A possible inconsistency in one of Parcells' statements

[Dale]

Parcells commented numerous times early in the season that Roethlisberger is the best rookie quarterback he has seen since Marino. However, as the season progressed and he was being hammered by questions regarding the matter, he started stating that one reason the Steeler rookie was enjoying so much success was because of his supporting cast. If I'm not mistaken, he was using this as justification for Testaverde, indicating the environment a quarterback is placed in ultimately determines a great deal of his success.

Do these two observations really go together? Does Pittsburgh have both the best rookie quarterback (ever?) and a tremendous supporting cast, or does one of those factors override the other?

[Heisenberg]

It's a bit of both. They CAN go together. Not only do the Steelers put a great cast around him, he's doing a hell of a job himself. I mean damn, undefeated...as a rookie?!? You have to be ****ting me. It HAS to be both.

[Nors]

Parcells commented numerous times early in the season that Roethlisberger is the best rookie quarterback he has seen since Marino. However, as the season progressed and he was being hammered by questions regarding the matter, he started stating that one reason the Steeler rookie was enjoying so much success was because of his supporting cast. If I'm not mistaken, he was using this as justification for Testaverde, indicating the environment a quarterback is placed in ultimately determines a great deal of his success.

Do these two observations really go together? Does Pittsburgh have both the best rookie quarterback (ever?) and a tremendous supporting cast, or does one of those factors override the other?


I think Roth is all that - The few games I watched him he reminded me a lot of Elway. Steelers have a veteran line, Solid and Big WR's and a nice running game. Their 3-4 defense wreaks havoc as well.

I think BP is stating - we need playmakers, a better Line, A defense that creates turnovers and issues.

Chicken/Egg -- 15-1 season - what gets the vote for reason? Same team basically last year? QB change? I'd vote Roth as reason more than suporting cast.

Check out Charlie Frye - Akron - this years sleeper Roth

[twa]

Roth impresses me most by his play when things break down in protection,just at the time you expect a rookie to struggle the kid shines.

[Hoods]

It's a little bit of both, but if I was to choose one I'd swing a little over to the supporting cast theory.

After all, this guy was a stud in college. Now that he's in the NFL he has a great o-line, a great wide receiving corps, two good running backs who have put up big numbers, AND the number one defense.

That right there is an ideal situation for not only a rookie, but any Quarterback. I think Bill wants to try and develop Henson and make sure he learns the system. Bill wants to fill the holes until Henson is ready.

It's a good plan, imo.

[zack]

Parcells commented numerous times early in the season that Roethlisberger is the best rookie quarterback he has seen since Marino. However, as the season progressed and he was being hammered by questions regarding the matter, he started stating that one reason the Steeler rookie was enjoying so much success was because of his supporting cast. If I'm not mistaken, he was using this as justification for Testaverde, indicating the environment a quarterback is placed in ultimately determines a great deal of his success.

Do these two observations really go together? Does Pittsburgh have both the best rookie quarterback (ever?) and a tremendous supporting cast, or does one of those factors override the other?


It runs along the same line as who was a better RB? Emmitt or Barry. People say that Barry would have hit 2000 yards several times behind the Cowboys o-line of the 90's. I never bought that arguement.

[blindzebra]

Parcells commented numerous times early in the season that Roethlisberger is the best rookie quarterback he has seen since Marino. However, as the season progressed and he was being hammered by questions regarding the matter, he started stating that one reason the Steeler rookie was enjoying so much success was because of his supporting cast. If I'm not mistaken, he was using this as justification for Testaverde, indicating the environment a quarterback is placed in ultimately determines a great deal of his success.

Do these two observations really go together? Does Pittsburgh have both the best rookie quarterback (ever?) and a tremendous supporting cast, or does one of those factors override the other?

One was a statement when we were about to play them and after they beat us, and the other was when he was getting heat to play Henson and he was looking to throw water on the fire.

Almost EVERY quote from Parcells will contradict another. It's better to not try to figure out what he thinks, it will just frustrate you. :D

[Hostile]

Parcells commented numerous times early in the season that Roethlisberger is the best rookie quarterback he has seen since Marino. However, as the season progressed and he was being hammered by questions regarding the matter, he started stating that one reason the Steeler rookie was enjoying so much success was because of his supporting cast. If I'm not mistaken, he was using this as justification for Testaverde, indicating the environment a quarterback is placed in ultimately determines a great deal of his success.

Do these two observations really go together? Does Pittsburgh have both the best rookie quarterback (ever?) and a tremendous supporting cast, or does one of those factors override the other?I would say that it is the environement surrounding him most of all. Now in saying that I am not denying his talent. He reminds me a bit of Tom Brady in that he does not seem to get rattled and just finds ways to win. He is rarely spectacular but he is usually quite effective.

However, look at the rest of the package around him. In his pre-season write up Wulfman predicted Pittsburgh (who at that time still had Maddux in mind) would go 13-3. The vast majority here thought he was nuts. I considered it brave but he also made some great points.

His Head Coach is an icon there and doesn't not have shadows of past jobs in the background. The Rooney's above anyone else are stable about Head Coaches.

His offensive line is truly a good unit.

His top 3 WRs are top a good trio and work well together.

Above all else they have a solid defense that can adapt to many situations.

I still think Marino or Manning were more amazing rookies than Big Ben but I cannot deny that he is tremendously successful at the most important thing, winning.

[chinch]

Romo/Henson were not ready to be starting QBs in the nfl, especially on a team filled with holes.