I don't think Big Ben is the key for the Steelers. He's second to their defense.

Their running game isn't much to speak.

3 Pittsburgh Steelers
10 Pittsburgh Steelers
5 Pittsburgh Steelers
2 Pittsburgh Steelers

Wish we had no rush to speak of.!

Then you've never seen them play.

Explain to me how their defense gave up 407 yards in the Super Bowl but won the game because why again?

Oh yeah, Rothlisberger drove them down the field with less than 2 minutes to play to win the game.

Right.

No big deal.

Drew Brees has been the QB of a team that is alot like what the 2003 Chiefs were. All O and no D. I don't put that on him I put that on Sean Peyton and the front office.

There are even more examples of him not playing well and the Steelers still winning because of their defense.

The defense that gave up almost double their season average in the biggest game of the year, only to have BR drive 90 yards in 2:00 with broken ribs for the win?

have you ever seen them play, other than the super bowl? you do know they played an entire season before that, right? their defense is pretty mother****ing awesome.

Except that when they really needed offense, they blew it in the NFC Championship.

I'm by no means saying that Brees isn't statistically a great QB, but there's more to a winning QB than stats.

So, do you also believe Roethlisberger superior to Brees because of that?

I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but the Steelers were ranked in the bottom quarter of the league in rushing this year.

Yeah, their defense is great but without Ben, they don't win the Super Bowl.

Plain and simple.

I don't know where he got them, either.

The Steelers had the 22nd ranked offense in 2008.

I definitely agree with that.

Yeah, I do.

Is Joe Montana "superior" to Dan Fouts or Dan Marino?

I think so.

Yep I agree with that too. Montana never did put up the biggest stats but when it came time to make the big play or play great in a big game he was money.

Well, they went 12-4 during the regular season, he threw for more than 3,300 yards and was sacked 46 times.

Their offensive line is worse than the Chiefs. By far.

In 4 years, I've only seen him fail once in a big game, and that was in the 2007 playoffs against Jacksonville.

And all he did in that game is rally the team from an 18 point deficit with 20 minutes left to play.

Otherwise, all the kid does is win when it matters most.

.

So, yes?

29th in yards per carry.

Their defense is the straw that stirs the drink. I don't see how that can be denied when the rest of the world sees it. They win a lot of low-scoring games. I agree about drafting Sanchez, but you're stretching the argument too far.

I guess you're in love with the prettiest girl at the dance.

Good for you.

I accidentally cut off 2008 but the rest are true, my bad.
23 Pittsburgh Steelers 2008

From NFL.com

Uh, yeah. Thought it was pretty obvious before I even posted.

What argument?

1.. The Chiefs need a franchise QB

2. Ben Rothlisberger isn't worthy of his Super Bowl rings and anyone could have won with their defense?

Pittsburgh's defense has been in the Top Ten for more than a decade. They didn't win jackshit until they drafted Ben.

This should not even be a discussion point.

No, I'm actually very surprised about that. You usually seem to base things more on individual play when evaluating players, and typically I agree with your assessments more than anyone else on here.

23 Pittsburgh Steelers
3 Pittsburgh Steelers
10 Pittsburgh Steelers
5 Pittsburgh Steelers
2 Pittsburgh Steelers

Last 6 years.

So top 10 rushing teams in 4 of 5 last years and both were on Ben?

My bad on 2008.

23 was the 49ers.

22 was the Steelers.

From NFL.com.

So who would you pick between Brady or Ben?

But let me say a few things. First, there seems to be an obsession with the idea that the spread is a dead option. And yet, the Steelers and the Patriots have taken teams to the Super Bowl the last two seasons using a spread offensive look. If it's such a gimmick, then why are the best two teams in the NFL using it so much? But secondly, I think there's this impression that Thigpen was running such an easy offense--no offense on the NFL is easy to run, and it's not as if the entire offense was a quick hitch route offense every single play. I don't see why we are discounting the fact that maybe if you can run the spread offense as a base, that it's destined for failure. Actually, it's one of the hottest offenses in the NFL right now (at least, variations of the offense are).

Because on the same token, do you think Joe Flacco could have replicated Thigpen's success when you take away a top 5 running game and a top 5 defense? I don't think you would. And while Brady ran under center his rookie season, let's not forget that his offense revolved around very quick patterns and quick strikes, and that the Pats were the team that really brought the idea of spreading defenses out with 4-5 receivers onto the map.

