What’s really behind the reported Russell Wilson-Arthur Smith rift in Pittsburgh?

Gerry Dulac of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Tuesday that multiple unnamed sources had told the paper that a rift developed during the 2024 season between quarterback Russell Wilson and offensive coordinator Arthur Smith. Specifically, that rift involved Smith not wanting Wilson to change plays at the line of scrimmage, as well as a difference between the two in the overall direction of the offense. Wilson seemingly wanted to open things up more, while Smith insisted on an “establish the run” mentality.

The fact this alleged rift developed following Pittsburgh’s 44-38 victory over Cincinnati in Week 13 — a game in which Wilson threw for 414 yards — is interesting. What does it suggest? An insecure coordinator trying to minimize the credit Wilson was getting for the resurgence of Pittsburgh’s offense? A power struggle between a veteran quarterback and veteran coach, both of whom wanted control of things? Was it Smith being a good soldier for Mike Tomlin, whose insistence on “minimizing risk” by running the football was made clear throughout the season? Or could it be a public relations move by Wilson, who is seeking to re-write the narrative on his performance after a miserable closing stretch as he seeks a new contract?

Let the speculation begin.

The question I find most interesting in all of this is the following: if this rift is genuine, and Smith truly did not want Wilson to audible, why wouldn’t he? Why would he deny Wilson that option, given Wilson’s experience and the subsequent success the offense experienced in Cincinnati?

I understand the risk involved. As a coordinator, you map a game-plan based on countless hours of research on an opponent. You build it like a Jenga tower, putting pieces carefully in place, each one reliant on the others for success. If one piece is askew, the whole tower can come crashing down. Are you going to risk a crash because the quarterback acted independently, or are you going to absorb that risk yourself?

I don’t allow the quarterbacks I coach to change plays at the line of scrimmage. They’re 17-years-old. They eat Hot Pockets for dinner and spend half their day playing Super Mario on their phones. I’m not entrusting my job security to their ability to make decisions. Russell Wilson is a different story. He’s thrown for over 46,000 career yards and 350 touchdowns. He’s won a Super Bowl. I would certainly be open to letting Russ check plays, particularly after him doing so resulted in 44 points and 414 passing yards.

Why wouldn’t Arthur Smith? That’s a hard thing to know. Coaches can be control freaks, for lack of a better term. Particularly at the pro level, to which they’ve ascended because of their capabilities, their drive, and their decision-making. A guy like Arthur Smith, who has been coaching professionally since 2007, may believe he’s gotten to where he is by trusting his own judgment. Maybe that’s a round-about way of saying he has a big ego. Or maybe it’s just a belief in himself. Either way, it’s possible he’s someone who insists on having final say, and who sees yielding too much power to the quarterback as a slippery slope. Sure, Wilson changing a bunch of plays worked against a bad Cincinnati defense. But it won’t work against better ones, and I’m not going to allow him to compromise the vision of what we’re trying to build here.

That “vision” element could be significant. Smith came of age professionally working in Tennessee under a host of head coaches with Pittsburgh connections — Mike Munchak, Ken Whisenhunt, Mike Mularkey, Mike Vrabel — all of whom shared a belief in building the offense behind a great line and a power run game. Smith has been consistent with this philosophy as a play-caller in Tennessee, Atlanta, and now Pittsburgh. He may see Wilson wrestling control of things away from him as antithetical to everything he’s come to believe about offense. And yes — he may have genuinely believed that allowing the scheme to be bastardized for short-term gain would not equate to long-term success. After all, the Steelers were 9-3 following that victory in Cincinnati, and the offense was playing well. Why yield its vision to Wilson?

Let’s also not discount the possibility this could be a plant by the Wilson camp. Maybe there were disagreements between he and Smith. Maybe, too, the extent of those disagreements are being exaggerated to re-write the narrative on Wilson’s season. Following that Cincinnati game, Pittsburgh went 1-5 while Wilson’s production and overall play diminished. The shortcomings which led Sean Payton to part ways with him in Denver seemed apparent. His field vision was limited. He held the ball too long. He had lost his once-signature ability to extend plays. He made crushing mistakes in big moments. If you’re Wilson, why not lean back into that 414-yard game against the Bengals and suggest that was the real him, not the muzzled version we witnessed down the stretch.

Perhaps the truth will eventually come out. For now, though, I’m inclined to believe this story signifies an end to Wilson’s tenure in Pittsburgh. Smith will return as coordinator, and unless the two have a kumbaya moment, it’s difficult to imagine them working together again. A parting of the ways might be best for everyone involved. The Steelers move on and sign Justin Fields, Smith gets a quarterback around whom he can build his preferred attack, and Wilson reunites with his old friend Pete Carroll in Las Vegas to mentor Shedeur Sanders for a year. That’s one way it could play out. Like the nature of this story, though, reality, for now, is a matter of speculation.