| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40083
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Steelrain43 wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Quote: | | so--we have seen in our time, the steelers sit a power back, on a power back built team, and start a untested and undrafted backup college RB and skip him on special teams and make him a feature back... |
Off the topic of returners a bit, but....
They didnt really "sit" the power backs. Willie Parker first started due to injuries to Bettis and Duce Staley in 2005 preseason. Parker played great though and kept the starting job.
Also, there is no such thing as a power BACK offense. Power RUN, yes...any type of back can have success in that offense with a good OLine. Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. Even though Parker wasnt a power back, most of the runs called for him were up the gut, and he still had success. |
with respect, i disagree that the steelers run game with that Oline of marvel smith, faneca, and hartings wasn't a power run game...with bettis or duce..
do you remember in 2005 the steelers lining up in goal line formation vs the pats....in the 2nd and 3rd quaters, on first and 10?...
what else, would you call a run game when playcalling is such, other than a power run???..
oh yeah..pats couldn't stop it either...
do we have that now?...sure power run is my own term, but I think you get what i am driving at, you just have to go back to late 1990's and eraly 2000-2005 eras..
what would you call it?..I called it power run game...hammer backs...bettis beat the Lbs until they was sore...3-4 yards a carry, but we ain't gonna stop..we aren't even gonna change up...we aren't going to suprise you--you know what we are gonna do...
but we don't care..you know the play--we run it every game..betcha can't stop us either..
that my friend, is what i call a power run game philoshophy...based on overpowering your opponents defense, then the defense does the same...
that's what we was...agree? |
I never ONCE claimed we didnt have a power run offense.
What I said was there is no such thing a power BACK offense. I was claiming that Parker wasnt a power back but still had success in a power run offense.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40083
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| skywlker32 wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Quote: | | so--we have seen in our time, the steelers sit a power back, on a power back built team, and start a untested and undrafted backup college RB and skip him on special teams and make him a feature back... |
Off the topic of returners a bit, but....
They didnt really "sit" the power backs. Willie Parker first started due to injuries to Bettis and Duce Staley in 2005 preseason. Parker played great though and kept the starting job.
Also, there is no such thing as a power BACK offense. Power RUN, yes...any type of back can have success in that offense with a good OLine. Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. Even though Parker wasnt a power back, most of the runs called for him were up the gut, and he still had success. |
It's not always how you call the offense, but how the offense is built. A power back with a mediocre OL will generally do better than a speed back of the same quality. When you have an offense that you want to run a whole no matter whether the other team knows or not (no/little misdirection), you either have to have a top OL or a power back. The OL would allow for a small gain in most situations and large gain in good situations. The power back will rarely get you large gains, but will get some yardage no matter what (falls forward type of back).
You can definitely have an offense that fits a power back more than a quick back, it just depends on what you have built around them. |
You are talking about something completely different.
We are talking about the power run philosophy itself.
Here is the main gist of what I said...
| Quote: | | Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. |
That is what a power run offense is. I didnt say power backs arent better in some cases. And actually, I even pointed out that any back could have success in a power run offense WITH A GOOD OLINE.
The main point was that Willie Parker was not a power back and had success in a power run offense, and that you dont have to be a power back to succeed in a power run offense.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skywlker32
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 2574
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FourThreeMafia wrote: | | skywlker32 wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Quote: | | so--we have seen in our time, the steelers sit a power back, on a power back built team, and start a untested and undrafted backup college RB and skip him on special teams and make him a feature back... |
Off the topic of returners a bit, but....
They didnt really "sit" the power backs. Willie Parker first started due to injuries to Bettis and Duce Staley in 2005 preseason. Parker played great though and kept the starting job.
Also, there is no such thing as a power BACK offense. Power RUN, yes...any type of back can have success in that offense with a good OLine. Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. Even though Parker wasnt a power back, most of the runs called for him were up the gut, and he still had success. |
It's not always how you call the offense, but how the offense is built. A power back with a mediocre OL will generally do better than a speed back of the same quality. When you have an offense that you want to run a whole no matter whether the other team knows or not (no/little misdirection), you either have to have a top OL or a power back. The OL would allow for a small gain in most situations and large gain in good situations. The power back will rarely get you large gains, but will get some yardage no matter what (falls forward type of back).
You can definitely have an offense that fits a power back more than a quick back, it just depends on what you have built around them. |
You are talking about something completely different.
We are talking about the power run philosophy itself.
Here is the main gist of what I said...
| Quote: | | Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. |
That is what a power run offense is. I didnt say power backs arent better in some cases. And actually, I even pointed out that any back could have success in a power run offense WITH A GOOD OLINE.
