Ben Roethlisberger

[Txbroadcaster]

Just how good is he?

People tout he has 2 SB rings..but his play off stats are not that great, but his TEAM has won in the play offs...so how much of that is Ben, or how much of it is the team itself?

[Farmersfan]

That's the ultimate "chicken or egg" question! It would seem that if a QB is what makes a team go then without that QB the team would not perform! The Steelers performed very well without Roethlisberger during his suspension. Would they still be in the Superbowl without him? I guess that depends on who replaced him and how the other players stepped up.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Just how good is he?

People tout he has 2 SB rings..but his play off stats are not that great, but his TEAM has won in the play offs...so how much of that is Ben, or how much of it is the team itself?

O.k--theory time, TxB. I believe that all QB's who have a built-in native tremendous will to win and indomitable spirit, would win more games with, and for, any team for whom they played. These are the QB's who have shown that they will find a way to win in almost every game and their teammates seem to "feed" on it---Among them I count---and not just for their athletic talents and past winning records---Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, Big Ben, and Favre to name a few current QB's who have "it", if you will.

In the past Staubach and Montana come to mind...

[BreckTxLonghorn]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Just how good is he?

People tout he has 2 SB rings..but his play off stats are not that great, but his TEAM has won in the play offs...so how much of that is Ben, or how much of it is the team itself?


I think he is GOOD. Not great, or top 3, or mediocre or horrible, but good.

At first, a lot of his reputation was based on winning so early (IMO), when the team supported him and not vice versa. I was very unimpressed with his SB40 win back in '06, and I think it made him the statistical worst winning QB ever. However, I was very impressed with SB43 win and you could definitely tell he had matured from the beginning. He's a more complete player now, and the team wins because of playing with him, not in spite of him. They're both reliant on each other, but now it's more even with a little more lean towards his favor than the other way. He played a decent but unspectacular game last night, but I think it was perfectly indicative of the type of player and skill set he has. Stat line isn't gaudy, the running game helps him out significantly, but he made some big throws. With the ball in his hands with 2 min to go, it definitely felt like he was going to drive the field - as an avid anti-Steeler fan I openly questioned the FG because I thought a kick return would give him a better field to work with, making an easy score.

So, looking at that, he's good, but he's getting to great, at least IMO.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BreckTxLonghorn

So, looking at that, he's good, but he's getting to great, at least IMO.

See I thought the same thing till last night..in 3 SBs he has been bad in two, good in one..so now I dont know..I think his team helps him more than he helps the team

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
See I thought the same thing till last night..in 3 SBs he has been bad in two, good in one..so now I dont know..I think his team helps him more than he helps the team

Big Ben may have many undesirable traits, but two of his major strengths are self-confidence and toughness. Those two qualities alone will give him a chance of winning more games than he loses, IMO.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Big Ben may have many undesirable traits, but two of his major strengths are self-confidence and toughness. Those two qualities alone will give him a chance of winning more games than he loses, IMO.

i agree..not saying he is a bad QB, but I also think the team around him vastly helps him more than he helps the team..this team won games with Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch at QB this year...in two SBs now IMO he was the reason they almost lost and did lose.

Even in the Arizona SB he was good not great

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
i agree..not saying he is a bad QB, but I also think the team around him vastly helps him more than he helps the team..this team won games with Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch at QB this year...in two SBs now IMO he was the reason they almost lost and did lose.

Even in the Arizona SB he was good not great

And I agree that he is probably not a great QB, but he is a find-a-way-to-be-a-winner on the field---unless you count yesterday, of course...:D

[Farmersfan]

Big Ben is the #10 rated QB out of 12 playoff QBs with a 78 QB rating. But you also have to understand that he played the Ravens, Jets and Packers in the playoffs and those were top 5 defenses in the NFL. Big Ben has a 97 QB rating in the regular season and is #5 in the league.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Big Ben is the #10 rated QB out of 12 playoff QBs with a 78 QB rating. But you also have to understand that he played the Ravens, Jets and Packers in the playoffs and those were top 5 defenses in the NFL. Big Ben has a 97 QB rating in the regular season and is #5 in the league.

I am going to go out on a limb and say most times a QB played teams in the play offs they are going to be really good to great defenses.

And once again speaking of defense, the team that CREATED turnovers won the big game

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I am going to go out on a limb and say most times a QB played teams in the play offs they are going to be really good to great defenses.

