On the positive side, Blake

[TeeTee]

For those claiming that his tackle #s are exaggerated purely from him tackling players he allowed to get open, I say poppycock. He had yet another huge pick yesterday and was all over the field. I saw many times where he made tackles of players who were not ones he was trying to cover, the last few games. Is Blake the next Revis or Sherman? No, but he isn't pure garbage either. He's tough. He's gritty. He makes splash plays.

We would be a much lesser D without him.

We held a fairly potent Cinci offense to 16 points, and he was a big part of it.

And we still don't have Tuitt back (When the F is he gonna be back? They claimed his injury was minor and yet he's still not on the field.)

[SteelMayhem72]

I will admit i may have been wrong about Blake. I liked almost everything i saw from him yesterday except for the way he carries the ball...tuck it away son...lol

[TeeTee]

I will admit i may have been wrong about Blake. I liked almost everything i saw from him yesterday except for the way he carries the ball...tuck it away son...lol

Since some have suggested his tackle #s are inflated from him leaving receivers wide open and THEN tackling them, I have been extra attentive to his play. I can say that that assertion doesn't appear to be true. Sure, some tackles come from guys he is covering catching the ball, but not any where near as had been claimed in here. Same with Gay, who also sticks his nose in there in run support, especially for a little guy.

[Craic]

Since some have suggested his tackle #s are inflated from him leaving receivers wide open and THEN tackling them, I have been extra attentive to his play. I can say that that assertion doesn't appear to be true. Sure, some tackles come from guys he is covering catching the ball, but not any where near as had been claimed in here. Same with Gay, who also sticks his nose in there in run support, especially for a little guy.

I also noticed that on a few of the plays where he had to tackle his guy that caught the ball, it was more by design than coverage issues. All three CBs on the field lined up a good 10-13 yards off the receivers, which gave the QB the quick throws. In fact, I was impressed with how fast Blake closed and tackled on a few of those plays.

[TeeTee]

I also noticed that on a few of the plays where he had to tackle his guy that caught the ball, it was more by design than coverage issues. All three CBs on the field lined up a good 10-13 yards off the receivers, which gave the QB the quick throws. In fact, I was impressed with how fast Blake closed and tackled on a few of those plays.

He seemed solid most of the game. He is not the weak link many proclaim him to be. We could do worse.

[Count Steeler]

For those claiming that his tackle #s are exaggerated purely from him tackling players he allowed to get open, I say poppycock. He had yet another huge pick yesterday and was all over the field. I saw many times where he made tackles of players who were not ones he was trying to cover, the last few games. Is Blake the next Revis or Sherman? No, but he isn't pure garbage either. He's tough. He's gritty. He makes splash plays.

We would be a much lesser D without him.

We held a fairly potent Cinci offense to 16 points, and he was a big part of it.

And we still don't have Tuitt back (When the F is he gonna be back? They claimed his injury was minor and yet he's still not on the field.)

Cool Shades!! How did you hack Teetee's account? Nice that you could join us. Way to hang in there with Blake. You da' man.

1 decent game and the previous 7 games don't exist. That is pure Cool Shades.

To be honest, Shades, I am with you on Archer as well. I just know he is going to pop a long return. Maybe even for a TD. He is just not putting his best stuff on tape yet. You know so that special teams can't properly coach against him. Oh, I just can't wait for his breakout game.

[Steel Peon]

He had yet another huge pick yesterday and was all over the field.......He's tough. He's gritty. He makes splash plays.

We held a fairly potent Cinci offense to 16 points, and he was a big part of it.

He seemed solid most of the game. He is not the weak link many proclaim him to be. We could do worse.

I've liked Blake from the moment I saw him, and that was also a pick in the end zone, of Andrew Luck. I'll admit, he's not a shut-down corner but he's got all the skills for making big plays, and a lot of times that's all you need. I kinda see him as a Polamalu type playing CB, where he's got great tackling and ball-hawking skills, but isn't as great at shadowing WRs. Regardless of all that, he definitely limited the 6'4" AJ Green while only being 5'9", and did a pretty decent job of it. Covering Green is no small task, and most corners would likely give up a few catches to him. It's undeniable that of any issues we have on D, Blake is certainly not even close to the top. He gave us the chance to win, and you can't ask for much more.

