Kovacevic: Steelers' D growing baby teeth

[polamalubeast]

There isn't much definitive to be discerned from the Steelers' minicamp that broke up Thursday in the South Side. It's “football in shorts,” as Mike Tomlin routinely dismisses.

And yet, there is something to be said for the coach wrapping it up as “a very positive offseason;” for the newly formed fist-bumping duo of Ben Roethlisberger and Todd Haley; for mostly good health news; and, really, for a generally upbeat feel. If there's any residual pouting over 8-8 or all those prominent departures, it was even harder to detect than the word “transition.”

Which is wonderful, right?

Look, let's face it: This is a flawed team, if only because of the uncertainty on offense. Roethlisberger will be without Mike Wallace and Heath Miller, the latter at season's start. Running back is a crapshoot. The tackles are too green for comfort.

But let's face this, too: The NFL's No. 1-ranked defense could be better, mathematically daunting as that sounds.

And if you ask me, nothing will mean more to the Steelers than resetting some snarl to that defense, than regaining their intimidating identity.

“It's our job to be Pittsburgh Steelers, and we know what that means,” new nose tackle Steve McLendon said. “One man passes that to the next and, like Coach says, the standard is the standard.”

The standard last season was mediocrity in most phases except for points and yards allowed, hence the defense's ranking. But even there, the actual product performed abysmally in the areas of interceptions, fumbles forced and recovered, sacks … pretty much anything that could have led to a takeaway more often than, oh, once a month.


Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/-topstories/4177368-74/mclendon-steelers-defense#ixzz2W9zyK88b
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[Craic]

You know it's sad when even sportswriters fall into the stat trap. OMG! forced fumbles, sacks, int's! And the greatest line of all (talking about making plays) "The kind that count most."

No, you idiot. The plays that count the most are the ones that get the team off the field without points on the board, and there were a ton of those plays last year.

Sacks mean VERY LITTLE anymore. Don't believe me? Go look at the the teams over the last few years that have been making the playoffs. (Bolded team names means they are in the bottom of for sacks given up, and sacks on opposing QBs).

2012 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%
Ravens, SB champs, 13th in most sacks allowed last year.
San Francisco, SB losers, 10th in most sacks allowed last year.
Colts, 9th in most sacks allowed last year.
Bengals, 7th in most sacks allowed last year.
Green Bay Packers, 2nd in most sacks allowed last year

2012 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's (Steelers had 37, which was half a sack above the average, so I'm including teams tied with the Steelers)

Ravens, 37 SB Winners
Patriots 37
Seahawks, 36
Colts, 32
Redskins, 32
Falcons, 29,

2011 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%

Vikings, 49
San Francisco, 44
Steelers, 42
Broncos, 42
Packers, 41
Lions slip just outside by haing 36

2011 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's

Steelers 35 (just barely in bottom 50%)
Falcons, 33
New Orleans, 33

2010 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%

Chicago Bears 56
Eagles, 49
Steelers, 44 SB losers
Ravens, 40
Packers, 38 SB Champs
Vikings, 36

2011 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's

Bears, 34
Saints, 33
vikings 31
Falcons, 31
Colts, 30
Ravens 27

FOR INTS . . .

BTW, 2010 5 teams in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage made the playoffs. (actually amount of picks vs. drop backs).
2011, 5 teams in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage again made it into the playoffs.
2012, 5 teams again in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage made the playoffs (three were tied at 50%, the texans, a sixth team, was just barely a step above those teams). Ravens and SF both are in this list.

___________________

So, in almost every season, half the teams in the playoffs, are in the bottom half of the stat percentage AND the defensive INT percentage. In the last three years, 2 of the teams on average have been in the bottom half on both sides of the ball. One of those, the Ravens, are SB champions this year. The Superbowl losers this year were in 1 side of those stats. 2011 had neither the winners or the losers. 2010 featured both the winners and losers in sacks allowed.

What does that mean? Given up sacks does not equate to not making the playoffs and winning SB's and neither does not getting sacks on defense. INT's does not equate to making the playoffs either.