And once again speaking of defense, the team that CREATED turnovers won the big game





I think the team that scored the most points actually won the game TXB! There are numerous ways to score the most points! Turnovers are only 1 of those ways!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think the team that scored the most points actually won the game TXB! There are numerous ways to score the most points! Turnovers are only 1 of those ways!

hmm lets see..GB gave up 25 points as a defense, not really good..BUT they created turnovers that led to 21 points and scored 6 with the int for a TD..and the game was decided by.....6 points.

IF GB gives up the same 25 points but does not have the turnovers they lose, plain and simple and I honestly hope you can see that

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster


IF GB gives up the same 25 points but does not have the turnovers they lose,

their is no way to prove that

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
their is no way to prove that


sorry should have said IMO even though I do think that it goes past just MO..GB got 21 points off TO's..6 directly..another turnover also stopped a Pitt scoring drive.

[forum_guy]

if we are basing how good he is on playoff and super bowl stats then peyton manning is a mediocre qb

[Saggy Aggie]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster


IF GB gives up the same 25 points but does not have the turnovers they lose, If my aunt had nuts....

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Saggy Aggie
If my aunt had nuts.... you'd lick them?

:D :p

[garciap77]

Originally posted by DDBooger
you'd lick them?

:D :p

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[DavidWooderson]

I think he's a Top 10 QB, but far from Great. BUT he's a product of his system. Kind of like Texas Tech QBs were under Leach. You put Kingsbury, Symons, Hodges, Harrell....etc, you put them in another offense would they have had the numbers? No. He's a bus driver. He has a hell of a running game and a great defense, that's why he's good. If you put Brady, Manning, Brees.....or even a Romo or Rodgers in Pittsburgh's system they'd be unstoppable.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by DavidWooderson
I think he's a Top 10 QB, but far from Great. BUT he's a product of his system. Kind of like Texas Tech QBs were under Leach. You put Kingsbury, Symons, Hodges, Harrell....etc, you put them in another offense would they have had the numbers? No. He's a bus driver. He has a hell of a running game and a great defense, that's why he's good. If you put Brady, Manning, Brees.....or even a Romo or Rodgers in Pittsburgh's system they'd be unstoppable.

I don't know if product of the system is quite accurate, because Big Ben is best when he is flushed out of the pocket and has to make plays on the run, and I don't necessarily think that is the system that the Steelers. If you put Manning or Brady into Pittsburgh's system with their limited mobility, then they would falter based on the fact that Pitt's O line is less than stellar

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DavidWooderson
I He has a hell of a running game and a great defense, that's why he's good. If you put Brady, Manning, Brees.....or even a Romo or Rodgers in Pittsburgh's system they'd be unstoppable.





It's amazing that the people who defend Romo against similar claims are the ones making the claims against Big Ben! I don't see a big difference in what Ben Roethlisberger had around him this season and what Romo has had around him for several years! The difference in my opinion is the indomitable will to win, leadership and toughness! Ben is a toughguy and Romo qoutes cliches about losing not being the worst thing in his life! The off-field leadership has been fairly absent in Dallas also. Hopefully that has changed with the coaching change.


2010 Steelers:
Defense= #2 (276 ypg) #1 (allowed 14.5 ppg)
Offense= #12 (scored 23 ppg) #14 (345 ypg)
Running game: 120 YPG. 4.1 avg.

2009 Cowboys:
Defense= #2 (15.6 ppg). #9 (316 ypg)
Offense= #2 (399 ypg). #14 (23 ppg)
Running game: 132YPG. 4.8 avg.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It's amazing that the people who defend Romo against similar claims are the ones making the claims against Big Ben! I don't see a big difference in what Ben Roethlisberger had around him this season and what Romo has had around him for several years! The difference in my opinion is the indomitable will to win, leadership and toughness! Ben is a toughguy and Romo qoutes cliches about losing not being the worst thing in his life! The off-field leadership has been fairly absent in Dallas also. Hopefully that has changed with the coaching change.


2010 Steelers:
Defense= #2 (276 ypg) #1 (allowed 14.5 ppg)
Offense= #12 (scored 23 ppg) #14 (345 ypg)
Running game: 120 YPG. 4.1 avg.