You know where I see the most holes though? Somewhere between Gay, Cockrell, Golden, and Mitchell there always seems to be someone open, and it's usually a TE. Remember all the catches Kelce made during the KC game? Was Blake supposed to be covering him too? How bout all those times we left Gronk un-covered? I suppose that was Blake's fault as well. I mean shit, he's probably already closing in on Ike Taylor's career INTs, and Ike was clutch.

[Steeldude]

For those claiming that his tackle #s are exaggerated purely from him tackling players he allowed to get open, I say poppycock. He had yet another huge pick yesterday and was all over the field. I saw many times where he made tackles of players who were not ones he was trying to cover, the last few games. Is Blake the next Revis or Sherman? No, but he isn't pure garbage either. He's tough. He's gritty. He makes splash plays.

We would be a much lesser D without him.

We held a fairly potent Cinci offense to 16 points, and he was a big part of it.

And we still don't have Tuitt back (When the F is he gonna be back? They claimed his injury was minor and yet he's still not on the field.)

The guy is garbage. I will take sound, consistent football over an INT every 6 games or so. Why are fans settling for mediocrity? Well, it would be great if Blake achieved mediocrity.

[SteelerFanInStl]

The guy is garbage. I will take sound, consistent football over an INT every 6 games or so. Why are fans settling for mediocrity? Well, it would be great if Blake achieved mediocrity.

I agree. Blake sucks. It takes more than a splash play every few games to make you good.

If Boykin were playing, we'd be getting more of those splash plays (based on his history) along with actual good cover skills.

[86WARD]

The guy is garbage. I will take sound, consistent football over an INT every 6 games or so. Why are fans settling for mediocrity? Well, it would be great if Blake achieved mediocrity.

This. Blake probably had more interceptions this season than Ike Taylor did in his whole career (not really). However, I'd take a guy like Ike Taylor who had solid speed and cover skills...not so much the ball hawk 11 out of 11 times over Blake and his ball hawking skills.

[Rotorhead]

Did you really say he shut down Green . . . did you see Greens stats? I like that he can tackle and can make the splash plays, just wish he could cover better as well. He is now targeted by offenses, watch the games and you will see that. As for the TE's, nobody has been able to cover Gronk, and it being our first game, we definately blew some assignments on that one. Kelce killed us too, but for different reasons (still don't know why Timmons is covering the faster TE's over Shazier).

[hawaiiansteeler]

Did you really say he shut down Green . . . did you see Greens stats? I like that he can tackle and can make the splash plays, just wish he could cover better as well. He is now targeted by offenses, watch the games and you will see that.

yup, 11 catches for 118 yards and the winning TD catch is not exactly shutting him down.

and you're right, the Bengals wasted no time and went after Blake on their first two offensive plays of the game...

[Steel Peon]

Did you really say he shut down Green . . . did you see Greens stats?

Actually No, I didn't say that, when in fact I said:

I'll admit, he's not a shut-down corner - but he definitely limited the 6'4"AJ Green while only being 5'9", and did a pretty decent job of it.

yup, 11 catches for 118 yards and the winning TD catch is not exactly shutting him down.

Blake was not covering Green on the TD score, it was #31 Cockrell, so really it's Green that's being targeted, and not any particular CB.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Blake was not covering Green on the TD score, it was #31 Cockrell, so really it's Green that's being targeted, and not any particular CB.

AJ Green is a stud, it's hard for anyone to cover him.

but watch the game again, the Bengals definitely were going after Blake...

[86WARD]

A lot of Green's receptions, if I recall correctly, were short receptions.

[hawaiiansteeler]

A lot of Green's receptions, if I recall correctly, were short receptions.

that's because our CBs were playing so far off their man, it allows the other team to just play pitch and catch...

[TeeTee]

The guy is garbage. I will take sound, consistent football over an INT every 6 games or so. Why are fans settling for mediocrity? Well, it would be great if Blake achieved mediocrity.

