than before, regardless of who the opposing Def is.  In other words, I don't see it as a matchup issue as much as I see it as a declining Pitt offense as a whole, at least FF-wise.
Agree 100%Once they get Staley and Burress back 100%, the Steelers should get back to putting up 24-27 ppg. As long as they're missing those pivotal pieces, they're going to land in that 16-20 ppg range. They rely on the defense to make plays, hope Big Ben can make a few clutch throws early, get a lead, and then bludgeon teams with the run. I could easily see...

Pittsburgh 17

Jacksonville 14

...........but I'd take it. That's going to be a looooong 2 1/2 hour drive home if the win streak is broken. ;)
:confused: Where is the contradiction you imply? I just said they often do that, but they don't always. Sometimes they can't... see Pittsburgh/Cincinnati 2 this year as an example. Or, better still, the very game I am talking about in that quote. That is from December of 2004, and at that point, the Steelers still hadn't lost under Roethlisberger, so they were able to use that script to perfection most weeks. Oddly, the week I posted that, I went to that Jacksonville/Pittsburgh game and they COULDN'T do that because Jacksonville stayed with them the entire game. Jacksonville went up 16-14 with 2 minutes to go, and Roethlisberger drove them the length of the field for the game winning FG with a few seconds left for a 17-16 win. A game he won WITH HIS ARM, coming through with several clutch throws when they absolutely had to have them.

Anyway, I admitted fully that is their game plan most of the time. However, they can't even implement that game plan unless Roethlisberger kills it with the air attack in the first half. Do you really believe that in these games where he goes 9-12 for 145 yards and 2 TDs in the first half, then only throws 4 passes in the entire second half, that his stats are as good as they could be? If he put up those numbers against an honest defense in the first, you really don't think he could throw for another 100-150 and a TD or two against defenses that are playing 10 in the box? Maybe that would satisfy people statistically, but that's not Cowher's style. If people view him as a "game manager" only as a result of that, I can understand that, but I would think that these playoff games would show the national audience that the guy can do a hell of a lot more than just throw a few passes and then hand off until the clock runs out. I guess I was wrong.

 
EG, I was just messing around with you. I agree that Roethlisberger has shown he can do a lot more than just manage the game. I think he's emerged as one of the top QBs in the league, and the playoffs have been a great stage for him to do it. He had a nice playoff run last year and even had a good game against New England once he got past the initial confusion. I'd be interested to see how he did when his defense and running game weren't there, but there's no question you have to give him credit for what he's done when he's had those parts around him.

 
So, who is the better "game manager" Big Ben or Matt Hassy? It seems funny to me that Hassy doesn't get this lable and Ben does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EG, I was just messing around with you. I agree that Roethlisberger has shown he can do a lot more than just manage the game.

I think he's emerged as one of the top QBs in the league, and the playoffs have been a great stage for him to do it. He had a nice playoff run last year and even had a good game against New England once he got past the initial confusion.

I'd be interested to see how he did when his defense and running game weren't there, but there's no question you have to give him credit for what he's done when he's had those parts around him.
I saw your post the other day listing Ben behind only Brady and Manning, so I knew you were messing around, but I wanted to indulge you with the drawn-out reply you surely were hoping for. :D There's no doubt that he's helped tremendously by the defense and the running game, but there have been times when one or the other has abandoned him, and he's still gotten it done. They did almost nothing in the run game last week and still won, and I remember a game last year a few weeks after that Jax game where Ben threw for 318 to beat the Giants in NY 33-30 on a day on which the defense decided to sleep in.

