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

Your any idiot. Counter Plan: Don't use an offensive coridanator. Benefits: 1)You save money 2)Ben can call the plays all the time (which you never responded to the fact he does in 2-minute drills) and can get really really good at it so he can be use to calling plays all the time 3)You don't have an idiot who calls plays and losses use games, like against the Jets this year or how many times last year (try 8+times, there was games we should have lost and squeaked them out in the end because of who…Ben) Your frame work is abusive as hell. My CP meets all the criteria, and guess what Bruce is gone. In fact his position is vacant. The only reason you are saying he is good is because your framework says he doesn't have to do anything and rely on everyone else around him to do good and win for him. That is the most abusive frame work ever. Why don't you just concede and admit he sucks at life? Your entire ideology that he can suck to improve the team is stupid. What happens when you have big leads in games and suddently aren't use to them? You crumble and almost loss. AKA the AFC Championship. Why not just pull ahead and win big, rest your players, move on to the next week. You yourself said less tape is a good thing, if you only have to play 2-3 quarters a week, less game film. Your analogy to the Jets/Patroits blow out doesn't link 3 fold 1)They antagonized a rival, which is dumb, and then where unprepared for them in the post season 2)The Patriots core group of guys (manly on defense) was too young for success in the play-offs 3) Teams that do well, historically, can have success in the play-off, but not always; it is a case by case situation and you can't make a generalization about it. Take the Saints and Colts last season. They beat everyone jumped out to 13-0 starts and played each other in the super bowl. Again, your framework is abusive, you say Bruce has to do nothing around him to be ‘good' at his job. Saying he's been able to coach a QB, as I stated in my previous speech, does not qualify him to be an offensive coordinator because Offenses is more than just the QB position. There are multiple facites to the game my opponent is ignoring. Again, the numbers are not specific to Bruce's talent because you are quoting winning, which you yourself said he puts on the defense anyway. So that should be thrown out. And the offensive production decline, and red zone efficency, and there over all comparision to league rank are objective material. They are simply facts, and have no bais. The statistics indicate that his pass first approach has reduced offensive production. And have bein 50% in the Red Zone (which my oppent has yet to respond to) is attrosious for an offensive coordinator. It simply means is offense is in position to put games away and can't do. Time and time again. That's not how teams win championships (unless they're backed with a defense that is sooooo good you can kick 3 field goals and miss 2 more and still beat the best team in the NFC) The offensive coordinator is responsible for the production and all elements of his offensense. The corrrolation is implied. Its like being the manager of a store, and the success of the store are directly correlated. Are there outside factors? Sure, but as the manager you are responsible to account for those outside factors. Why? Because its your freakin job. Bruce's play calling/running of the offense has correlated to a decrease in production and an abbismel red zone percentage. You brought up the 1st half of the Bills game. Lets, see…oh year we won in overtime because we scored 0 points in the second half and almost lost. Now you fall apart and do nothing in the second half offensively…this sounds exactly like, no it can't be, the AFC championship? And why? Because we got a lead and Bruce didn't know what to do anymore so he just got confused and messed around and blew the lead to get the game close so he'd be comfortable again. And the minimium time's of position and drives and be attributed to our defense that force 3-and-outs on such a consitent basis. 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. I could of stole that formation. Doesn't make me a ‘good' offensive coordinator. Either give me an offensive coordinator job and a million dollar pay check because I can watch other teams and steal there plays, or get off the man for stealing someone else play and just admit he has no talent. 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). Abusive framework, you are saying Bruce has to do nothing to prove he is ‘good'. Why? Because he sucks, just admit it. He's not a good offensive coordinator, stop trying to cover it up with ‘well, everyone else just has to compensate for me'/ 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'. No, but when you can blow out oppents. You should. At least from the offensive minded perspective. You talk about numbers? If we had a good red zone percentage, say 70-80%, or offensive numbers would be threw the roof and we would look like a dominant force offensively and defensively. But its not. Stop making excuse, and just understand he sucks and can't do it. I wouldn't be surprised if Tomlin's started calling the plays in the red zone….or Dick Labuie 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. Evidence they every return to plays. Or how going 8-8 wins championships. Fail. C5: 4) Bruce improves Ben's performance, which my opponent agrees occurs, which definitely doesn't make Bruce ‘bad' at his job. Not his full aspect of his job, he's not a QB coach. He's a freaking offensive coordinator. Name 1 other QB coach in the league? Exactly, they are anonmious people, not one rides the offensive line coach when the o-line sucks, they go after the guy calling the plays: The offensive coordinator. 5) Close games key to winning a championship. (Framework) So how does going 8-8 do this? 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. 9-7 7) Bruce's performance at offensive coordinate won the Steelers a Super Bowl. They won a super bowl, despite Bruce (Ben executed a Two Minute drive remember? 