Todd Haley said “no” to the no-huddle. Don't doubt that Ben Roethlisberger is lobbying for a “yes” Sunday in Oakland.
Roethlisberger, long a proponent of calling his own plays, ran the hurry-up offense for most of the final three quarters in Denver. But the no-huddle was invisible against the Jets, apparently because Haley determined it wouldn't be effective. Roethlisberger doesn't necessarily agree, and he appears to be doing everything except hiring a Washington lobbyist to change Haley's mind.
“That's Coach Haley's call,” Roethlisberger said. “He's the one that calls all of the plays. There was no no-huddle. Our no-huddle is usually when we have three wide receivers on the field. (The coaches) saw something and wanted to run the ball with multiple tight ends and keep (the media) and the fans happy, I guess.”
If not the quarterback.
Mike Wallace and Antonio Brown no doubt noticed that Dolphins rookie quarterback Ryan Tannehill and wide receiver Brian Hartline connected nine times for 111 yards against the Raiders' patchwork secondary, with cornerback Pat Lee in primary coverage. Lee is a Packers castoff. Raiders safeties Tyvon Branch and Michael Huff are above average, but Roethlisberger could be a handful for a secondary that has struggled in pass coverage for two seasons.
— Alan Robinson
39/4 Total first downs/rushing first downs for Raiders, who are 31st in rushing.
40/7 Total first downs/rushing first downs for Steelers, who are 30th in rushing.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.