The main point was that Willie Parker was not a power back and had success in a power run offense, and that you dont have to be a power back to succeed in a power run offense. |
But you are the one that made it about power blocking as opposed to power back built team in the first place. A team can be better with one type of runner over the other, you changing the subject to any back being able to run behind a GOOD power block scheme doesn't prove that there is no such thing as a power back offense. It just shows that a good power blocking team can make a running back look good.
_________________
Thanks to Frank Costello.
In response to complaining about refs...
| FlyinDawkins wrote: | | You're going full Seahawks fan. Never go full Seahawks fan. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40083
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| skywlker32 wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | skywlker32 wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Quote: | | so--we have seen in our time, the steelers sit a power back, on a power back built team, and start a untested and undrafted backup college RB and skip him on special teams and make him a feature back... |
Off the topic of returners a bit, but....
They didnt really "sit" the power backs. Willie Parker first started due to injuries to Bettis and Duce Staley in 2005 preseason. Parker played great though and kept the starting job.
Also, there is no such thing as a power BACK offense. Power RUN, yes...any type of back can have success in that offense with a good OLine. Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. Even though Parker wasnt a power back, most of the runs called for him were up the gut, and he still had success. |
It's not always how you call the offense, but how the offense is built. A power back with a mediocre OL will generally do better than a speed back of the same quality. When you have an offense that you want to run a whole no matter whether the other team knows or not (no/little misdirection), you either have to have a top OL or a power back. The OL would allow for a small gain in most situations and large gain in good situations. The power back will rarely get you large gains, but will get some yardage no matter what (falls forward type of back).
You can definitely have an offense that fits a power back more than a quick back, it just depends on what you have built around them. |
You are talking about something completely different.
We are talking about the power run philosophy itself.
Here is the main gist of what I said...
| Quote: | | Its not even about having a power back as much as it is about controlling the line of scrimmage and having long sustained drives consistenting mainly of yard gaining runs up the middle. |
That is what a power run offense is. I didnt say power backs arent better in some cases. And actually, I even pointed out that any back could have success in a power run offense WITH A GOOD OLINE.
The main point was that Willie Parker was not a power back and had success in a power run offense, and that you dont have to be a power back to succeed in a power run offense. |
But you are the one that made it about power blocking as opposed to power back built team in the first place. A team can be better with one type of runner over the other, you changing the subject to any back being able to run behind a GOOD power block scheme doesn't prove that there is no such thing as a power back offense. It just shows that a good power blocking team can make a running back look good. |
No I didnt change the subject.
He was saying that it was a "power back built team" under Cowher and was talking about Parker being only a speed back. I said that it wasnt a "power back built team"...it was a power run offense that usually features power backs, but didnt mean that a speed back like Parker couldnt have success in that offense, and that many speed backs have had that success in power run offenses.
If anyone changed the topic, it was you regarding power backs making up for poor OLines. No one was discussing the quality of OLines. We were discussing the TYPE of offense we had under Cowher, which was power run. We didnt have a bad OLine when Smith, Faneca and Hartings were here, which was up until the end of the Cowher era. No one said a thing about power backs not being better in some cases, but its still not a type of offense.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gunny Highway
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 1353
Location: BLEEDING BLACK AND GOLD
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FourThreeMafia wrote: | An option? Sure.
Answer? Too soon to say.
And both Maze and Rainey could make the roster if they show enough. With Ward's retirement we have an extra WR spot open, and it will likely come down to Maze and Clemons for the number 5. Rainey IMO will have a tougher time...unless Dwyer doesnt step up and Batch isnt as good as advertised. |
I think Dwyer will be shown the door on his way to Primanti Brothers to drown his sorrows in 4000 calories of bliss
I think Rainey makes it on ST as gunner and some return stuff. I think he can work out of the slot and be dangerous as a receiver out of the backfield.
_________________
" Roger Goodell - Ruining the game I love - 1 fine at a time " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40083
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gunny Highway wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | An option? Sure.
Answer? Too soon to say.
And both Maze and Rainey could make the roster if they show enough. With Ward's retirement we have an extra WR spot open, and it will likely come down to Maze and Clemons for the number 5. Rainey IMO will have a tougher time...unless Dwyer doesnt step up and Batch isnt as good as advertised. |
I think Dwyer will be shown the door on his way to Primanti Brothers to drown his sorrows in 4000 calories of bliss
I think Rainey makes it on ST as gunner and some return stuff. I think he can work out of the slot and be dangerous as a receiver out of the backfield. |
Hahaha...about Dwyer.
