Originally posted by susweel:They didnt respect our defense.
And tomsula
There are 218 users in the forums
Originally posted by susweel:They didnt respect our defense.
Originally posted by theduke85:
I have to say, I despise the new PAT rule changes. Imagine we're up 7. Our opponent engineers a long, methodical touchdown drive to tie the game as time is expiring. Then, they go for 2 and win the game. A hard-fought, 60-minute game should not come down to a coin flip of a two-point conversion. To me that just b*****dizes the game.
Originally posted by Joecool:PIT offense is established with a QB who has been running it for years. They don't need to spend as much time focusing on the beginning stages and can focus more on the ancillary stuff. Our offense is in a more embryonic state and needs to focus on being a good offense first before we start spending a lot of time on 2-point conversion.
Originally posted by captveg:Or the difference of a coaching staff that has had multiple years together vs. a new staff installing new systems.
Originally posted by captveg:Originally posted by ChazBoner:the difference between an elite coaching staff and a bunch of position coaches pretending to be coaches.
Or the difference of a coaching staff that has had multiple years together vs. a new staff installing new systems.
Originally posted by MedievalMarselis:
Didn't hurt Harbaugh's staff despite the lockout so that's no excuse. The point of hiring Tomsula and Geep was to have some continuity so it should be even less of an excuse. It's like Shaw at Stanford. He knew the system already and his players were already trained to win and he was succesful immediately.
Originally posted by sincalfaithful:Go for 2? We can't even score touchdowns so there is no need to worry about going for 2
Originally posted by captveg:Originally posted by ChazBoner:the difference between an elite coaching staff and a bunch of position coaches pretending to be coaches.
Or the difference of a coaching staff that has had multiple years together vs. a new staff installing new systems.
Originally posted by Ladoskiwoski:
From ESPN
"The Steelers began each practice during training camp with a drill called "seven shots." The starting offense would run seven plays from the 2 -- the distance of a 2-point conversion -- against the starting defense.
It wasn't just for late-game situations. Tomlin hinted he'd become more aggressive going for two after the league moved back the extra point kick. He backed it up twice in the first half, keeping the offense on the field following touchdowns by Heath Miller and Williams."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that we don't practice stuff like this as aggressively as other effective teams in the Red Zone. Or does our continued red-zone failures stem from a lack
of talent. I am just envious of the way the Steelers played yesterday, the goal of the game should be to score and win. Winning with defense and special teams and things like that depends on too many variables.
Just a fan venting here. Thanks
Originally posted by the_dynasty:Obviously the two-point conversion the same distance, but the PAT is not; therefore, the two-point conversion is now more appealing, and it encourages teams to consider it more than they would've before. There were 8 extra points missed in the entire 2014 season; 9 have already been missed in 2015. If it's not a shoo-in anymore, teams won't view the two-pointer as the gamble they once did.
they could go for 2 and win the game before the rule changes too. I don't understand your point. going for 2 is the same distance as before, same rules except on defense being able to score off a turnover
Originally posted by theduke85:
Obviously the two-point conversion the same distance, but the PAT is not; therefore, the two-point conversion is now more appealing, and it encourages teams to consider it more than they would've before. There were 8 extra points missed in the entire 2014 season; 9 have already been missed in 2015. If it's not a shoo-in anymore, teams won't view the two-pointer as the gamble they once did.
Originally posted by MedievalMarselis:
Didn't hurt Harbaugh's staff despite the lockout so that's no excuse. The point of hiring Tomsula and Geep was to have some continuity so it should be even less of an excuse. It's like Shaw at Stanford. He knew the system already and his players were already trained to win and he was succesful immediately.
Originally posted by the_dynasty:Sorry, what I meant by that is they don't see it as much of a gamble. 99% odds at making the extra point is basically a no-brainer. When he started dropping to 93% (current rate) or 95% (projected rate), then there's more margin for error. Didn't mean to imply they don't view it as a gamble at all anymore, that's definitely not true.
its still a big, huge, huge gamble- I do not agree that people dont see the 2pt conversion as a gamble anymore.
lets say we score that TD that is about to tie the game up late in the 4th. do you trust dawson to make a 33 yard field goal to tie game or do you feel lucky with our offense scoring on one try ? I know which one I will choose, every time.Okay, let's throw the two-point conversion out the window and focus on the Dawson scenario. To repeat, the projected rate of extra points is expected to be 95% (down from 99%). Tell me which of these sounds better to you:
Originally posted by theduke85:
Sorry, what I meant by that is they don't see it as much of a gamble. 99% odds at making the extra point is basically a no-brainer. When he started dropping to 93% (current rate) or 95% (projected rate), then there's more margin for error. Didn't mean to imply they don't view it as a gamble at all anymore, that's definitely not true.
lets say we score that TD that is about to tie the game up late in the 4th. do you trust dawson to make a 33 yard field goal to tie game or do you feel lucky with our offense scoring on one try ? I know which one I will choose, every time.Okay, let's throw the two-point conversion out the window and focus on the Dawson scenario. To repeat, the projected rate of extra points is expected to be 95% (down from 99%). Tell me which of these sounds better to you:
1. team, down 7, engineers long touchdown drive to tie game as time expires. 1 in every 100 times this happens, the extra point is missed and they lose the game (the way it was)
2. team, down 7, engineers long touchdown drive to tie game as time expires. 1 in every 20 times this happens, the extra point is missed and they lose the game (way it will be)
Basically, losses due to a missed PAT at the end of the game are now five times more likely. I mean, really? The league has enough parity as is. Why do we want a game to end on garbage like that? Is that really an improvement? It just seems gimmicky to me.