Did overconfidence blind us to a looming catastrophe?

by Billy52 on Dec 12, 2009 8:16 PM EST

Back in September and October, and for obvious reasons, the posts on BTSC had a distinctly different character than they do now. Thus, some of the comments deemed unacceptable or over-the-top back then have become practically mainstream fare these days. While it's certainly possible to be too pessimistic, sometimes, the post that seems completely off-base ultimately turns out to be on target. And when things are going as well as they did last season, it's easy to drink the Kool Aid and adopt a false sense of well-being.

Here's a sampling of the early-season conventional wisdom:

*Mike Tomlin was a coaching genius whose ticket to the Hall of Fame was pre-punched.
*Steeler personnel decisions were level-headed and were only disputed by fools who never played the game.
*Neither Isaac Redman nor any other bulldozing fullback was needed for short yardage and RZ plays. *Even the slightest criticism of BB made the critic a candidate for a strait-jacket.
*Arians and BB were a perfectly acceptable tandem to guide the Steeler offense.
*Winning a series of narrow, ugly games was judged to be plenty good enough. Lots of blather about how critics supposedly believed in "style points."
*A succession of W-A-V-Es swept away the discouraging words and all was blissful in Steeler Land.

But that's what happens when you're cruising along in the fast lane and the wheels suddenly fall off. It takes a while just to figure out what in the Hell happened and why you're skidding down the highway on your butt. Actually, I feel sorry for Coach Tomlin. The guy clearly is in a state of shock and disbelief--as we all are.

At some point, everyone who loves the Steelers has been guilty of drinking from the same bottle. Until the Oakland debacle at Heinz Field, I actually believed the Steelers still had a chance to run the table and get into the playoffs. Clearly, many of us were deluded. But who truly foresaw the full dimensions of the current meltdown? If you had posted in September that the team would be 6-7 after 13 games, I doubt that even one person on BTSC would have agreed with you.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Guilty of being fine with winning ugly

Good defense and a run game is fine with me. I’m enamored with the new passing game, don’t get me wrong, but I like it in September and October when the weather permits. November and December when it’s cold and windy, that’s when we need to get back to our roots.
*Arians and BB were a perfectly acceptable tandem to guide the Steeler offense.
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this comment. I don’t recall anyone being ok with Arians with gloves off. I think there was a tempered respect for him, his O got to and won the SB, but I do not recall him being, “perfectly acceptable.”

by dawgs144 on Dec 12, 2009 9:43 PM EST reply actions

The old Steelers (1970s) had a great defense and a good running game.

But they also beat the crap out of their opponents—something today’s team has never done. And there were quite a few people on this site who commented that they thought the Arians/BB combo was working well enough.

by Billy52 on Dec 12, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions

Big difference between, "quite a few people...."

And your initial post about the early season conventional wisdom. Yes there were some who gave him a pass but again, I strongly disagree that it was the majority, and strongly disagree that even the, “quite a few people,” were jumping for joy that he was the OC. That’s being way too liberal with your comment.

That being said, you’re right on about beating the crap out of their opponents. The last few years, the only team I can remember this current group of Steelers smashing was the Browns. All the other games were fairly tight.

In effect then, we’ve circled right back around to the O. If the wins over the last few seasons (up until this year) are all pretty close, and yet the Number 1 D in the league is playing outstanding and not giving up a lot of points, then it goes full loop back to the offense not scoring enough.

I would even argue that the 18 – 19 pts per game we’re surrendering this year should be enough to win more than 6 games.

by dawgs144 on Dec 13, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

by Billy52 on Dec 13, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

Arians is probably as good as gone

Yeah they won it all last year, but it wasn’t because of his genius play calling. Ever since he became OC, his philosophy and play calling has always been suspect. I don’t think there is any other team in the NFL that would go with a 5 wide shotgun formation on a 3rd and 2 or 3 . Ben is a great QB but other people get payed a lot of money to handle the ball and win football games too. Game conditions like last Thursday calls for an offensive smack down from the running game like the Steelers have always been known for. You have to remember in all those games this season that they lost in the fourth quarter, if the offense ran the ball and killed the clock to put the game away, we would not be talking about how bad the defense is this season. You can have the best D in the league, but if they’re on the field for most of the game, they are going to get worn out.

by retribution990 on Dec 13, 2009 10:21 AM EST reply actions

It all sounds very familiar. Winning a few games ugly is OK but when you put yourself in a position that you are winning all your games ugly, the odds that you are going to lose some ugly games is greatly enhanced. A team should beat the crap out of the teams they are suppose to ( aka chief, raiders, browns) and play better than .500 against the teams they are in their same league as far as talent goes. That is a pretty good formula for consistent winning football. In response to your title, I don’t think it was as much over confidence as it was lack of overall intensity, which is what made the “I like the fight in this group” such a surprising comment.

by DarinS on Dec 13, 2009 5:17 PM EST reply actions