Possible, but it depends on how far Mendy is along. If Dwyer is still around by TC and preseason, I think we keep him. We dont have the depth at RB to do it unless he is in REALLY bad shape. In that case, I think they would cut him before preseason and try to bring in a FA like Cedric Benson.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gunny Highway
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 1353
Location: BLEEDING BLACK AND GOLD
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Gunny Highway wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | An option? Sure.
Answer? Too soon to say.
And both Maze and Rainey could make the roster if they show enough. With Ward's retirement we have an extra WR spot open, and it will likely come down to Maze and Clemons for the number 5. Rainey IMO will have a tougher time...unless Dwyer doesnt step up and Batch isnt as good as advertised. |
I think Dwyer will be shown the door on his way to Primanti Brothers to drown his sorrows in 4000 calories of bliss
I think Rainey makes it on ST as gunner and some return stuff. I think he can work out of the slot and be dangerous as a receiver out of the backfield. |
Hahaha...about Dwyer.
Possible, but it depends on how far Mendy is along. If Dwyer is still around by TC and preseason, I think we keep him. We dont have the depth at RB to do it unless he is in REALLY bad shape. In that case, I think they would cut him before preseason and try to bring in a FA like Cedric Benson. |
Benson does remain an option - definately a 3 yards and cloud of dust kind of guy at this stage of his career. I'd like him brought on board as soon as possible though to help him learn playbook re: blitz pickups and blocking assignments - I am of the opinion we should have cut Mendy myself it being last year of contract and injury etc
To me he has been a disappointment but with our awful O Line I guess that really isn't fair.
I am a big back fan and have been rooting for Dwyer since we picked him up but if the kid can't see he had a golden opportunity with Mendy's injury and failed to take advantage of it then it makes me question not only his motivation to succeed but his intelligence as well. I mean he has to have people in his camp / entourage / retinue who were saying " Dude - this is your chance !!! " and he comes into OTA's out of shape ?
_________________
" Roger Goodell - Ruining the game I love - 1 fine at a time " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40083
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gunny Highway wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | | Gunny Highway wrote: | | FourThreeMafia wrote: | An option? Sure.
Answer? Too soon to say.
And both Maze and Rainey could make the roster if they show enough. With Ward's retirement we have an extra WR spot open, and it will likely come down to Maze and Clemons for the number 5. Rainey IMO will have a tougher time...unless Dwyer doesnt step up and Batch isnt as good as advertised. |
I think Dwyer will be shown the door on his way to Primanti Brothers to drown his sorrows in 4000 calories of bliss
I think Rainey makes it on ST as gunner and some return stuff. I think he can work out of the slot and be dangerous as a receiver out of the backfield. |
Hahaha...about Dwyer.
Possible, but it depends on how far Mendy is along. If Dwyer is still around by TC and preseason, I think we keep him. We dont have the depth at RB to do it unless he is in REALLY bad shape. In that case, I think they would cut him before preseason and try to bring in a FA like Cedric Benson. |
Benson does remain an option - definately a 3 yards and cloud of dust kind of guy at this stage of his career. I'd like him brought on board as soon as possible though to help him learn playbook re: blitz pickups and blocking assignments - I am of the opinion we should have cut Mendy myself it being last year of contract and injury etc
To me he has been a disappointment but with our awful O Line I guess that really isn't fair.
I am a big back fan and have been rooting for Dwyer since we picked him up but if the kid can't see he had a golden opportunity with Mendy's injury and failed to take advantage of it then it makes me question not only his motivation to succeed but his intelligence as well. I mean he has to have people in his camp / entourage / retinue who were saying " Dude - this is your chance !!! " and he comes into OTA's out of shape ? |
Well...in fairness, did they say he came to camp out of shape of just heavier.
They are not always one in the same.
Obviously in the offseason, these guys arent training quite as hard, and its possible that Dwyer just gained weight, but doesnt mean he was really out of shape.
If it were that bad, I think the Steelers wouldnt put up with it. I personally think some people are making a bigger deal of this than it actually is...at least right now. As long as he is in shape and ready to roll by TC, there is no real problem. If it is actually an issue, I think they will cut him and look for another option. If they dont cut him...well, I think that it will somewhat prove that Steeler fans made a bigger deal of it than it ever was. Tomlin is a stickler for conditioning. If Dwyers is that bad, he would have alot of wiggle room in terms of mistakes this preseason.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
