There is a well-written, intriguing and completely infuriating story in the PG today about how the Steelers run philosophy did not change against the Browns last week.

For years, I have made the unpopular chicken and the egg argument that "good teams have good running statistics because they have leads" more often than "teams that run the ball well are good teams." Bruce Arians makes this argument about the blowout of the Browns.

What baffles me, though, is the arrogance with which Arians and the staff cling to a system that has practically eliminated FWP's potency. Without a fullback, Parker's momentum has routinely been stopped in the backfield. With Sean McHugh blocking on Sunday, the first defender was neutralized and Parker had the chance to find daylight and make plays.



Why would it be a bad thing for the Steelers to work out of the I-formation on occasion? The offensive line is geared more toward run-blocking and Seven is more comfortable and effective using play action.

So what has enabled Arians and the coaching staff to be so stubborn and arrogant about their misguided offensive philosophies? My theory is that it is the fault of the defense.

Any avid Steelers fan is aware of the offensive blemishes. But the defense has been so good and so effective that the offensive turnovers, lack of ball possession and their inability to score points and change of field position have been nearly non-factors.

With an average, or merely good, defense, they would have undoubtedly not won the division and probably not been in the playoff field. Only then would the microscope land on an offensive philosophy that has not only been ineffective, but frustratingly nonadaptive.