Bob Smizik's Blog - All Comments

re: Steelers must emphasize the run

southernBURGH — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:33:21 GMT

great article ....Captain obvious.....

re: Steelers must emphasize the run

Retire#21 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:19:40 GMT

That may be the first comment from JL that I agree with this week. You do what you have to do to win.

re: Tomlin sends message to special teams

Retire#21 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:16:46 GMT

JL, huh?

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief as I read that last post.

I could go point by point on what you've written, but that would lead to nothing more than advancing stages of carpal tunnel syndrome for me.

Balanced attack is my point. 17:45 ratio in a 3 point game is not balance.

The Bengals run defense rank of # 2 was built against offenses that rank anywhere from 12 to 30 in rushing in the NFL. If that is impressive enough to you to intimidate you into calling a 17:45 run to pass ratio in a 3 point game, then keep running (or passing as the case may be) scared.

For me, when the QB is having a self described off day and hitting passes at a 50% clip, and the running game is hitting it at 4 yards per carry clip, then I'd be inclined to call a few more runs.

Deal with that logic.

re: Steelers must emphasize the run

JL — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:56:08 GMT

Can't argue with going to work on the ground game when the opportunity presents itself. But I fearlessly predict the passing game will remain our forte and that we will pass more than run, in any games not in hand.

"Can't be too eager to criticize Ariens when he has Ben, Ward, Holmes, and Wallace on the field" -t2pyah

"But with the talent we have at wideout you can't blame Bruce & Ben for wanting to throw it." -San Antonio Steeler Fan

Amen, gentlemen. Nobody wants us to be one-dimensional. But you do what you have to do to win. And if that means going to the air, so be it. But again, I agree that we can go to work with the ground game, this week.

re: Report: Pirates get $80 million from MLB

JL — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:41:10 GMT

Eyespy,

You're being silly. Hilarious, but silly.

I DID go and check on that $4 bil. in cash McClatchy paid for Knight-Ridder. Actually, it was $4.5 bil. But sure enough, they borrowed most of the money. It was not paid with cash they "generate(d)," or had "left over."

www.usatoday.com/.../2006-03-13-knight-ridder_x.htm

(Scroll down to bottom of article.)

re: Big joke: Girardi third in manager voting

JL — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:19:11 GMT

Whoa, there. I agree about the Mets. But all along I've only been contending that the *Yankees* are the ones who get all the attention. Likewise, I have never contended that the Yankees win undue awards due to their popularity with the media. I confess I do, in fact, wonder if they get more votes than they should, because of this. But I've never made that claim because I haven't looked it up. What my claim has been, is that the Yankees "draw disproportionate attention from the media," "New York being the media's center of the baseball universe," and yes, "there is too much attention paid to the Yankees, in print journalism as well." Although, in the very next sentence after that last line, I stated that I do not believe print journalists to be nearly as baised as tv journalists are, towards the Yankees.

Now while I still think the Google hits do amount to something, I'll just have to keep my eyes open for better examples. It's tricky to prove, because any single example, viewed in isolation (the such as the Girardi case), can be dismissed. This is a remotely akin to Justice Potter Stewart's problem with defining hard pornography. He refused to do so, famously stating: "I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But Yankee bias is how I see it with the 3rd place finish for Girardi. If you say you do not see it that way, that you only go so far as to say "the voters were wrong," then I will not put words in your mouth. But myself, I believe the *reason* that they were wrong, is because of Yankee bias. Anyway, I'll have to get back to you when I come across other glaring examples of such bias.

re: Tomlin sends message to special teams

JL — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:44:39 GMT

Blitz,

I see that you and Retire have shared the same virus, this week. Because you're out twisting "the facts" too. Your "fact," "the past month (3 games): the Steeler OFFENSE has scored 46 pts," is no fact at all. We've already covered that. And it is YOUR assertion/fact, "the offensive line CANNOT pass block," which is the unsubstantiated "opinion." Quantify that last one with "facts." Untill then, I'll stick by my fact, namely, that the Steelers' passing game still remains 8th in the NFL. Great as Ben most certainly is, it defies logic that any team could be 8th best out of 32 if it had been true that "the offensive line CANNOT pass block."

re: Tomlin sends message to special teams

JL — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:30:54 GMT

Retire,

"Your logic is that if a team is ranked highly in run defense, then that should dictate that the other team not try to run the ball..."