 
Second-year QB flawless for Detroit-bound SteelersPasquarelliBy Len PasquarelliESPN.comclick thisDENVER -- These are the kind of games that, particularly for quarterbacks, make and break reputations.And which, in some, but clearly not all cases, reinforce nicknames.Ladies and gentlemen, at opposite ends of the spectrum on Sunday afternoon in the AFC Championship Game: "Big Ben" Roethlisberger, who played brilliantly for a third week in a row, leading the Pittsburgh Steelers to a 34-17 victory and into Super Bowl XL, and a man whose time has arrived. And the Denver Broncos' Jake "The Snake" Plummer, who morphed at the most inopportune time into his old, turnover-prone persona, and who might soon be re-nicknamed Jake "The Mistake" by despondent local fans."Oh, I don't think there's much doubt about who made the difference," said Pittsburgh wide receiver Cedrick Wilson, nodding in the general direction of Roethlisberger's empty stall in a remarkably restrained visitors' locker room at Invesco Field. "Our guy made the plays. The other guy, well, you know. 'Big Ben,' I mean, he's growing up real fast. The clock has struck all the right numbers for him, man."Indeed, there are a lot of reasons why the Steelers, who became the first-ever No. 6 seed to advance to a Super Bowl, are in the league's championship game. None, though, are bigger than Big Ben.Roethlisberger had vowed to Jerome Bettis early in the season that he would reward the veteran running back for delaying his retirement for a year, by guiding the Steelers to a Super Bowl berth in Detroit, the future Hall of Fame runner's hometown. And he delivered on that promise in huge fashion as the Steelers defeated each of the top three seeds in the conference, all on the road.To have ever predicted in the blue-collar Steel City that the Steelers might finally claim a fifth Super Bowl title on the strong right arm of a callow, second-year quarterback and not on the piston-driving legs of some beefy-thighed runner would once have been anathema. But on Sunday night, throaty 'Burghers likely were raising their Iron City beer bottles, and toasting Roethlisberger late into the night.The second-year veteran, who was miserable in the playoffs as a rookie, completed 21 of 29 passes for 275 yards, with two touchdowns, no interceptions and a passer rating of 124.9. He went into the game seeking to expose Denver's defense every time the Broncos blitzed or played eight men in the box.On the flip side, the more experienced Plummer, with just seven interceptions in the regular season (Denver's offense tied for a conference low with 16 turnovers), lost the ball four times Sunday. He had two interceptions and two lost fumbles and Pittsburgh scored touchdowns following three of Plummer's miscues.Plummer was also sacked three times, including two by Steelers weak-side linebacker Joey Porter, who is performing like a man possessed in the postseason."You can't give up easy points [in the postseason]," lamented Plummer, whose Grizzly Adams-inspired beard at least provides him a built-in façade for the offseason. "We did and they didn't, it's that simple, right? Their guy [Roethlisberger] was excellent."In the three playoff victories, Roethlisberger completed 49 of 72 attempts for 680 yards, with seven touchdown passes, just one interception, and a 124.4 efficiency rating. In the 2004 playoffs, Roethlisberger threw five interceptions in just 54 attempts, and two of the pickoffs were returned for touchdowns.Notable is that Roethlisberger, the Steelers' first-round choice in the 2004 draft, averaged 24 pass attempts in their three postseason victories. In his 25 regular-season starts in two years, Roethlisberger averaged just 21.8 attempts, and registered more than 24 attempts in only nine outings.But the days of Roethlisberger throwing just 20 times a game, with the Steelers relying on their power running attack to insulate the youngster and reduce the number of third-and-long situations he might face, could be history after this playoff streak. Besides, the widely held perception that the Pittsburgh offense is severely skewed toward the run is being rendered a fallacy as well.In his postgame news conference, Steelers coach Bill Cowher referred to his players as "a really grounded" bunch of guys. But Pittsburgh's offense is no longer a strictly land-locked unit, thanks to Roethlisberger and the way he's spinning the ball right now.Roethlisberger, 23, is performing like a seasoned veteran. And Steelers offensive coordinator Ken Whisenhunt, whose three-game run has been every bit as brilliant as that of his quarterback, is certainly demonstrating increased confidence in the young passer."We're not the ones who said we couldn't or wouldn't throw the ball," Roethlisberger said after shredding a Denver defense that statistically ranked No. 15 in the league and was second in the NFL with a plus-18 turnover differential. "Let the outsiders think what they want to. We kind of think this is a really well-rounded offense, that we can play it just about any way we have to, and that we'll do what it takes to win."Whisenhunt, who is crafting a pretty nice résumé this postseason and figures to merit consideration for any future head coach openings (he may still get a nibble for the lone remaining vacancy, in Oakland, since the Raiders work on a timetable known only to owner Al