2009 Cowboys:
Defense= #2 (15.6 ppg). #9 (316 ypg)
Offense= #2 (399 ypg). #14 (23 ppg)
Running game: 132YPG. 4.8 avg.


again ur missing one thing..Dallas D last year not great at creating turnovers..the 2010 Pitt D was top 4 in INTs and top 4 in Forced fumbles

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
hmm lets see..GB gave up 25 points as a defense, not really good..BUT they created turnovers that led to 21 points and scored 6 with the int for a TD..and the game was decided by.....6 points.

IF GB gives up the same 25 points but does not have the turnovers they lose, plain and simple and I honestly hope you can see that




This only applies if every single OTHER aspect of the game stays exactly the same except the turnovers don't happen. You see, there are a 1000 variables that would change if the Packers don't get those turnovers. Perhaps the Pack plays more agressive (or less agressive) if the score is closer at halftime. Maybe the Steelers don't play so agressive if they are in the lead at some point of the game. You can't simply say if the turnovers don't happen then the Packers lose the game! You are taking the end result and adjusting it to fit your claim.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
again ur missing one thing..Dallas D last year not great at creating turnovers..the 2010 Pitt D was top 4 in INTs and top 4 in Forced fumbles




And even with all those turnovers the Steelers defense was almost exactly equal to the Dallas defense in 09'! Add in a bunch of turnovers and the 09' Dallas defense would have been the best defense to ever play in the NFL! Even better than the 85 Bears! Think about that a minute! You have a defense that was #2 in the NFL and equal to almost any defense that has ever played the game and YOU STILL EXPECT MORE! You, my friend, are illogical!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
And even with all those turnovers the Steelers defense was almost exactly equal to the Dallas defense in 09'! Add in a bunch of turnovers and the 09' Dallas defense would have been the best defense to ever play in the NFL! Even better than the 85 Bears! Think about that a minute! You have a defense that was #2 in the NFL and equal to almost any defense that has ever played the game and YOU STILL EXPECT MORE! You, my friend, are illogical!

wow..u honestly cannot just debate the topic can u. Not sure why you cant just do that, but instead you have to throw a dig in for whatever reason.

look at it this way..the two Defenses were almost similar..one lost in division play offs, the other in the SB...the difference in those Ds? turnovers..the 09 Cowboys were bad at creating them...the 2010 Steelers were good at creating them

So if I am looking at why one went further I would say the difference in ability to create turnovers was ONE of the main reasons..not the only one..but main one...and dont try to say Big Ben was the difference..his play off rating in the two play off games before SB?...101 which is great..and 35..that is right 35..which was 30 points LESS than what Romo had when Dallas lost to the Vikes last year

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Add in a bunch of turnovers and the 09' Dallas defense would have been the best defense to ever play in the NFL! Even better than the 85 Bears! Think about that a minute! You have a defense that was #2 in the NFL and equal to almost any defense that has ever played the game and YOU STILL EXPECT MORE! You, my friend, are illogical!

So basically your saying Pitt this year was the 85 Bears? Because they matched what Dallas did on defense last year as far as PPG( were better actually)..AND finished top 5 in creating turnovers

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So basically your saying Pitt this year was the 85 Bears? Because they matched what Dallas did on defense last year as far as PPG( were better actually)..AND finished top 5 in creating turnovers



The Steelers allowed 14 points per game this season BECAUSE of those turnovers! Without them they aren't ranked as a top defense. Dallas was!



And the illogical part of your debate is how you are trying to hold the defense accountable for not giving the offense easier scores. Although that is a very valuable thing to have, it is extra in football. The defense is only required to keep the other team from scoring and the Dallas defense did it to perfection in 09'! (the 85' Bears allowed 12.5 points per game and they are considered the best defense in history). Dallas allowed just 2.5 more per game!
But all this is a moot point because Dallas had a very big lack of leadership so the offense and the defense fell apart in the playoffs and no amount of turnovers would have helped this team win that game!

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
wow..u honestly cannot just debate the topic can u.


the topic is Big Ben:mad:

[rojosgirl]

Ben is a great QB. Just didn't win the big one this time. Nuff said.

:p

[Saggy Aggie]

He's been in the league for 7 years now and played in 3 super bowls, 2 of which his team won.

Seeing as how this is a QB driven league... I'd say he's pretty good. :thinking:

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by rojosgirl
Ben is an average QB. Just didn't win the big one this time. Nuff said.

:p Karma is a female dog you know:clap: :clap: :clap: