http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...eelers-defense
An interesting read. Even if it assumes much.
Printable View
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...eelers-defense
An interesting read. Even if it assumes much.
I hope to see this defense become dominant again. Certainly the defense will have to step up, especially in the postseason, if this team is going to win the Super Bowl. They can't win the Super Bowl with just offense alone
Actually, if this offense reaches and plays to it's full potential, they could score 30+ points and beat the Patriots even with last years defense imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
No, not with the way our defense played against the pats ....If our offense would have scored 30 points or more against the Pats, the Pats would have scored 55 points like in 2013.
I mean, the pats have only had ONE Punt and no turnovers in this game and the punt was in the first quarter on the second drive of the game.
The Pats defense is very good, so the Steelers offense need help from their defense.Our offense has always no margin of error against the Pats.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
If Ben and this offense play to their full potential they could score 40 points on anyone and with our increased time of possession we would keep the patriots under 40.
In 34 games Bellichick has been head coach of the Patriots, his team had only surrendered 30 or more points in only 3 playoff games. Can't bank on scoring 30 points in the postseason against the Patriots and you can't surrender a lot of points in general in the postseason and expect to win the Super Bowl. Defense needs to step up, the defense has young players with potential, it just has to translateQuote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
The time of possession is not the problem against the pats
The pats only had 8 drives in the AFC title game and they scored 36 points !!!!
Against every defense, the steelers offense are going to make punt and sometimes a turnover, if our defense is not able to force the pats to make a punt, we have no chance.
We have arguably the best runningback, # 1 receiver and arguably the best receiving corp with Bryant as #2, a top 3 line and arguably a top 3 quarterback.Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
What is the last offense that can boast this?...
My point is simply that there is no reason we cannot beat them this year with a likely much improved offense. None.
Wrong. If the Steelers had scored 37 in the AFCCG, they still would have lost, because they didn't play man coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
But... 37 is more points than 36. :huh:
Nope.
If the Patriots and Steelers play for the AFC Championship, and I hope they do, and I hope everybody is healthy, both defenses better be on their game.
NFL's top 10 offenses in 2017: Pats, Steelers look scary
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...ers-look-scary
I think it's time to go back and look at a few stats, and then put them in context.
Last year, the Steelers were 13th best against the rush (total rushing yards allowed), but tied for 18th in yards per rush allowed (although, 1/10 of a point from sixteenth). So, rush only, they were an average defense last year. Against the pass, they were 16th in total yards allowed and 15th in yards per pass allowed. Although not too good against the rush for TDs, they were tenth best in least TDs through the air and tied for 9th in total sacks and 10th in total points allowed. Interestingly, they were tied with the Patriots* in INTs at 15th place, and one INT away for 12th place. Their also tied for ninth for fumble recoveries and seventh for forced fumbles. Another stat that excited me was 92 passes (ninth place) defended against.
What does that all mean? It means that last year, our defense was average with the ability to rise up and make some plays. Now, we should remember, this was with three rookies, two of whom were DBs, and one of whom played injured. It was also with our veteran DL player injured. This year, those three rookies come in with a season under their belts, and there is a good chance that two of the three other Rookie defenders coming in this year will make a difference as well. With that all said, I can see the argument for this defense becoming dominant, fast.
Now - What About the Pats*
Screw 'em.
Why do I say that? The problem last year was not a coaching staff that did not know how to call a defense. The problem, as it turns out, was a nightmare defensive match-up where we simply did not have the bodies to play man-coverage. I can't even blame the coaching staff for that. They drafted a guy to play the slot and keep up in man coverage, but Golson got injured two years in a row. That's not the coaches fault. No, the more I look at this defense, the more excited I get. My two worries are the run defense with Timmons gone and a rookie LB that got stymied against good technique in college (but looks to have been putting a lot of effort into getting better).
Seeing is believing. Until I actually see a change I predict they will be the same this season. I am really hoping they can add consistent pressure(pass rush) this year. Last year was horrible in terms of consistent pressure. Dupree really needs to have a break out year.