It's time some more people took their ESPNfootball glasses off, including a few reporters.

[GBMelBlount]

Preach,

You have "2011 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB' " twice as a heading.

Is the 2nd one 2010?

Three things come to mind Preach.

First, these are really interesting stats (and observations)...thanks for sharing.

Second, do you feel there is enough time series data to draw conclusions?

Lastly, this now has me wondering what stats / measurable categories DO matter most.

For instance, I would love to see how the stats / measurables of the QB's of playoff teams compared to the entire league.

Passer Efficiency would be an interesting one to look at but it is an aggregate stat as opposed to simply completions, TD's, interceptions etc. which are arguably more like the stats you are discussing above.

[Seven]

You know it's sad when even sportswriters fall into the stat trap. OMG! forced fumbles, sacks, int's! And the greatest line of all (talking about making plays) "The kind that count most."

No, you idiot. The plays that count the most are the ones that get the team off the field without points on the board, and there were a ton of those plays last year.

Sacks mean VERY LITTLE anymore. Don't believe me? Go look at the the teams over the last few years that have been making the playoffs. (Bolded team names means they are in the bottom of for sacks given up, and sacks on opposing QBs).

2012 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%
Ravens, SB champs, 13th in most sacks allowed last year.
San Francisco, SB losers, 10th in most sacks allowed last year.
Colts, 9th in most sacks allowed last year.
Bengals, 7th in most sacks allowed last year.
Green Bay Packers, 2nd in most sacks allowed last year

2012 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's (Steelers had 37, which was half a sack above the average, so I'm including teams tied with the Steelers)

Ravens, 37 SB Winners
Patriots 37
Seahawks, 36
Colts, 32
Redskins, 32
Falcons, 29,

2011 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%

Vikings, 49
San Francisco, 44
Steelers, 42
Broncos, 42
Packers, 41
Lions slip just outside by haing 36

2011 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's

Steelers 35 (just barely in bottom 50%)
Falcons, 33
New Orleans, 33

2010 Playoff teams with sacks allowed in the top 50%

Chicago Bears 56
Eagles, 49
Steelers, 44 SB losers
Ravens, 40
Packers, 38 SB Champs
Vikings, 36

2011 playoff teams bottom 50% of sacks on opposing QB's

Bears, 34
Saints, 33
vikings 31
Falcons, 31
Colts, 30
Ravens 27

FOR INTS . . .

BTW, 2010 5 teams in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage made the playoffs. (actually amount of picks vs. drop backs).
2011, 5 teams in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage again made it into the playoffs.
2012, 5 teams again in the lowest 50% for forced INT percentage made the playoffs (three were tied at 50%, the texans, a sixth team, was just barely a step above those teams). Ravens and SF both are in this list.

___________________

So, in almost every season, half the teams in the playoffs, are in the bottom half of the stat percentage AND the defensive INT percentage. In the last three years, 2 of the teams on average have been in the bottom half on both sides of the ball. One of those, the Ravens, are SB champions this year. The Superbowl losers this year were in 1 side of those stats. 2011 had neither the winners or the losers. 2010 featured both the winners and losers in sacks allowed.

What does that mean? Given up sacks does not equate to not making the playoffs and winning SB's and neither does not getting sacks on defense. INT's does not equate to making the playoffs either.


It's time some more people took their ESPNfootball glasses off, including a few reporters.

Great post, Preacher. Really supports how I've always felt about defense and I couldn't agree more.

[Dwinsgames]

Preach,



this now has me wondering what stats / measurable categories DO matter most.




Winning percentage !

Points scored vs points given up ! ( differential )

those equate to playoffs .....

pretty much everything else comes down to how the ball bounces , yellow flags and the human element

[GBMelBlount]

Winning percentage !

Points scored vs points given up ! ( differential )

those equate to playoffs .....

pretty much everything else comes down to how the ball bounces , yellow flags and the human element

HA!

Guess you nailed it. lol.

I still think I am going to look up QB efficiency of playoff teams for sheets and giggles when I have time tonight or over the weekend.

