Steelers4Life

I felt the same way on draft day. I preferred Rivers to Ben, and I preferred Ben to Eli. After watching him in college, I didn't understand the fuss over Eli, really. Ben was considered more of a project and he was supposed to learn behind Maddox for a year, which is why his early success was so shocking. Eli and Rivers were considered more NFL-ready. Rivers has looked great so far, no doubt about it. Part of me wonders why people don't pick at him like they do/did Ben because he has the best RB in the game behind him and a great defense, but hey, that's for another day.

Cowher's decision to run Willie is any easy one... he's far and away the Steelers best option everywhere on the field and he's earned the right to be "the guy." People faulted him for sticking with Kordell too long, but Kordell was benched several times and he was normally the best option he had to work with. I'll always trust Cowher's judgement on personnel decisions because he's earned it. Willie was huge laste in the game, but if you didn't watch the game, I guess I can understand why you think Roethlisberger's 17-28-264 with 3 TDs and no INTs didn't have much to do with the outcome, but Ben was fantastic on Sunday. Very sharp. Parker's explosion didn't come until the 4th quarter. As "bad" as he's been this year, in his last 5 games his passer rating is 101.4, and he's got 1,474 yards passing (over 250 per game) and a TD:INT ratio of 10:7. All 7 INTs came in the two games against Oakland and Denver, following his concussion against Atlanta.

Collapses? Too strong of a word, but they aren't strong up the middle without him in there. In a 3-4 defense, the nose tackle is the key to the run defense. The Falcons ran right up the middle for the entire 4th quarter of that game, and credit goes to the Falcons for taking advantage of Hampton's absense. With Hampton in there, the Chargers ran for over 100 yards... at barely over 3.5 YPC. I call that very effective against LT and Turner. And Hampton was back in last week, which is part of the reason the Broncos didn't even average 2 yards per carry from their RBs. The Saints aren't going to be lucky enough to have him out this weekend, so I'd expect them to test the secondary instead.

Well, the Falcons weren't doing anything on the ground that game until Casey Hampton left with a hamstring injury. He's the anchor to the run defense, and the Falcons got somewhere between 120 and 140 of those yards after he left the game. They ran for over 100 of them in the 4th quarter of the game. Yards are yards, but Hampton's back healthy again. True, Javon Walker broke a long run on a reverse with a few missed tackles. That rarely happens against the Steelers, but he did it. The Denver RBs had about 40 yards on the other 20+ carries. If holding teams like Denver, SD, and Jacksonville to WELL under their average yards per carry and shutting everyone else down is somehow evidence that the Steelers have an average run defense, that's fine. I'm not worried at all about the Saints running consistently on Sunday. The pass defense? Well, that's a different story.

So, 3200 yards and 29 total TDs in 16 games isn't good enough for you? Got it.

So, he was 7th in pass attempts in 1996. So? He had 12 TDs and 19 INTs that year and threw for 2,859 yards while throwing more passes than all but 6 QBs. His 1997 season was a solid season, and his 1998 just about the same. So, Ben threw for 3,200 yards with 24 TDs and ran for 5 while throwing only 361 passes last season. And that's supposed to make Dilfer look good? Yep, Dilfer was THE MAN!!!!

Funny, I can't tell from my limited experience on this site whether or not people actually like or hate Menudo, but I guess he's the resident Steelers' spokesperson. I wonder how many people realize that Ben threw for about 3200 yards with 29 TDs (24 passing, 5 rushing) in his 16 games played last year, including the 4 in the playoffs and his dismal Super Bowl. Combine that with a YPA that led the league and a 62% completion percentage, and you have results that aren't too shabby for a "mediocre" QB. I know, I know, it was EASY for him to do that because he had a good running game and defense. I guess they must have observed something else or seen pages with other stats.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. This stuff was in response to Bronco Billy's point about the WRs on each team. What I'm saying is that Ben was asked to do more than Dilfer was BECAUSE he had better WRs. Both he and Dilfer had good offensive line play, the support of a good running game, and a good defense... dominant in the case of the 2000 Ravens. I'm saying that Ben was asked to do more AND delived a lot more than Dilfer did. The numbers in my original post back that up. That's why I don't think there's any comparison to be made between them, and also why I presented the numbers and observations to back up a comparison I consider to be a lot more accurate. Look at their regular season numbers. Now can you honestly find any way to say that Dilfer was even nearly as big of a factor on Baltimore's offense as Ben was on the Steelers? There's no comparing them because Ben is better - significantly in a few key ones - in every meaningful statistic. Look at their respective postseason numbers - Ben in '05 and Dilfer in '00. Now, tell me which QB had more to do with their team's playoff success.

Hey man, thanks for at least having opinions and backing them up with something other than sarcasm. My point, and it's one that hasn't really been addressed, is that Roethlisberger is on a path much different than Dilfer was, and the only similarity is that they both won Super Bowls. I understand that Dilfer's weapons weren't as good at WR on the 2000 Ravens, but that only contributes to the fact that Ben was asked to do and DID much more for the 2005 Steelers than Dilfer did. From a strictly numbers standpoint, I've shown the disparity in how productive they were. And if you want to go back to Dilfer's TB days, that's fine too. Ben had more TDs per game, fewer INTs per game, more yards per game, and a MUCH higher yards per attempt than any season in Dilfer's entire career. Not to mention the fact that even in conservative, ball control offenses, Dilfer never even eclipsed a 60% completion percentage in any season of his career. That's a far cry from Ben the past 2 years, also. Ben accounted for 20 TDs in 12 regular season games last season (and 9 more in 4 playoff games). In Dilfer's best year, he accounted for 23 in 16 games for TB and had only 1 other year even close to that. And Ben is only 24. If people think he's a game-manager, hey, people will think that no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. But a comparison to Dilfer in terms of what he was asked to do and what he did on a Super Bowl winning team is insulting to Roethlisberger.