Why is he garbage? The D is playing pretty solid and he's partly why. They are not giving up many points at all. You hold the Bengals to 16 points but lose? Not on the D or Blake.

[Steel Peon]

You know where I see the most holes though? Somewhere between Gay, Cockrell, Golden, and Mitchell there always seems to be someone open

Upon further review, Green's TD catch was in the "hole," except Mitchell wasn't there, and maybe not in the game at that point.

- - - Updated - - -

that's because our CBs were playing so far off their man, it allows the other team to just play pitch and catch...

See also: Ike Taylor

[hawaiiansteeler]

See also: Ike Taylor

it's our defensive philosophy.

I just don't understand why instead of playing over 10 yards off their man our CBs can't be a little closer like 7 or 8 yards off?

[TeeTee]

Wait, let me understand this: We gave up a mere 16 points to a Cinci team that was averaging about twice that and we are gonna focus on the one TD pass they gave up?

Why don't we trying scoring more than 10 points if we want to win? The O was pathetic all day after that first nice drive.

[teegre]

Wait, let me understand this: We gave up a mere 16 points to a Cinci team that was averaging about twice that and we are gonna focus on the one TD pass they gave up?

Why don't we trying scoring more than 10 points if we want to win? The O was pathetic all day after that first nice drive.

Exactamundo!!!

[hawaiiansteeler]

Wait, let me understand this: We gave up a mere 16 points to a Cinci team that was averaging about twice that and we are gonna focus on the one TD pass they gave up?

Why don't we trying scoring more than 10 points if we want to win? The O was pathetic all day after that first nice drive.

oh I agree, this loss was on the offense.

and we're not focusing on the one TD pass we allowed, we are merely commenting on a thread that was created on a message board...

[TeeTee]

Cool Shades!! How did you hack Teetee's account? Nice that you could join us. Way to hang in there with Blake. You da' man.

1 decent game and the previous 7 games don't exist. That is pure Cool Shades.

To be honest, Shades, I am with you on Archer as well. I just know he is going to pop a long return. Maybe even for a TD. He is just not putting his best stuff on tape yet. You know so that special teams can't properly coach against him. Oh, I just can't wait for his breakout game.

Shades of Cool: more concerned with looking cool than winning games.

[Steeldude]

Why is he garbage? The D is playing pretty solid and he's partly why. They are not giving up many points at all. You hold the Bengals to 16 points but lose? Not on the D or Blake.

I figured game play would answer that. Poor in coverage and poor at tackling. There is no excuse for missing that many tackles. Isn't he also ranked as one of the worst CBs in the NFL? I am about solid, consistent football over a splash play once every eon. I don't base my opinion on Blake on a single game.

So I guess Jarvis Jones is solid? 16 points, right? IMO, Jones should be on the bench the entire game.

The Steelers need to upgrade the CBs. And no, I don't blame this loss on Blake or the defense. Blake should be a backup.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Mike Tomlin On CB Antwon Blake: 'I Like His Consistent Physicality At The Position

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2015/11...-the-position/

[TeeTee]

I figured game play would answer that. Poor in coverage and poor at tackling. There is no excuse for missing that many tackles. Isn't he also ranked as one of the worst CBs in the NFL? I am about solid, consistent football over a splash play once every eon. I don't base my opinion on Blake on a single game.

So I guess Jarvis Jones is solid? 16 points, right? IMO, Jones should be on the bench the entire game.

The Steelers need to upgrade the CBs. And no, I don't blame this loss on Blake or the defense. Blake should be a backup.

I'm not gonna sit here and claim I study Blake so much that I have passionate feelings either way. But I have seen him make plays other than _JUST_ his ints here and there. He was pretty much all over the field some games. And I also find it as hog wash that "he only makes tackles because he leaves his own man so wide open that he then has to tackle them." I find that assertion to be mostly nonsense. And when that does happen, the scheme has him playing 10 yards off his man, so of course he gives up those short passes being forced to play so far off his man. I may agree Blake is more of a backup than quality NFL starting material, but who else you gonna play in his place? It can't be Boink because the coach has some bizarre disdain for him, but no one in the media dares asks about it. "Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't go there or you are uninvited from the pressers."