[Psycho Ward 86]

nice statistics Preach. They are reassuring. It would still be nice to have a vaunted defense that can do it all as long as the offense continues to play like its below average

[Craic]

nice statistics Preach. They are reassuring. It would still be nice to have a vaunted defense that can do it all as long as the offense continues to play like its below average

See, I'd say that we still have a vaunted defense. What we don't have, is a flashy defense.

But I do agree with the point I think you're getting at. Yes, it is nice to have INT's and sacks. Those things fire up a team and can help change or push the momentum of a game. I was actually reacting to the article that basically puts forth the viewpoint that things like stopping an offense, fewest points in the league, least yards allowed, etc., were second tier/not as important stats as those two.

[Seven]

See, I'd say that we still have a vaunted defense. What we don't have, is a flashy defense.

But I do agree with the point I think you're getting at. Yes, it is nice to have INT's and sacks. Those things fire up a team and can help change or push the momentum of a game. I was actually reacting to the article that basically puts forth the viewpoint that things like stopping an offense, fewest points in the league, least yards allowed, etc., were second tier/not as important stats as those two.

The majority of fans/reporters believe you "HAVE to get turnovers to be a good defense". Turnovers are nice, but the statement just doesn't make sense. A stop is a stop. Whether it comes in the form of an interception or a punt, it doesn't matter. Special teams and offense control the battle for field position far greater than fluke turnovers ever could. Fumbles, interceptions and sacks are nice to get, but they aren't the measurement of good defenses vs. bad. I'm glad your stats back that up.

[Count Steeler]

Keep their offense off the field and don't let them score. How that is accomplished doesn't matter to me.

Just don't go PREVENT when we get the lead.

[GBMelBlount]

Winning percentage !

Points scored vs points given up ! ( differential )

those equate to playoffs .....

pretty much everything else comes down to how the ball bounces , yellow flags and the human element

....and maybe how good your QB is too.

I just looked at QB passer rating and at first glance it looks like 10 of the 11 2012 NFL playoff QB's who qualified statistically (ESPN) were in the top 50%.

Could be an aberration but I'd imagine there is a strong correlation longer term as well.

I guess Owinsgames in todays NFL too. :chuckle:

[Craic]

....and maybe how good your QB is too.

I just looked at QB passer rating and at first glance it looks like 10 of the 11 2012 NFL playoff QB's who qualified statistically (ESPN) were in the top 50%.

Could be an aberration but I'd imagine there is a strong correlation longer term as well.

I guess Owinsgames in todays NFL too. :chuckle:


This would back up what I said in that, if a QB gets sacked, it doesn't matter because today's game, the QB can make up that 3, 6, 9 yard loss with one pass pretty easily. How often have we seen Ben do it?

The same for INT's. Throw a turnover? No problem. Go out next time and drive the team for the win. What I would like to see, is overall defense along side of these numbers. By that I mean, points allowed and yards allowed. My guess is that a good defense and a good QB is pretty much the winning combo.

[Mojouw]

I would bet looking at 3rd downs on both sides of the ball would be a key stat as well. A team that converts a high % of their third downs and prevents the other team from doing so, likely doing well.

Maybe redzone efficiency as well.

[GBMelBlount]

I would bet looking at 3rd downs on both sides of the ball would be a key stat as well. A team that converts a high % of their third downs and prevents the other team from doing so, likely doing well.

Maybe redzone efficiency as well.

Good point.

Red zone efficiency translates to points scored which sort of dovetails with D's fringe theory about scoring being important to winning games. :lol:

But ya, I guess the bottom line is some stats are more key than others.

[salamander]

The key to winning games is simple: score more points than the other team. :chuckle: :lol:

[Moose]

Great work Preach, thanks for sharing. I'm not a stat guy but it's interesting reading. The only stat I think is big is how many times you score when you have the ball in the RED ZONE. Otherwise, I kinda agree with Count," Keep their offense off the field and don't let them score. How that is accomplished doesn't matter to me. Just don't go PREVENT when we get the lead. " Pretty much is the way to a win !