I agree that Thigpen needs to learn to run under center one way or another. But I'm not at all convinced that as long as they keep adding wrinkles to the spread, that it couldn't be an effective base offense. Even if you bring in a guy like Sanchez, who would probably be outstanding in the offense given his ability to move around in the pocket.

I was talking about 2008. Not prior years.

Yeah, I guess so.

Give me Brees at #3 anyday of the week over Roethlisberger.

And I like Big Ben.

Everybody loves an underdog.

Big Ben is one of the league's best, but the Steelers defense is more important. Put it all together and the Steelers have another championship.

People get mad when other posters cite one game to prove a point, then they turn around and do it themselves. That's an example of taking the argument too far.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

So rings is singular?

"2. Ben Rothlisberger isn't worthy of his Super Bowl rings and anyone could have won with their defense?"

I agree on the clutch component. But his entire career he's been blessed with one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Quite simply, Big Ben is clutch because his defense puts him in opportunities to win when it matters most. They do so by protecting leads, covering up when Ben makes a mistake late in the game, and by making stops when they matter most (most of the time). Big Ben can win lots of games despite a 17-point performance. Brees or Thigpen score 17 points and they are clobbered. I just have to question if Big Ben could possibly play on a team that features a defense as poor as New Orleans. While playing for Pittsburgh demands that you be clutch in the 4th quarter, playing in New Orleans demands that you be perfect and flawless for the first 3 or else the game falls out of reach in a hurry.

Wow. That's tough.

As it stands RIGHT NOW, Ben.

This is considering Brady's knee, not knowing how that will effect him in later seasons.

Before Brady's injury, I'd go Brady - though they really are almost identical when it comes to leadership qualities and the ability to almost will their teams to win - I take Brady because he's got one more ring.

Agree. :cuss:

And you guys treat the Chiefs like the first girl you ever had a crush on. All hope, no logic.

Love the new sig.

Not as good as "The rice of passage", IMO, but solid.

But I think the big distinction is that Brady has been phenomenal throwing to receivers like Deion Branch, and even one season throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney who I believe are now mopping floors at a 7-11. Brady's also continued to win games even though his offense has progressively gotten worse--arguably, when the Pats almost pulled off a win against Indy a few years ago, the Pats had a slightly above average defense at best.

I like Big Ben too. But I think he is clearly a product of the team he is on. For as good as he is, he makes a ton of mistakes and throws a lot more INTs than the average QB, and doesn't make up for it with a ton of TDs. I still believe that Brady could take any team to the Super Bowl, but Ben wouldn't without a top 5 defense. Just my opinion.

I know what you mean because prior to this season this was a no brainer and I would have laughed at someone for asking this question.

Now after his gutsy performance in the SB I think it is a legitimate argument because Ben is still fairly young and could improve quite a bit.

Tough choice, I would probably just flip a coin and be happy either way.

That's the 'aikman doesn't belong in the hall of fame' argument. Problem is, you can say the same thing for every championship-winning QB in history. They've all had the benefit of great teams around them. Because that's exactly what it takes to win.

And Thigpen doesn't really even belong in this discussion. I'm not the world's biggest Brees fan, but he's a whole echelon above Thigpen. Maybe he'll develop into somebody that we can talk about in that context in four or five years, but his name shouldn't even be mentioned with the others at this point.

Yeah, I agree. He was extremely clutch. But, to just brush off what a guy like Brees does, I just don't understand. And Ben has won more Super Bowls than Peyton too. Surely, no one would make an argument that Ben is better than Peyton. I understand this argument, but I just don't think it can be taken as extreme as what some people take it.

This.

Esto.

Co-signed.

Agreed.

****in' A.

Spot on.

What I find kind of funny about this argument about Ben and the Steelers D people tend to forget or don't remember the Pats D wasn't chop liver. Their first SB they weren't the greatest but the other SB's they had very good D's. So does that mean Brady is just as lucky as Ben?

I'd say Brady's light-years above Roethlisberger. He's like a surgeon behind center, the way he runs that offense. Roethlisberger's job is to be more of a game-manager rather than the focal point of the offense, although he's shown signs of moving beyond that. Anyway, I'd say Brady's the best QB in the league right now, and has been for several years. Assuming he can, you know, walk and stuff.

I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.

They were ranked 6th in 2001, 1st in 2003, 2nd in 2004 and 4th in 2007.

Yeah, but DUDE, they've had a Top Ten defense since 1993. They didn't win a Super Bowl until the year after Ben was drafted.

Clearly, his addition put them over the top.

Is this in ****ing chinese or something?