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. Frame work abusive. You say Bruce should do anything. Ok, here's the deal Mr. Close games help us. Explain how going 9-7 wins you a championship? You've completely dropped that. Completely. You go on and on about how we build trust and skill and blab la bla, but we lost an entire season because Bruce threw our offensive production out the window last least and we lost all those games. The entire season is completely Bruces fault. We had all the talent in the world on offense (Ben, Ward, Holmes, Wallace, Miller, Mendenhal) The numbers weren't there, Bruce lost us those games. Bruce didn't have an offense capable of excuting, and we lost game after game in close margins (Clevland, Oakland, Kansas City, Balitmore) all of those games were close games we could have one (you know, like you punch in one of those 50% of red zone try's you didn't convert?) That is why you don't play close football, because you don't always win. And when we do win, its not on Bruce, its on a guy named Ben running two minute drills. This is all I ask of you in your final speech: Please prove to me that Bruce is capable of leading a team to win games when a)Ben isn't the quarter back or B)When Ben doesn't have to lead a 2 minute drill at the end of games (ie-Bruce isn't calling the plays) or C) The defense plays so dominantly that minimal offensive production is necessary to win anyways (ie- Week one Alanta). Now, averaging out for flucks (ie-Players making big plays for themselves) We would figure that a good offensive coordinator (or head coach) should be about .500+. Right? Let's examine the last 3 Seasons (these season can be significant because we have 1 team that one the super bowl, 1 who missed the play-offs and 1 who will play in the super bowl): By my counts '08 8-4-7; '09 5-8-3; '10 5-4-8. Don't be fooled ladies and gentlemen. Let me explain. I calculated it was so: The first number represents wins where the Steelers won handly, and offensive productions can obviously be the contributing factor, the second column represents loss which regardless of loss where attributed to the inability of the offense to score points (Note: only three games in the 3 season stretch were ‘blowouts' or losses where the Steelers lost by more then 8 points, uniquely all of these losses can be attributed to a failure of offensive production aswell as a team loss; all 3 losses game from seasons the Steelers made the super bowl). The final column is games where the Steelers won, despite Bruce. Factors used here, in order starting with '08: Ravens1- W/OT; Jaugars- Win on FG inside 2 minutes; Chargers- Win inside 2 minutes; Cowboys- Defensive return inside 2 min; Ravens2- TD drive inside 2 min; Ravens3- Defensive TD return to seal game; Cardinals- Last Sec TD. '09: Titans- OT/Win; Packers- Last Second TD; Ravens- Win on late FG//Defensive stand. '10- Alanta- OT/W; Titans- Defensive stand; Miami- FG inside 2 min; Bengals-Defensive stand; Bills- OT/W; Ravens2- Big Defensive play; Baltimore3-TD inside 2 min; Jets- Hang on after lack of 2nd half offensive production. Through this explination for games, a few may be up for contest, but over all the numbers are pretty clear: Over the past three seasons Bruce is 18-16-15. Or in three seasons offense (not including late rallys from Ben) have accounted for 18 wins in 49 contests or a value percentage of 36.7%. (Keep in mind, this includes two teams that reached the superbowl, with one win and one result pending). The Defense/Ben on the other hand have attributed to a 15 wins or a value of winning 30.6% of all games. Before anyone claims Bruce's number his higher, lets remember my assumption that a ‘good' offensive coordinator needs to mine 50% of his games of be .500. In this breakdown of wins senerio Bruce is only contributing in 54.5% of Wins. Let's keep in mind again, I am being overly generous. To say that those 18 wins where all on Bruce is an overstatement to the extreme, but statistically the offense scored enough points to allow the game to be taken solidly in hand. Lets keep in mind though, that a team as talented over the last three years has the Steelers should have some ‘blow out' wins in this stretch; 5 of those wins came against Clevland, and then 1 against the Panthers this year, Lions last year, 3 Wins against the Bengals of '08 & ‘10) Shows at least 9 victories came against significantly inferior opponents. If one was to factor these 9 games out as that anyone could have one them w or w/o an offensive coridinator the remainder is Bruce and his offense contributed to 9 wins in 49 games or 18.3% of games he won. More over, 9 games against inferior opponents plus 15 defense/Ben victories is 24 wins in 49 tries of 49% of victories. Meaning, any given victory is 50% on the defense/Ben/the other team just sucks anyways. Meaning, .673 win percentage can be halved to account for the actual ‘value' of Bruce as an offensive coordinator .336 ‘value' percentage, or a 4-12 record in season play. This number is a fair assessment of Bruce's ability as a good/bad offensive coordinator because 1)my opponent dropped my argument that Ben/the defense win games, and when Ben wins games Bruce doesn't call the plays and 2) the assessment curves the data from simply using a more talented team to beat opponents, which envolves on coaching skills. Inconclusion, I challenge my opponent to express that Bruce can 1)valuably contribute in over .500+ of games 2)Explain how missing the play-offs was a)not Bruces fault b)how Bruce as a ‘good' offensive coordinator did everything right help us win (especially during that 5 game losing streak) c)Where the mendenhall single back right tackle trips bunch formations went after the Denver game in the '09 season 3) Expalin the Value of Bruce over any other offensive coordinator in the league (or as I proposed a vacant position, which I could attribute the Steelers to still winning .489 percent of there games over the last three years; which means the team it self almost good enough to qualify its self as a good offensive coordinator, for Bruce to keep his job he barely had to win 5 games….or ok 9 at 3 a year) To bad you can't prove any of this. We forget how incredibily bad Bruce is because our offense wins despite him.