Bruce Arians is a bad offensive coordinator for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

I have established that Mike Tomlin (which my opponent concedes) has established a wholistic system within the Pittsburgh Steelers where he works on getting players to perform on the field, trusts his players to perform, and creates situations where the players either win or loss games (not the coaches), specifically through close games. The focus is on creating performance that translates into winning championships; not in blowing opponents out or looking like the best time. Within this philosophy, blowing out an opponent) can create determination within other teams to play extra hard (such as the Patriots did to the Jets before the playoffs) and/or cause the Steelers to become over confident in their abilities instead of remaining humble (another key component of Tomlin's philosophy). I have then explained how Bruce's style as offensive coordinator, which is my opponent's chief complaint, fits into Tomlin's style perfectly [Again, besides being ‘irrelevant,' my opponent does not argue against this]. The framework that I am presenting for this debate, which my opponent has presented none so far except that we should judge Bruce's ‘bad/goodness' by his ability to call plays, is that an offensive coordinator who can work within the head coach's philosophy is a good offensive coordinator for that organization (regardless of record and on the field performance) – being able to win Championships while being in tuned with the Head Coach's philosophy makes an excellent fit for the organization. Since the topic asks us to evaluate whether or not Bruce Arians is a bad offensive coordinator for the Steelers, it implies that we must determine whether or not he is ‘bad' for the organization. My case proves (especially since my opponent does not argue against me on this point) that Bruce Arians' philosophies and performance compliments Mike Tomlin's coaching philosophy. If Tomlin's philosophy is upheld by the offensive coordinator, then he cannot be bad for the organization (unless the head coach is, which is not what we are debating). I gain defense against your arguments that his play calling is poor through establishing a framework that makes your central arguments rather irrelevant because it does not harm the Steelers – they still win championships. Then, I generate offense off explaining how the poor offensive production (what ever the source, I believe my opponent claim is Bruce's poor play calling) helps prepare the Steelers for the playoffs and Championship games. My opponent even concedes that close games are beneficial. His defends this concession – that a team should not depend on defense and player talent to win games – is precisely contradictory to Tomlin's and the Steelers' (current) coaching philosophy. The Steelers won and will continue to win under Tomlin through a defense-first approach that asks players to make plays – not coaches to make plays. Furthermore, Bruce is smart enough to know when to let his quarterback call plays, and when to call them himself. His career shows success in improve Ben's passing statistics as well as setting the foundation for Peyton Manning's career, and developing a terrific wide receiver core in Pittsburgh. Bruce, like Tomlin, develops players who can play for him – which wins championships. It's not ‘my argument' about Bruce's numbers; the argument (as quoted) is from the Pittsburgh Steelers Organization (website), themselves, whom, since the debate is on what is good for them, should be valued as superior evidence because I would trust that the Steelers know more about their well being then two fans debating the issues – or at least the strengths of their coaching. The statistics on rush rank compared to points per game show limited correlation with success as the worst season (2008) the Steelers won the Super Bowl, and improved in both of these ‘pivotal' stats the next season (although very slightly in each). My opponent presents no evidence linking a correlation with the offensive coordinator's specific play calls (his framework?) and a decrease in scoring. Furthermore, show no correlation to championship success. Turnovers, game planning, field position, clock management (look at the 3 possessions the Steelers gave the Bills in the first half to showcase Bruce's ability) are all important contributions that offenses can make to a team. Specifically, under Tomlin and Bruce the Steelers are 12th [2007], 11, 20, 2 in turn-over differential (with a correlation to playoff/season success), and 9th [2007], 20, 12, 12 in offensive points (under Bruce's predecessor, Ken Wisenhunt, the Steelers ranked 11th, 9[2005], and 12; Bruce shows no decrease in offensive points). More specifically on turnovers, Bruce's offense's total turnovers a season: 22, 25, 29, 26 [Int 9, 13, 17, 11]; comparatively, Wisenhunt's offense accounted for 25, 27, 37 [Int 13, 14, 23] [http://www.pro-football-reference.com...]. Wisenhunt was a ‘good' offensive coordinator for the Steelers, and Bruce's offense is no less productive in points (except the SBXLIII Champions), or weaker in any other meaningful statistic. Jets game: 1) Tomlin respects a changing offense by viewing the game from a defensive perspective. The offense should be – an is under Bruce, considering 3 playoff appearances and 2 Super Bowl appearances - able to adapt with greater knowledge then the defense; confusion is player responsibility, and no evidence is presented that Bruce makes players confused. 2) + 4) Regardless of my opponents claims, the Steelers as a team had a chance to win the Jets game, but "didn't make the plays" down the stretch that the Jets made. Even if Bruce made bad decisions, they ultimately did not cost the Steelers the game [note the opening kick off returned for a TD, and the fourth and goal converted for a TD]. C1: Both I and my opponent agree that Bruce saved his most functional formations for the playoffs. Regardless of if this is ‘stealing', Bruce was smart enough to implement it. C2: Steelers' Coaches ask their players to make plays to win games. My opponent fails to understand this argument. Tomlin seeks to teach players that they have to step up in every game, every week (not blow out opponents). C3: Mendehall has the most rushing TD inside the 5 in the NFL this year – yet my opponent is complaining about the Steelers' red zone production? Bruce recognizes that Ben passes the ball too much and receivers drop balls. Defensively, apply my argument that not blowing opponents out does not qualify as ‘bad'. C4: Not being stop on a play allows the team to go back to it when they need it to win a championship latter, and keeps the defense guessing. C5: 1) I would like to see the evidence for my opponents claims; otherwise I will just go by the Steelers' position. 2) My opponent concedes that Bruce is a good QB coach. 3) (framework) 4) Bruce improves Ben's performance, which my opponent agrees occurs, which definitely doesn't make Bruce ‘bad' at his job. 5) Close games key to winning a championship. (Framework) 6) Close game build trust. Bruce allows for players to understand each other which is critical coaching for late game situations or the playoffs where success must occur with the coach being able to directly intervene. Building trust among players creates an excellent coach. 7) Bruce's performance at offensive coordinate won the Steelers a Super Bowl. 8) My opponent fails to understand Tomlin's focus on Defense first. Under Tomlin, the Steelers have had the 2nd, 1, 15, 1 ranked defenses, and Tomlin's whole coaching and game planning strategy resides in his defense making plays and securing a victory. My opponent's arguments for offense reside outside of Tomlin's framework, and thus should not be used when evaluating Bruce's ability as Offensive Coordinator of the Steelers.