Only 3 teams in nfl history have won the super bowl by scoring more than 500 points in a season(1998 Broncos,1999 Rams and 2009 Saints)Quote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
I do not care how our offense is great, we need our defense to be better.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
If the steelers would have scored 37 points against the pats, both teams would probably have had more drives in this game, so more drive, more chance to score points.It would have been a game like in 2013 when the pats scored 55 points
I do not consider our game in 2013 worse than the one in the AFC title game in defense since the pats would not have scored 55 points in this game if they would have only 8 drives.
Ugh... no. Several of the Steelers' drives ended with them settling for a FG or turning the ball over on downs. TDs instead of FGs (or instead of zero points) doesn't change the time of possession/give the Taperiots more drives/opportunities... :huh: but, it would indeed have given the Steelers more points.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
Dupree needs to become a Demarcus Ware, Vonn Miller, James Harrison in his prime, level pass rusher. Without that, the defense will stagnate. There are many other exciting players on the defense who will likely take steps forward this season, but without a devastating edge rusher, none of the rest of it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
The pats had only 8 drives in this game.This is very few.
I never said that our offense was good in this game, but our defense was worse than the stats say.
I mean, the pats had 33 points after 3 quarters and they stopped scoring points because the game was over.
In the game in 2013, the pats had 27 points after 3 quarter and they continued to score points in the 4th quarter since the game was close after 3 quarter.
The context is very important.
Cobi Hamilton catching a TD changes nothing else in that game... except it adds 7 points for the Steelers. Same goes for Coates on the opening drive. And, Hamilton a second time. That's 21 points (that isn't affected by anything else in the game).Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
You really think that the Taperiots took their foot off of the gas? Really??? I've seen them score a TD with 12 seconds left and up by 28. It is not Belichick's way. When asked about it, Belichick has averred that if the opposition wants his team to not score as much... the opposition should play defense.
Proof of this:
As you stated, the Taperiots scored on 7/8 of their drives with the only drive that they didn't score on being the second drive of the game. In other words, they did not let up (as you indicate).
But... I know, I know... after 40+ threads on the same topic, I know: if the Steelers had simply played man coverage, Hamilton & Coates would have scored those three touchdowns. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
It was in 2007 that the patriots loved to run the score.They have not done that in recent years, especially against us.
In week 1 in 2015, the pats would have scored 38-42 points against us if they wanted to, but they did nothing in their last two drive since the game was safe at that time after scoring 4 easy TDs in their first 6 drives.
In the AFC title game, the pats had only 2 drives in the fourth quarter, one of its drives ended with a FG, the other was their victory formation.
There is no "new" Steel Curtain. There was only one "Steel Curtain"
Blitzburgh was the nickname in the 90s.
They need a new nickname.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
Gotta go with the still-would've-lost on this one.
When you are allowing almost five points PER POSSESSION, the only way to win is to score a touchdown every time, and we were not/are not likely to do that.
Let's talk about time of possession and why it's bullshit. By definition, both teams are guaranteed the same number of possessions. Unless there's an onside kick or some random luck with timing at the end of a half, the math is very straightforward: You score more than the other team PER DRIVE, you win; if not, you lose. Time of possession is usually a good indicator of which way the game is going - but it's a symptom, not a strategy. It means you're stringing together successful drives and not allowing the opponent to do the same - in other words, you're playing better defense than them also. It does not mean "both offenses are scoring uncontested, but we had the ball more, so we win, 180-120."
Maybe there's a little auxiliary benefit to having better time of possession, like the opposing defense gets worn down or the opposing offense gets demoralized. But again, those are side effects of you ALREADY controlling the game, they're not a strategy to take control of the game in the first place.
Really, you are not going to beat New England by scoring a lot while also letting them score a lot. How many times has that ever happened - like 3 games ever out of 200+? Playing well on offense is a prerequisite, that's all. The teams that succeed also come out on defense and punch Brady in the dick, or whatever his equivalent of that is. If you're giving up 5 points per possession, you've basically got no chance to win at all. Our defense needs to be better than it was.
No offense is going to score 37 points against the Pats defense in the postseason, especially in Foxboro, and you can't give up 36 points against anyone and expect to win
great post!Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
especially in only 8 drives.
If the Taperiots can score any number of points that they want, at any time that they want, why did they punt on the second possession of the game??? :huh: The game was hardly out of reach at the time. And, the Taperiots did not suddenly become altruistic and only score 36 (instead of 55); they scored 36 because that is what they scored.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
Going back to to my point of contention, GBMelBlount stated that if the Steelers had put up 40, the Steelers could have won. (I agree 100%.) You aver that the Taperiots would simply have scored 41 (or 55), because somehow Brady & Belichick are able score any amount they choose. No, no, no.
The truth is: the Taperiots scored & earned all 36 points that they got. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, I will say this: that final drive (victory formation) would have been different... and very interesting: Steelers up by 4, Brady needs a TD.
It's very rare you win in the NFL, when your defense gives almost 5 points per drive !!!!..I don't think it's hard to understand.The best offense in 2016 (Falcons) had 3 points per drive....The pats had 4.5 points per drive against us!Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
If the pats and the steelers would have had 12 drives, as this is often the case in the NFL, the pats would have had 54 points.
This is my point.
But, again, GBMelBlount's point was "if the Steelers had scored 40 points" (which would have been 5 points/drive), they could have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
You keep saying that the Taperiots would have simply scored more points.
I contend that the Steelers scoring more points would have indeed improved their chances vastly of winning.
Everyone can continue ignore the offense's lackluster output and blame that loss solely on "not playing man coverage." But, in reality, 17 points wasn't going to cut it. Yes, the defense sucked, but to continue to say that the offense had zero part in the loss is asinine (and frustrating to read hundreds upon hundreds of times).
Let me put it this way...
Let's say that the Steelers had played man-coverage, and the defense is lights out... holding the Taperiots to only FGs on all of their scoring drives. That's six scoring drives, plus the punt, and the victory formation... which comes to a total of 18 points.
The Steelers still lose 17-18.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
It's not realistic to think that the steelers will score 5 points per drive against a very good defense and a great defensive coach(BB of course) as the Pats have.
It's almost impossible and even if they do that, they are not certain to win if our defense continues to be bad against them.This is the problem.
Time of possession is fairly important.
The Pats comeback win in the SB was in a larger part because the Falcons offense ran like 2 plays in the entire second half. That defense was gassed.
If the Steelers score more in the AFCG, play-calling for the rest of the game changes. A butterfly flaps it's wings in Asia and their is a tornado in Kansas...etc.
Man coverage is not some magic bullet that does or could fix all the flaws in a team.
The AFCG would have still featured:
1. A lack of L. Bell - arguably the most important non Ben Roethlisberger cog in the Steelers offense.
2. No credible pass catching threats aside from AB - a season long problem that was deeply exposed in the playoffs.
3. Not enough competent DB's for any coverage scheme. When you have Golden, Dangerfield, and Gay all in the game and all responsible for someone or a large area of grass -- Brady's gonna find that match-up and beat it like a drum.
The only thing that is important for the possession time is for not that our defense for 35-40 minutes in a game.
The job of a defense is to give the ball to your offense as quickly as possible by forcing the opponent to make a punt or make a turnovers.
No doubt, our offense has not do a good job against the pats, but this thread is on our defense and our defense needs to be better against great passing offense.
Right. But the point of the thread is looking ahead at what this defense CAN become. There are no stats to back up the article. It's just a fluff piece for the fans to talk about how good this very young defense has looked, and about possible future greatness. Forget the AFCCG already. Move on. Enjoy what is here and now for a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
Didn't we start out playing some man coverage, or at least playing the receivers tighter, and then abandoned it because we thought it wasn't working? Sounds like it was working better than whatever other bullshit we switched to.Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
I also think that when you have the game well in hand, you tend to score a bit less than you would if you continued to go all-out for points. Not because you're being altruistic or whatnot, but because you play safer, which is a tactically sound decision to tilt the odds further in your favor. (unless taken to extremes, which unfortunately you also see a lot of)
I think the offense would've needed a lot more possessions to score 40 points. Basically, the offense needed to play better and the defense needed to play better. I think that's a lot more realistic path to victory than saying we could beat them with the same defense just by playing better offense. That game really was like ... if we made a game of it, they would've simply scored another touchdown on the next possession, because we couldn't stop shit. But we didn't make a game of it with our offense, so they didn't have to even do anything more than coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
And why did the Falcons' offense hardly run any plays in the second half? Because Tom Brady stopped them, or because the Patriots' defense stopped them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
That's why time of possession is misleading. It's an important indicator, but people think it's all because of your offense and it's not. Getting a three-and-out does just as much if not more to swing that in your favor, and by extension, wear out the opposing defense. Your offense can't stop the other offense from making a long scoring drive. A lopsided time of possession in your favor usually means you're just dominating the game in general.
