I don't see the correlation because what you're writing isn't reality.
The first drive after the half with the interception was 3 runs, 3 passes.
We "mix it up" plenty with poor results. The narrative you're getting so angry at is just going on in your own head.
In the first half our first 3 drives ended in punts. On the fourth drive we
ran 5 times and passed 6 times; pass (empty backfield, incomplete) / run (draw, 7 yard gain) / pass (nice gain) / run (no gain) / pass (incomplete) / pass (incomplete, defensive holding called) / PA pass (check-down to Hunt, nice gain) / run (short gain) / run (decent gain) / run (Brissett pitch to Chubb, nice gain) / play action pass (TD to Njoku).
That scoring drive was one I liked because of good 5 run/6 pass balance which slowed the pass rush somewhat. We used some draws and play action which helped. There was some deception with the Brissett sneak fake/pitch to Chubb.
To start the second half we called
2 runs, 4 passes on the first drive unless you count a scramble as a run. If you look at the first two drives it was
2 runs, 7 passes resulting in an interception and a punt.
That is NOT the balance I want to see. When we did run the play calls were beyond predictable and the Steelers saw them coming. THAT is when I bitched about it.
The third series we went
3 runs, 5 passes; run (gain) / pass (scramble no gain)/ run (draw, nice gain) / pass (Cooper, nice gain) / run (short gain) / pass (sack for loss, roughing penalty) / pass (play action, short gain) / pass (TD to Chubb).
That was a little closer to being balanced and it resulted in a TD.
If we would have used Chubb about 2 more carries per game over the course of the season, with those carries coming in some critical situations instead of going for broke with end zone passes, I would have been perfectly happy with Stefanski. It's not like I wanted to only run the ball, I just wanted better balance and better situational game management using Chubb.