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. To me, it's Brady and Manning, and then everyone else at a distance behind them.

Anyone who uses this year's Super Bowl to criticize the Steelers defense needs to consider Arizona's offense.

This is the most obtuse post I've ever seen.

Is it just me? I'm tired, admittedly.

They's and BB's...

Guess Peyton (M) is great but he has suck 80% of the playoff games but he is great according to the same people. Look at the stats and he sucks. IMO

In "real" games.

Different offensive styles. The patriots have been passing oriented their whole run, more of an attacking unit. Brady's been asked to do completely different things.

That's part of the reason I like the Haley hire, because we'll (hopefully) be more like new england offensively than pittsburgh. I'm not a big fan of the 'win by attrition' approach. I want to attack on both sides of the ball.

Brees would have been absolutely crushed and probably on IR behind the Steeler's line.

Ben is 6'5, 250. Played through a ton of injuries (shoulder and ribs). Brees is tiny in comparison and would have never made it through the season.

Translation: I made a bunch of stupid comments with no supporting evidence, and was completely unable to offer any form of a refutation. Therefore, I shall impugn the guy I'm arguing against and attempt to turn this debate into a popularity contest in order to save face.

There you go. I actually thought their 2001 team was alot worse defensively.

So that goes back to my question is Brady lucky to have a great D like Ben?

My answer would be no because you have to have a very good D to win a SB along with (usually) a very good to great QB.

:spock:

Wha?

It takes both to win a Super Bowl. Ben is one of the league's best, but I think you're making him look better than he is.

Yeah, that's likely. Of course he makes much quicker reads than Ben and wouldn't take the needless punishment he does either.

True except for maybe their first SB where they ran a very conventional offense and ran alot more than they do now.

Then Pittsburgh would have made it to the Super Bowl in 1994, should have won in 1995, should have made it in 1998 and so on and so forth.

Their defense has always been great. The difference has been Rothlisberger.

I don't even know how this could be argued.

BB is Big Ben...

I was just saying that BB was not responsible for the first SB win?

Gotcha.

I understand, now.

I don't think he'd have time to make even quick reads. That line was really bad, particularly for a championship team. I can't think of another team that won with anything even approaching as porous a unit.

I agree this year but you stated the running game has sucked every since BB had been there and it was all BB for winning?

See 2 SB rings for BB.

Yeah, it was terrible. Ben's size definitely helps him, and he probably is the only guy that could take that punishment.

He definitely held onto the ball too long though consistently. And, his line also came through when it counted FWIW. He pump faked 3 times on the game winning TD to Santonio.

I just think their defense is more important. I like Big Ben.

No, I did not.

BB is Big Ben...

I was just saying that BB was not responsible for the first SB win?

See (I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.)

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that they're usually in the top-5 rushing, and this year was an aberration.

All these true fans rallying around like idiots and me here without any Zyklon B.

They were 6th and points, but 23rd in yards allowed. The talking heads would have said "they rank 23rd in D" b/c they always go by yardage rather than points.

If I may play devil's advocate while using logic, here are the first round QBs this decade:

Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
JaMarcus Russell
Brady Quinn
Vince Young
Matt Leinhart
Jay Cutler
Alex Smith
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Ben Roethlisberger
J.P. Losman
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
Kyle Boller
Rex Grossman
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey
Michael Vick

That's 22 quarterbacks.

Busts, as of now: Ramsey, Harrington, Carr, Grossman, Boller, Losman, Smith, Young, Russell, Leinhart

That's 10 of the QBs taken in that time becoming complete busts to this point. And the other 12 aren't all great (so far), by any means. Brady Quinn, Jason Campbell, Byron Leftwich, Michael Vick?

Even being generous with the term, you've got Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler that turned into "studs" at the position. So, even being generous with the term, you've got just over a 33% success rate picking first round QBs this decade, and that's not even taking the underclassman factor into account.

As for the idea of a "top 5" argument, notable failures (to date) include JaMarcus Russell, Michael Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Alex Smith and Vince Young. In Fact, when you factor in those quarterbacks who succeeded (to date) after being taken in the top 5 (Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer), there's a less than 50% success rate for quarterbacks taken in the top 5 this decade.

Given the above information, when the only other option being put forward is a junior quarterback, it's not as if there's no wisdom in saying "No, thanks. I'll take the left tackle.".

Careful. Dane will be along shortly to inform you that those guys aren't busts because they're on NFL rosters. They are all at least average, if not above average. You even have a Pro Bowler or two on there!