43M Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: I mean, isn’t that based on your opinion? How do we know he will be an underwhelming hire? Who would you have hired? Sure, its my opinion....but my opinions are based on facts. Arthur Smith is a rehashed coach who was never actually that good. He gained attention in Tennessee because of the run game (with a borderline elite OL and best RB in the league at the time) and supposedly turning Tannehill around (even though Tannehill already showed he could be very good before Arthur Smith). And he was pretty thoroughly exposed in Atlanta. His offenses regressed each year, despite having some offensive talent. Yes, they lacked a good QB, but guess what? So do we. Im not saying he cant be good at all, but I sure as hell am not getting my hopes up for a guy that I pretty much expected this regime to hire (which is NOT a good thing). If people want to get excited about this...great. I honestly hope they're right and Im wrong. But I was right about Fitchner....I was right about Canada, and while that doesn't mean Im right about Smith, Im not going to smile and pretend Im happy with what I feel is an extremely mediocre hire. As far as who I would have hired? I dont really know. I dont claim to have the answers. All I know for sure is it wouldn't have been a coach with a rock bottom stock and (IMO) a tired offensive philosophy that was never actually that good to begin with. At best, this feels like Todd Haley 2.0....but without the top tier talent. Again, I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, Ive been much more right about the negative stuff over the last 5 to 7 years than I wish I was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigben07MVP Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 hours ago, 43M said: Sure, its my opinion....but my opinions are based on facts. Arthur Smith is a rehashed coach who was never actually that good. He gained attention in Tennessee because of the run game (with a borderline elite OL and best RB in the league at the time) and supposedly turning Tannehill around (even though Tannehill already showed he could be very good before Arthur Smith). And he was pretty thoroughly exposed in Atlanta. His offenses regressed each year, despite having some offensive talent. Yes, they lacked a good QB, but guess what? So do we. Im not saying he cant be good at all, but I sure as hell am not getting my hopes up for a guy that I pretty much expected this regime to hire (which is NOT a good thing). If people want to get excited about this...great. I honestly hope they're right and Im wrong. But I was right about Fitchner....I was right about Canada, and while that doesn't mean Im right about Smith, Im not going to smile and pretend Im happy with what I feel is an extremely mediocre hire. As far as who I would have hired? I dont really know. I dont claim to have the answers. All I know for sure is it wouldn't have been a coach with a rock bottom stock and (IMO) a tired offensive philosophy that was never actually that good to begin with. At best, this feels like Todd Haley 2.0....but without the top tier talent. Again, I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, Ive been much more right about the negative stuff over the last 5 to 7 years than I wish I was. “Arthur Smith is a rehash coach who was never actually that’s good.” I’m sorry my friend but that is not a fact, that’s an opinion. Smith was an extremely successful offensive coordinator, so successful that he got a HC gig out of it. He wasn’t cutout to be a HC so he is going back to the position that he was wildly successful at. See how I can do that? Not exactly my opinion, but it is one. ”Even though Tannehill already showed he could be successful before Arthur Smith” - another opinion, a minority one at that. In regards to Canada and Fichtner, it didn’t exactly take a genius to predict their lack of success. They were both guys who were blatantly under qualified to run NFL offenses and had never done it before. They were both extremely foolish hires. Canada got fired several times at the college level and Fichtner…well I think he was Big Ben’s elementary school teacher or something before coming here. Arthur Smith has at least done it successfully enough at the NFL level before to be hired as a HC and was not promoted from within the organization. Those are both huge Ws in my book. As for the Atlanta years I will give him a partial pass. Dude is just not cut out to be a head coach and that’s obvious anytime you watch him speak. And yes he deserves flack for botching the QB position but find me a play caller who will find success with 2nd year Desmond Ridder, Marcus Mariota, and the corpse of Matt Ryan. He will not have to pick the QB here. I know our current situation is bad but that is a really really bad string of QBs to deal with. I get being “underwhelmed,” Smith is a high floor low ceiling hire. But the floor has been so low here the past several years that I can live with it for now. Again I ask, who could we have hired that would have left you not underwhelmed? I seriously want to know, not who the absolute best hire would be, but who would have left you not complaining about it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August4th Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) seems like people were dead set on the Steelers hiring a 30 something offensive coach from mcvay/shanahan tree. Edited January 31 by August4th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfelg Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 The more I think about Smith the more I like the hiring. He has experience with power backs, he comes from a running game background, he relied on play action, TE's are heavily involved, uses good levels concepts, middle of the field is a go to zone. There was plenty