Davis), seemed to sense that the No. 29-rated Broncos pass defense was suspect in some areas. Principally at right cornerback, where rookie Domonique Foxworth is the starter, and at strong safety.While he would not acknowledge it publicly, Whisenhunt directed much of the passing game at Foxworth, who played with a big, imaginary bull's-eye on his chest. And for a second week in a row, Whisenhunt designed a game plan that stretched the opposition's secondary horizontally, forcing safety Nick Ferguson to chase plays outside the numbers, which he could not do with his limited range.Pittsburgh also took advantage of its own offensive tendencies, knowing full well that Denver's coaches would seize on them, and countered by tweaking some things.Exhibit A: The Steelers love to run slants inside the red zone, especially inside of the 10-yard line, and had scored on slants out of an empty formation in each of their first two playoff wins. So on their second possession, already leading 3-0 and facing a third-and-8 at the Denver 12, the Steelers aligned in a four-wide receiver set. On the snap, Roethlisberger made an exaggerated shoulder fake and Denver star cornerback Champ Bailey bit, anticipating the slant route and jumping in front of Wilson. Bailey also sneaked a peek into the Pittsburgh backfield, and that allowed Wilson to float free to the deep right corner of the end zone, where he easily gathered in Roethlisberger's lob.Pittsburgh also used more spread formations Sunday, largely on third down, which had been a situation where the Steelers went to a bunch-formation look in each of their first two postseason victories.But no matter the formation or the play call, the two-headed sword known as "align and design" in the vernacular of the game, the key for the Steelers from the outset was being able to successfully block a Broncos defense that has an unusually high blitz quota. And while Roethlisberger was sacked twice, and flushed from the pocket on perhaps a half-dozen other occasions, Pittsburgh's offensive line was stout in providing protection. Consider this: The normally grueling Steelers running game totaled just 90 yards on 33 attempts, with no run for more than 14 yards and 17 carries netting 2 yards or fewer, and the offense still dominated the tempo.Using a diverse and cleverly designed passing game that mixed vertical throws with screens, the Steelers enjoyed a huge edge in time of possession (36:07-23:53) and led in first downs (20-16) and total yards (358-308)."It really all started up front," acknowledged Roethlisberger, picking up on a theme that Whisenhunt had made minutes earlier. "They gave us time to make plays. Lots of time on some of the biggest plays. [Protection] was the thing we probably stressed the most this week. And it was the key [element] to the whole deal today."By unofficial count, the Broncos either blitzed or played eight in the box on nine of Pittsburgh's first 16 offensive snaps. On those 16, the Steelers averaged 6.13 yards. On the nine "pressure" snaps, the Steelers unofficially totaled 96 yards, an average of 10.7 yards per play. Roethlisberger was also big-time on third down, converting 6 of 7 in the first half, as the Steelers jumped to a 24-3 lead at intermission.In the opening two quarters, Roethlisberger moved the chains on five third-down plays in which 8 or more yards were needed. His touchdown pass to Wilson came on a third-down play. On the ensuing possession, which culminated on Bettis' 3-yard scoring run to push the Steelers to a 17-3 advantage, Roethlisberger threw for 21 yards to Hines Ward on third-and-10, for 10 yards to Antwaan Randle El on third-and-9, and for 8 yards to nickel tailback Verron Haynes on third-and-8."You know, the knock on us is, like, 'Well, they don't have a deep threat since they lost [Plaxico] Burress in free agency,' or, 'They don't have a real go-to guy,' all that stuff," said Ward, who had five catches for 59 yards and one touchdown. "But we have guys who just go out and do their jobs. Everyone catches the ball. People get their share of the football. Ben spreads it around, and on any play, anyone can come up big. We're a whole lot better passing offense than people give us credit for being."In each of Pittsburgh's three playoff wins, Roethlisberger completed passes to at least six different receivers. He had seven receivers catch at least one pass each in the wins at Indianapolis and at Denver. Most of all, Roethlisberger has been poised, scanned the field like a man playing beyond his years, delivered the ball with superb accuracy, and delivered game-altering plays with uncanny regularity."I'd say his time has come, but let's remember, he's only in his second season," Ward emphasized. "It's scary to think how much better he might get. No telling how far he can go. But for now, 'Big Ben' is going to Detroit, and, hey, we're all going with him."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/c..._len&id=2302464
 
Nice, jurb. Pasquarelli obviously sees it. :thumbup:
This article debunks a lot of what was said in the 3 pages of this thread IMO. Well, only if those who have doubted choose to believe I guess. :towelwave:

 
Some more fuel for the fire. Check out hte poll on NFL.com

Over 66% say Ben is the stand out performer from the Conf Champ round... game manager still?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top