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

Arians argues: "No one sits at home and calls defense. I enjoy listening to sports talk shows myself and I think ‘We really did have a run called, Ben just threw the damn thing" [Feb. 1, 2011, NBC Sports]. Bruce Arians is not a bad offensive coordinator for the Pittsburgh Steelers because any flaws in his play calling and ‘low' offensive production of points (his 23 PPG compared to Wisenhunt's 23.2) correlates with Mike Tomlin's coaching philosophy: "The time's coming when we're going to have to ante up and kick in like men" [Mike Tomlin clichï¿½]. Bruce's style may keep games close, but this forces players to play like "champions" in most games of the season - which makes players prepared to play and to win come January and February. Furthermore, he has many statistical consistencies that prove his success, as well as excellent players that he has developed into terrific offensive players (including a Pro-Bowl rookie Center). On statistics: I would like to assert that I am quoting the Steelers website about the merits of Bruce, which can explain how he is beneficial to the organization better then either of us (the Steelers credit him with franchise record offensive statistics in 2007, developing Ben at QB, developing Hines Ward at receiver, as well as developing Peyton Manning for the Colts). My opponent presents no consistency on which offensive statistics prove a OC as "good" or "bad" – we cannot merely pick and choose without any reason. I have present substantial evidence, and in many causes compared the evidence to theory or another OC (Wisenhunt) that was not ‘bad' as a control case to verify my claims. Most of my opponent's statistics are lacking anytime of comparison analysis. Similarly, I have presented clear evidence through out the debate showing the coaching philosophy of Mike Tomlin, the benefits that Bruce has made to the Steelers Organization, comparing Bruce to Wisenhunt, and showing how most of my opponent's evidence supports my case or at least does not clearly support his case. Without proper warrants for his evidence, most of my opponent's arguments are merely opinionated claims that reside in dissatisfaction with Bruce as the Steelers offensive coordinator, not why he is bad at his job. Furthermore, as the Pro side of the debate, my opponent must prove clearly that Bruce is a ‘bad' offensive coordinator. The framework I present within the round is that he has to prove Bruce is not consistent with Tomlin's coaching philosophy (which he has never argued). If I win my framework as viable, I clearly should win this debate. Although, my opponent has not presented a clear framework for his side, however, I will assume that it involves measuring Bruce's performance off of ‘substantial wins' and ‘effective' play calling. Both of these measures have no true bright-line, as they are based off of personal opinion, but I will now analysis how my opponent may win this round: C1 proves that Bruce is good enough at his job to save "his most functional formations for the playoffs." He makes valid points about Bruce's failure to use a full back. However, the Steelers under Bruce posted 2160 [2007], 1690, 1793, and 1924 rushing yards a season, with a 1,000 yard rusher every season except the 2008 Super-Bowl run. Any valid points here are mere opinions of dissatisfaction. C2 argues that Bruce fails to call the "right play at the right times". Again, this is merely opinion based on observations and shows no evidence except isolated examples. My framework directly argues that this does not make Bruce a bad offensive coordinator within Tomlin's opinion. C3 argues that Bruce fails in the Red Zone, but he fails to compare this evidence of 50% (The 14-4 2010 Steelers in the Super Bowl) to other offenses this season and/or to other successful OC. Although Bruce recognizes failures (particularly dropped pass which are players not making plays), and Mendehall has the most rushing TD inside the 5 in the NFL, Bruce's mediocrity in the Red-zone could be a problem. C4 argues that Bruce quits using formations and plays that work before someone stops his offense. I have argued that this keeps defenses confused, that Tomlin respects Bruce's ability to try to out-smart opponents, that players need to be responsible for making plays, and that this allows the plays to be saved for the playoffs. However, my arguments lack some evidence compared to my opponents, and it is viable that Bruce has refused to run possibly successful formations. His C5 argues that Big Ben wins games despite his offensive coordinator. I argue here that close games build trust and a championship quality team, as proven by Arians leading two teams to the Super Bowl, including a victory. My opponent negates Ben's increase in statistics and ability on the field as having no correlation to Bruce's ability – I believe they strongly do. Thus, if one buys my opponent's arguments that Bruce makes mediocre play calls (based on the success of plays, not the actual coaching strategy involved in calling such plays) which diminish from team success (despite 1,000 yard rushers, PPG similar to Wisenhunt's, franchise offensive records) specifically because Bruce fails to continue running successful formations (even though we both agree Bruce uses his best formations in the playoffs), my opponent could win the round. However, this would have to be weighed against my framework argument, usually superior evidence, bright-lines for comparing evidence, and how successfully the pro side proves the topic. AT: Counter-plan 1) To meet his burden, the CP would have to prove why Bruce is a bad offensive coordinator, not that Ben would be a better one, or that Ben even dislikes Bruce enough to want to replace him. 2) "This debate is merely concerned with if Bruce is good/bad offensive coordinator, there is no implication to the action, and thus any fear on his replacement resides outside the resolution. Though, he should be fired" [Opponent, round 2]. This means that CPs cannot be evaluated within our debate. 3) CP not viable: coaching as a player is illegal in the NFL. 4) Bruce argues: "I'm an idiot anyway. They're gonna say that anyway. Ain't going to change." [http://nfl.fanhouse.com...]. Specifically, he's addressing the 5 wide pass play where Ben threw the ball to Brown instead of continuing the designed roll out to end the AFC championship. Ben is viewed as successful when his gambles work, and Bruce is blamed when Ben's gambles fail: this is an unfair standard for determine whether or not Bruce is a ‘bad' coach. Tomlin believes in developing a culture of humility and confidence; this can only be created through continually playing close games. Losses are inevitable in a season – Tomlin seeks to make the most of them. Going 9-7 wins you championships by demanding that your players perform at the highest level or realize that (with all their talent), they finished 9-7 and missed the playoffs. After learning from their mistakes, the Steelers are in the Super Bowl – Championships take coaching, not victories. Numbers: your own Total Rushing Yards/PPG show an increase from 2008(Championship) to 2009(9-7). Relative points scored increased from 20th to 12th [22.5] in the league; offensive yards per game jumped from 311.94 to 371.31. (Wizenhunt averaged 334 yards per game in Pittsburgh – 357.8 in his best season). Bruce's offense in 2009 put up 37 points and no turnovers against a Packers team allowing 18.6 ppg, and 2.5 TO pg; 38 points and 1 TO against San Diego: 20ppg and 1.5 TO pg. Wisenhunt: (9-2-7)(13-5-3)(6-8-2)[28-15-12] (10 blowouts; 2 SO)(.726 win%; .509 win off; .327 without counting blowouts] compared to Bruce's [18-15-16](.667 win%; .394 win off). Wisenhunt had 6 blowout losses to Bruce's 3. Wisenhunt was shutout twice; Bruce never got shutout. No evidence shows "the numbers weren't there."