No, only a fool would say Ben's better than Aikman. I never said that. I said Ben's season statistically compares favorably to all of Aikman's seasons but one, but Aikman had a long, productive, and successful career that Ben can only dream of at this point. If Ben continues putting up the numbers and wins like he has, time will judge him in comparison to guys like Aikman, but that's a long way off. I said Ben has started out his career being the same TYPE of QB as Aikman and has had similar success doing it over 2 seasons. I've also said he did a lot more for the Steelers in 2005 than Dilfer did for the Ravens in 2000, and the numbers in support of that are clear. It's been pointed out that Dilfer did less with less talent at WR, and I agree with that. Dilfer had very little talent at WR to work with, but that's likely why he was never asked to do much. I want to make sure it's clear that I'm not saying Ben's better than Aikman was. When looking for a comparison, the numbers and situations compare much more accurately to Aikman than Dilfer.

First, people only compare Ben to Dilfer on the Ravens, and the Ravens defense in 2000 was among the best in the history of the game. The running game between Holmes and Lewis was dominant, too. Roethlisberger did more for the Steelers' to win the Super Bowl than Dilfer did by FAR, and the numbers bear that out clearly. CLEARLY. The Ravens didn't have great WRs, and that's true, but Dilfer didn't have to do anything because of it. And he really didn't do much - it's not like his arm balanced out the Ravens' offense. His passing numbers sucked in every respect other than the fact that he didn't throw INTs. It doesn't matter if the reason is that Ben had better WRs (which I don't feel is the entire reason, either). The fact is that Ben had a lot more of an impact on the Steelers winning than Dilfer did on the Ravens winning. You haven't pointed out anything that I didn't already know, and I don't throw anyone under the bus for disagreeing. It's lame, however, when people have nothing to add to a discussion other than a pointless one-liner or insult. At least you had an opinion and you had reasons for it. My ridiculous arguments are supported by statistical evidence on both players, including my comparison to Aikman. What I said from the get-go is that Roethlisberger is more on the Aikman track than the Dilfer track after 2 years in the league. The numbers and the talent level of their supporting cast support that.

OMG, a response!!!!! Not sure where the man-love for Dilfer comes from, but that's OK. Dilfer QBed a team without much talent at WR, but the running game and defense were outstanding. His team was BUILT for him to be nothing more than what he was. He didn't produce much and he didn't have to, and he did exactly what the Ravens need him to in order to win. Ben QBed a team with more talent at WR, granted, but he did a helluva lot more that Dilfer did in leading the team. His ROLE on the team was different than Dilfer's, and while he didn't have to carry the team, he DID have to do a lot more than Dilfer did and had more success in doing it. The talent around him last year was more comparable to Aikman's in his good years than Dilfer's, without a doubt. That's likely why his numbers were more comparable to Aikman's the Dilfer's,, as I've shown. If you think Ben would struggle if he didn't have Burress or Randle El opposite Ward the last two years, that's fine. After watching him play, I disagree, but I can respect the opinion anyways.

That guy owns this site? Probably why this site will never compare the one I use regularly then. It's become clear that people on this site have their opinions set and don't really want to get into a discussion based on actual numbers or productivity. I've invited anyone to dispute the numbers I threw out there, and the best anyone can do is say, "Well, Ben sucked in the Super Bowl." FACT - Ben's 2005 season - regular and especially playoffs - was FAR, FAR superior to Dilfer's in just about every way. I've showed that. FACT - Ben's 2005 season was comparable to every one of Aikman's except for 1992, and Ben had a higher YPA in 2005 than Aikman did in any year by a full yard. Ben accounting for 20 TDs in 2005's regular season, and Aikman did that ONCE in his career - and Ben did it in 12 games. I don't care if Aikman was a HOFer or a scrub - I'm comparing productivity and the fact that both QBs had a running game, offensive line, and defense that were among the best in the league. The fact that people stick to their opinions without discussing any of that that tells me all I need to know about the quality of this site.

The ignorance in this post is astounding. You want to cmopare them based on one game? Sorry, but I backed up my positions with a ton of stats and observations over an entire regular season and an entire playoff season. You want to disregard anything I said and just use the Super Bowl as means to compare them? Great. Compare Ben's 2005 regular season to any of Aikman's regualar seasons in his entire HOF career. Aside from 1992, Ben's right there or better than any of them. If his Super Bowl performance tarnishes his entire season in your eyes, so be it. Ben's stats in the 3 games leading up to the 2005 Super Bowl? 49-72, 680, 7 TDs, 1 INT, and 1 rushing TD

He was brutally bad in the '04 playoffs, no doubt. He was also a worn out rookie. He was awful against the Jets the week before, too. He was also terrible in the Super Bowl, but did you happen to catch him in the 3 playoff games leading up to it? Regarding your previous posts, I agree that stats don't tell the whole story. Of course, it's stats that everyone point to in order justify the whole game-manager opinion. Well, those stats are the same ones that compare him favorably to Aikman and far better than Dilfer ever was. If people don't want to ackonwledge that, oh well... I just threw it out there. In 2004, Culpepper was a tremendous QB by any measure. However, my opinions are based only partly on stats... the other part is from watching him play a lot more than anyone who isn't a Steelers fan. Just like Aikman, he's a lot better than his numbers will show, but also like Aikman, he doesn't really have to put up huge numbers for his team to win.