of good in his play designs, his screen games are well designed. One thing, when you look back at Tennessee under him, is that his pulse of the game when he doesn't need to worry about everything is there. And maybe this is excuse making in Atlanta, but when I talk about being hindered by QB play he did a lot of those off play calls, like Bijan as a lead blocker for Algieres passing to Smith, all come after they got into the RZ multilpe times that game and Ridder fumbled and thres INT's multiple times. If you aren't questioning how the inability to trust the QB position to take care of the ball impacts the play calling then you really should go back and look at his offense again. If you can get to average QB play or at least not turning it over, I think you won't see those same issues that you have an offense that can work. Because you won't need to distract defenses with players to try to make things easy on the QB so you can try to minimize mistakes. Then you add on that he clearly struggled to manage a full team and call plays at the same time, and you can see how things failed in ATL. I think when he can focus on purely calling plays and running an offense, those mistakes won't happen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigben07MVP Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 11 minutes ago, August4th said: seems like people were dead set on the Steelers hiring a 30 something offensive coach from mcvay/shanahan tree. Seems like people thought McVay was going to step down from the Rams and come be our OC himself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 38 minutes ago, warfelg said: The more I think about Smith the more I like the hiring. He has experience with power backs, he comes from a running game background, he relied on play action, TE's are heavily involved, uses good levels concepts, middle of the field is a go to zone. There was plenty of good in his play designs, his screen games are well designed. One thing, when you look back at Tennessee under him, is that his pulse of the game when he doesn't need to worry about everything is there. And maybe this is excuse making in Atlanta, but when I talk about being hindered by QB play he did a lot of those off play calls, like Bijan as a lead blocker for Algieres passing to Smith, all come after they got into the RZ multilpe times that game and Ridder fumbled and thres INT's multiple times. If you aren't questioning how the inability to trust the QB position to take care of the ball impacts the play calling then you really should go back and look at his offense again. If you can get to average QB play or at least not turning it over, I think you won't see those same issues that you have an offense that can work. Because you won't need to distract defenses with players to try to make things easy on the QB so you can try to minimize mistakes. Then you add on that he clearly struggled to manage a full team and call plays at the same time, and you can see how things failed in ATL. I think when he can focus on purely calling plays and running an offense, those mistakes won't happen. I am not a fan but will give it time. The problem on the Steelers offense is not the running game. The Falcons, in the last 2 years, ran 100 times more than the Steelers and were 27th in passing attempts. I think Smith's offense he has shown so far will take the offense back to the 90's. If you worried that the Steeler offense was not scoring points because they run too much, this is the wrong hire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSteelers56 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I don't love or hate the Smith hire. I'm just waiting to see how it'll turn out. I also don't put a lot of stock in the ATL fans saying he stinks. As we know from seeing posters here come and go for the last decade, being a fan of a team doesn't make one an expert. What's funny to me about fans(not saying it's anyone here) talking about wanting a youthful guy who can bring new ideas is that Smith is 41 years old, and was that young guy bringing in new ideas. I hope his problems in ATl were due to him being over his head as the HC. Either way, I'm going to reserve judgement until I see how the offense operates. I know it's been mentioned a bunch of times already, but I hope he brings back Munchak. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 10 hours ago, JustPlainNasty said: Mark Robinson converting back to running back / fullback ? Or I guess just use lil Cam who actually is a pretty good RB. why not have yet another player play out of position, keep the tradition alive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 8 hours ago, 43M said: He gained attention in Tennessee because of the run game (with a borderline elite OL and best RB in the league at the time) and supposedly turning Tannehill around (even though Tannehill already showed he could be very good before Arthur Smith). And he was pretty thoroughly exposed in Atlanta. I am more inclined to believe the atlanta results are what to expect. He doesn't have the near elite OL here, that much we know and that won't change. In Tennessee he was in a good situation, but here, I wouldn't say so. Not bad, (carolina for example) but not good either. See how it goes, but this reeks of another tomlin hire and tomlin is the issue with this team regardless of what the media and others say. marvin lewis.2 minus the thugs. Used to be replace the thugs with the kardashians, now it's just blame the refs and the bad OC they should have fired last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfelg Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 17 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said: I don't love or hate the Smith hire. I'm just waiting to see how it'll turn out. I also don't put a lot of stock in the ATL fans saying