"got a little greedy"

by MadBlackAndGold on Oct 13, 2009 12:35 PM EDT

subtitle: BA tries to admit he has a problem: fails.

I think we can agree that we want an OC that's "greedy." Greedy for wins foremost, and of course greedy for points. What actually happened was that Arians "got a little ineffective" Greed would have dictated using Rashard *more* in the 4th quarter when he's likely to be even more effective than the 5.1 ypa that he's already accomplished. Stuffing the ball down the throats of ones opponent in the 4th quarter is not somehow ceding offense, as Bruce seems to imply. It's the safest and most effective way of winding down the clock AND scoring.

Hopefully he was just trying to make a self-deprecating joke, and the comment doesn't betray any insights towards his thinking at all. What I'm afraid of is that it's indicative of an attitude that pounding the ball (with the lead, in the 4th) is somehow the opposite of being greedy. In my mind it's the very definition of it.

By the way: Long time lurker; go gentle on me!

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good point

except yards are harder to come by in the fourth quarter, not easier. The 5.1 average is likely to go down, but that’s inconsequential. You win the game by having the most points at the end of regulation. Running the ball makes the end of regulation come faster. So, if you are leading by a large margin, you don’t want to be “greedy,” you just want regulation to end while your team is still leading. That’s why you run the ball.

by CarlWeathersMustache on Oct 13, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions

Beat me to it.

Defenses in the 4th that are trailing will stack the box to force the opposing offense to pass thus taking less time off of the clock.

by OHSteelerfan on Oct 13, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions

A thought occurs to me

What if he was trying to plan for the eventual defensive…er…wilting? I mean, didn’t nearly everyone applaud him for not taking his foot off the pedal against the Chargers? Didn’t that put the Steelers ahead enough to win even after Rivers drove for late scores? Didn’t everyone, maybe even the Lions, think he would run? Was he trying to be unpredictable? If he had run it three straight times and not converted, would we all be asking why his 100 million dollar quarterback was not throwing and keeping his foot on the gas?

I’m not a B.A. fan at all. But, I can see now, no matter what he does, short of blowing the other team out in every quarter, he can’t win.

by WyoFan on Oct 13, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

It is a hole he has dug himself into due to his questionable play calling over the past few years. As much as he is criticized for his play calling, he is also commended by many fans on this site when he does get it right.

by OHSteelerfan on Oct 13, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

To be fair

A couple of weeks ago when we were ending games by running three straight times into a stacked line, everyone was screaming to pass the ball. To be fair again, two or three weaks ago the line was not playing like it is and Rashard was sitting on the bench. As a OC you have to be able to figure out what the defense is going to want to do and put in formations and plays that take them out of their comfort zone. BA has at times done fairly well at this but seems to forget towards the end of the game. If the D is stacked up front, I have no issues with a seam buster or deep post every now and then. For the most part though I agree that when the running game is going good why not keep it going. I like most was pretty surprised at how little we saw Rashard in the second half.

by DarinS on Oct 13, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions

This is why

Bellicheat doesn’t let his assistants speak to the media. What a gonad.

The only managing Ben does is he manages to WIN games

by chewiesteeler on Oct 13, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions

shoulda just Ran Redzone Rashard the whole game, got em on my Fantasy team so Ariens GREED cost me POINTS.

Gonads. lol the word of the week

Ron Paul was Right.

by Steelchamps !! on Oct 13, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions

Bruce Arians is difficult to

understand sometimes. He normally is very good at game planning but his play calling sometimes is a puzzler. Did he have a personal beef with Cowher and Whiz?? He is hell bent on having a philosophy opposite theirs. I know he prefers more balance than Cowher and Whiz did as they preferred the 3 runs and a cloud of dust here. But sometimes I think he over does it. Hopefully with a healthy FWP he uses him and Mendenhall as the 1-2 punch the Steelers have lacked since 2005 and makes the opposing defenses guess even more. Especially when trying to close out games.

by BubbyBrister6 on Oct 13, 2009 3:54 PM EDT reply actions

a personal beef between Ariens Cowher and Whiz?

oh Great, a conspiracy Theorist. ( i like you, do you like me?)

Ron Paul was Right.

by Steelchamps !! on Oct 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Also comes down to execution on the field

Ben makes the pass, good call BA. Double reverse to Logan=first down, moment of brilliance.

Sweed drops the lil bally again, bad BA. Ben gets sacked, why didn’t they run instead?

I’m guilty of doing it myself, but I love this game and try to keep a positive tone throughout every crazy moment. I have caught myself saying, that would’ve been nice… those moments lead me to believe the play was there, the execution didn’t happen. Only lingering question after that would be-did Ben call the play or did Ariens?

"Now that I'm here, I don't want to just be here, I want to be here for a long time." Hines Ward, 1998 4th round draft pick.

by kick him in the head on Oct 13, 2009 8:03 PM EDT reply actions