This is not to disagree with the rest of what you said, by the way. That particular game was going to be very difficult for us to win, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. I think the man-coverage argument is only that by playing the defense we did, we took it from a 10-15% chance of winning to no chance at all.
Also you deliberately take as much time as you are allotted off the play clock before running a play to run down more time and it takes you longer to run the same amount of plays. The Failcons for example didn't do either of those things and lost partly because of itQuote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
Gravedigger and Bud both came on strong late in the year, I think if they can improve and make a real impact that will help the defense providing a solid interior and edge pass rusher (or if TJ produces 10+ sacks as a rookie which is less likely). Burns and Davis improving will also help. My main concern is the safety position next to Davis. Mitchell is only adequate against weak pass offenses and doesn't hold up well if at all against better offenses (the ones you tend to see more of in the postseason) and Golden and Dangerfield are just backup calibre.
Cockrell and Burns were not terrible last season, and both should be improved.
Why wouldn't Dupree be better this season? He played well even after missed time for injury.
Harrison is still a monster.
Shazier and VW aren't going to slow down.
Heyward is back, Hargraves is a year better, and Tuitt has been great so far.
Davis and Mitchell both played well injured. Both should be better when healthy, wouldn't you think.
The depth in the front 7 has improved, and Sutton may be the steal of the draft. I find no downside in this starting lineup.
Ben is back and focused.
Bell, Conner, and Davis is a pretty solid RB corps.
Top 5 Oline. arguably best Steeler Oline ever.
AB, Bryant, Rogers, and JuJu will be nightmares for opposing DCs.
Only let down is our TE group, but Outlaw has played solid, and let's hope Grimble has a breakout season.
Why can this offense NOT put up 30-40 pts per game?
Routine... no.Quote:
Originally Posted by polamalubeast
Possible... yes.
Again, the defense was not the ONLY problem in that game. 17 points doesn't beat most teams, let alone the Taperiots.
PARAGRAPH 1:Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
Sean Davis got injured. (Technically, he was injured for most of the season, but could no longer play through the pain.) As soon as he went out, on the very next play, Belichick went after Golden... touchdown!!! Then, Mike Mitchell began to overcompensate, and bit hard on a play fake... touchdown!!!
PARAGRAPH 2:
Spot on. This sums up the game perfectly. Post that in every AFCCG thread. Really.
As as far as points go, three dropped touchdowns by Hamilton & Coates, plus a wasted first-&-goal is 25 points (taking us to 42 points). I'm not saying it's actually that "easy", but in a way, it shoulda/coulda been.
PARAGRAPH 3:
The SuperBowl reminds me of the AFCCG: the defense garners all of the blame, when the Falcons offense is just as culpable. Specifically, if the Falcons had converted two more third downs, they win.
Instead of fumbling the ball, if they had run the ball (played safe), they kick a FG.
Instead of trying to go for the kill-shot on 3rd-&-1, if they run the ball, they can take an additional 2 minutes off of the clock.
(Great post, by the way.)
I don't know how to post pics (fansince76 and tube have both walked me through it, but I'm an idiot).Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
Anyway, I have a pic of stats showing how Gravedigger was the best** rookie DT from week 12 on.
**(It was from PFF; so take that with a grain of salt.)
Wouldn't surprise me, he came on strong last year and I think he can be a real game-wrecker if he is healthy
A bit of a tangent. But for the next 5 years, what other defensive roster do you want? Young, fast, scheme flexible. Only a few other units across the league that ooze this much upside. Admittedly, all unrealized, but still...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know they haven't shown it yet, but the defense is loaded with athletic, young, and fast players. If the current defensive draft class turns out to be a good one, this defense could be and maybe should be scary good for a while.
Much of this is dependent on Dupree becoming a consistent playmaker and Watt turning into what we all hope he can be very soon, and the athletes in the secondary that they just drafted. Hitting in both of these areas not only makes them better. It also makes them deeper and able to absorb injuries while still allowing them to play multiple styles and schemes.