he stinks. As we know from seeing posters here come and go for the last decade, being a fan of a team doesn't make one an expert. What's funny to me about fans(not saying it's anyone here) talking about wanting a youthful guy who can bring new ideas is that Smith is 41 years old, and was that young guy bringing in new ideas. I hope his problems in ATl were due to him being over his head as the HC. Either way, I'm going to reserve judgement until I see how the offense operates. I know it's been mentioned a bunch of times already, but I hope he brings back Munchak. I would say that I feel the same way. And I'll always support and hope for the best when we bring people in. Smith has good attributes to begin with that got him an OC and HC job. 1 hour ago, jebrick said: I am not a fan but will give it time. The problem on the Steelers offense is not the running game. The Falcons, in the last 2 years, ran 100 times more than the Steelers and were 27th in passing attempts. I think Smith's offense he has shown so far will take the offense back to the 90's. If you worried that the Steeler offense was not scoring points because they run too much, this is the wrong hire. 1 - Rooney and Tomlin have been talking about that for a while. 2 - 27th in attempts and top 5 in PA usage. When in Tennessee that made the Titans top 5 in pass yards per play while being low on attempts. In Atlanta his offense was 26, 16, 16 in pass yards per play. In every season his QB's were high in pass plays for first down, 20+ yard passes, 40+ yard passes. His QB's typically have 20-30 passing TD's. Over his 2 years as OC and 3 as HC our offense has mustered a season of more touchdowns 1 time, and we had the edge by 1 TD. Otherwise over 5 years his offense has 45 more TD's than us. That's significant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeler Hitman Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 14 hours ago, 43M said: Its depressing how utterly predictable this franchise has become. Although they hired him a week or two sooner than expected. I will say that I put much more stock or I thought that the process would be more extensive. Especially because some of the candidates were in the play-offs. Not a sexy pick and I wanted to believe that was the direction that they would go. What I do like about Arthur Smith: 1. Former HC that will command some respect on the offensive side of the ball. I felt that they were devoid of some true leadership on that side. Actually more from a players standpoint, but the next best thing is another leader on that side of the ball. I have been saying that Coach Tomlin needed that. 2. He may be able to bring Munchak back. The fact that Munchak believes in his offense so much is encouraging to get him back in the Burg coaching. I have been wanting Munch back for a few years. His style, his presence, leadership and respect is needed on that side of the ball. 3. This kind of forces the team to play to its offensive strengths: ground and pound run game with Najee and Jalen, use of the TE position, play action pass, and big play WR with Pickens. 4. The style of game he brings would greatly benefit Pickett or Mason. I still think Pickett is the man and he will help get his confidence back by being efficient and protected in the pocket. While, I am not doing cartwheels over the process (I wish they talked to other candidates) and it was not a sexy hire, it may be a good marriage. We may have gotten a very good wife as opposed to just a pretty looking girlfriend. PS: I couldn't mess up this pretty face with Arthur's pornstache'😁😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcash4 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: Smith is a high floor low ceiling hire This is what I keep thinking about and why I am very meh on the hire at this stage. And I say "at this stage" because a lot ride, IMO, on the rest of the offensive hires, if there are any. The choice of Arthur Smith just feels like they decided to cap their ceiling for the hope of a stable floor. Which is....fine? But I fear that they are only moderately improving/changing the thing we were already good at and dismissing the opportunity to truly grow the passing game and QB play. I would have greatly preferred trying to find a solution for the drop back game and QB improvement and trying to stabilize/continue the running of the football. Humor me with an example: - Hire Zac Robinson/Jerrod Johnson Both QB coaches. Both from prolific passing attacks. Both from the Shannahan/McVay world Tomlin and Rooney spoke glowingly about - Maintain Eddie Faulkner as RB Coach w/ Running game specialist tag so he gets a raise for being helpful (and probably keep the OL coach too) We HAD a successful run game. Keep the concepts. Keep what we were already good at in place. - Try to lure one of the Kubiak brothers, Engstrand from the Lions, or Dan Williams from the Chiefs to come run the QB room on their own. Do whatever you will at wide receiver coach. That would have provided a much higher ceiling, IMO. You get the better system fundamentals, better understanding of levers, the modern passing schemes and you build it on top of the foundation already established with a solid run game w/ the players already present. That would have been a style of coaching room building that would have excited me. Could it suck? Sure could! We know nothing about coaches as fans. But I can 100% buy into that process. Where we sit now, I am just gonna continue to feel meh about it. Don't have a lot of faith that we see leaps and bounds of improvement in either Kenny or the drop back game. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C$! Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Like most of you, I am on the fence about the hire. It was uninspiring but that doesn't make it bad. I just wish they had cast a wide net. They interviewed two candidates, which for me was more the issue. If Smith can get Munchak to come, I will be more enthusiastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: “Arthur Smith is a rehash coach who was never actually that’s good.” I’m sorry my friend but that is not a fact, that’s an opinion. Smith was an extremely successful offensive coordinator, so successful that he got a HC gig out of it. The fact that he's a rehashed coach is not an opinion. The part about him never being that good IS an opinion...and I already covered why I feel that way. And he was absolutely exposed in Atlanta...not simply as a head coach, but an offensive mind. Dont take my word for it. Go listen to Atlanta fans and sports media dissect how bad he was. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: He wasn’t cutout to be a HC so he is going back to the position that he was wildly successful at. See how I can do that? Not exactly my opinion, but it is one. He had total control of that offense in ATL....FACT. He has coached one truly "top" offense, and got hired based primarily on that one year. But sure....WILDLY successful. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: ”Even though Tannehill already showed he could be successful before Arthur Smith” - another opinion, a minority one at that. Sure thing....lets just ignore his 2014 and 2015 seasons and how high Dolphins fans were on him after those years, despite being in a Bill Lazor offense with middling offensive talent around him, and how the infamous Adam Gase absolutely ruined him and the offense his final years in Miami. Then he comes to Tennessee with much better offensive talent and has his best year. Not saying Arthur Smith doesn't deserve any credit, but he alone didnt make Tannehill or that offense great. It was a combination of several things coming together. And you want to be condescending and keep claiming I have a supposed minority opinion? Okay... For one, I dont give a hot poo if my opinion is "minority". Secondly, your opinion that this is a good hire is actually a "minority opinion", so what is your actual point? 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: In regards to Canada and Fichtner, it didn’t exactly take a genius to predict their lack of success. Never said it took a genius....but there were alot of Steelers fans defending those hires similar to how you're defending this one. Yes, Smith is a better hire on paper than those two. Better doesn't necessarily mean good, though. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: They were both guys who were blatantly under qualified to run NFL offenses and had never done it before. They were both extremely foolish hires. Canada got fired several times at the college level and Fichtner…well I think he was Big Ben’s elementary school teacher or something before coming here. Arthur Smith has at least done it successfully enough at the NFL level before to be hired as a HC and was not promoted from within the organization. Those are both huge Ws in my book. Not going to disagree with anything here. As I said, I think its a much better hire than Canada and Fitchner, but the best I can possibly feel about it is how I felt about Todd Haley. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: As for the Atlanta years I will give him a partial pass. Dude is just not cut out to be a head coach and that’s obvious anytime you watch him speak. And yes he deserves flack for botching the QB position but find me a play caller who will find success with 2nd year Desmond Ridder, Marcus Mariota, and the corpse of Matt Ryan. He will not have to pick the QB here. I know our current situation is bad but that is a really really bad string of QBs to deal with. And who does he have to work with here? You keep claiming he wasn't cut out to be head coach, which is true, but keep ignoring the FACT he had total control of that offense in Atlanta and did nothing with it over 3 years. In fact, it got worse. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: I get being “underwhelmed,” Smith is a high floor low ceiling hire. But the floor has been so low here the past several years that I can live with it for now. This is the complacency Ive spoken of. Every just wants to "settle" for what we've become, or maybe "slightly better". Only thing thats going to shake this organization out of this apathetic mediocrity are drastic changes. I at least hoped we'd see that on offense....but thats certainly not what Smith represents....and based in Rooney's comments and Tomlin's history, Im expecting the exact same tire spinning for the foreseeable future. 2 hours ago, bigben07MVP said: Again I ask, who could we have hired that would have left you not underwhelmed? I seriously want to know, not who the absolute best hire would be, but who would have left you not complaining about it? I already explained this. I wanted someone that didn't feel like a typical Steelers hire. This did. They always go after the same types...either guys with low stock that have had some success (however minimal)....or guys that have some connection to the team. Do I have an exact person in mind? No....but Arthur Smith sure wasnt it. I already said I COULD BE and actually HOPE Im wrong about him. If I am, feel free to come back and feed me my crow. Until then, if that's not good enough...well, there isn't a unit of measurement small enough to describe how little I care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August4th Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) wonder how this impacts who they look at in FA/draft. The falcons fullback will be a free agent, Keith Smith. But he's 31. A few Falcon widouts will be free agents, maybe we'll bring one in for depth/TC competition. Edited January 31 by August4th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.