You conveniently left out that I said the Steelers' passing game is 8th in the NFL -even after the flop against the Bengals', while the Bengal's passing D entered the game 25th. And those two facts are why what I ACTUALLY said was that "you match your strengths against your opponents weaknesses."

"By your logic Ben and the O-Line had a bad day so let's just throw the ball 45 times?" Never said that. But what is YOUR logic? Bail on the passing game, our proven strength, before even one game plays itself out? You go with your elite quarterback and his elite receiving corps. They've been our bread and butter for over a year now. You don't bail on them. And the most glaring failures came on the final series, anyhow. Arians described what happened in Ron Cooks piece, this week. You don't know how it's going to play out until it happens. If I were in Arians' shoes I would have stuck with Ben, too. "What's more difficult to do, run block or pass block? " The pass blocking came to this team before the run blocking ever did. That's a fact; look it up.

"Arians himself admitted they should have run more last Sunday." Oh did he? I have not caught all the Steeler coverage over the past week. But if you're referring to this quote, again, from Ron Cook's piece -"Arians admitted the Steelers' pass-run ratio -- 41 pass plays (counting one Roethlisberger scramble) to 17 runs -- wasn't quite what he wanted"- I read that too. Again, you're omitting what ELSE was said, thus mischaractarizing the true intent of Arians' remarks. (If you're referring to some other quote, please cite, and I will accept or reject it, accordingly.) But please don't invoke the "logic" when you try and go after me, just to misrepresent what I and others said, and disrespect the meaning of the word logic along the way.

re: Steelers must emphasize the run

Bingram — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:41:49 GMT

Reminds me of Walt Harris at Pitt. Pass...pass..then pass some more. And like Arians, Walt often had very good backs who were more than capable of carrying the ball.

You gotta use every weapon in the arsenal to beat a good team.

re: Report: Pirates get $80 million from MLB

eyespy — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:11:06 GMT

So.

Where's the proof?

Where's the proof that Kevin McClatchy was not involved with the McClatchy News Group while in control of the Pirates?

Where's the proof that the McClatchy News Group was not involved with the Pittsburgh Baseball Club?

Where's the proof that the Nuttings haven't spent over $1billion on renovating Seven Springs?

Where's the proof that these incredible windfalls have not been directly or indirectly gathered from the Pittsburgh Baseball Club?

See, I thought this is what investigating reporters did: find something that stinks like s___ and try and figure out who laid the deuce in the urinal.

I'm just a physician in Australia by way of New Jersey wondering why the best newspaper in the US (or any of the other Pittsburgh media) hasn't tried to uncover the reasons behind the real and spectacular failures of the Pittsburgh Baseball Club and the real and spectacular successes of the satellite businesses owned by the guys in charge of the club.

This doesn't seem logical to anyone else?

How did a bunch of regional newspaper owners (remember that newspapers were the primary source of the Nutting fortune as well) come up with at least $6 billion in cash out of nowhere in ten years to fund their pet projects?

How can a franchise stink like the aforementioned urinal deuce for seventeen years with no end in sight without anyone asking why and where the money went?

How can this still be happening?

One of my proudest possessions is my 1973 No. 8 Willie Stargell Pirates jersey with the No. 21 Roberto Clemente memorial patch on the right sleeve.

It is thought that this is the first uniform memorial to a deceased franchise hero in history, a tragic yet fitting conclusion to the far too brief career of the greatest player and athlete in the history of the game.

It debuted in the year of my birth, and one of my first memories is watching Willie and The Family win the '79 Series with my dad.

It was epic.

I want that back.

I want my baseball team back.

Doesn't everyone?

(You are the one making the charges. The burden of proof rests with you. I'm not saying that Nutting isn't pocketing some profit. I'm saying he's not pulling from the PIrates that astronomical numbers you suggest. -- Bob Smizik)